Search Images Maps Play YouTube News Gmail Drive More »
Sign in
Screen reader users: click this link for accessible mode. Accessible mode has the same essential features but works better with your reader.

Patents

  1. Advanced Patent Search
Publication numberUS2129369 A
Publication typeGrant
Publication dateSep 6, 1938
Filing dateJun 8, 1937
Priority dateJun 8, 1937
Publication numberUS 2129369 A, US 2129369A, US-A-2129369, US2129369 A, US2129369A
InventorsFaber Herbert Alfred
Original AssigneeFaber Herbert Alfred
Export CitationBiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet
Structural unit
US 2129369 A
Images(1)
Previous page
Next page
Description  (OCR text may contain errors)

'proved means for erectin Patented Sept. 6, 1938 UNiTE STATES STRUCTURAL UNIT Herbert Alfred Faber, Cincinnati, Ohio Application June 8, 1937, Serial No. 147,011

4 Claims.

This invention relates to building construction, and in particular to an improved, prefabricated, structural unit. I

It is an object of this invention to provide img a load-bearing partition wall, such for example, as a residence basement partition, which must carry the load imposed by the superstructure. It is a desideratum of such a partition that it be erected at a low cost; that it be fire retardent; and that one or both sides of the partition be adaptable to suitable finishingor decorative treatment.

It is a further object of this invention to provide a channel-shaped structural unit which can be so bonded or joined to contiguous units that vertical reinforcement means can readily be employed, and which, when assembled into a masonry course, provides the maximum reach or extent of the said course consonant with structural strength and stability.

Yet another object is to provide a structural unit which can easily be assembled into a ,wall structure of balanced strength, i. e., a structure in which the imposed load is carried equally on both wall faces thereof.

Channelor U-shaped blocks are not new in the building art, but such blocks have been characterized by uniform extension of the flanges from the web. In assembling such blocks or units into a masonry course, it is obvious that the flanges of adjacent units may either be placed in outer face to outer face opposition or in overlapping or interlocking relationship. The first method, although utilizing the full length of each unit to give maximum reach to the masonry course, forms a course which is structurally weak at the joints. The continual overlapping at the joints in following the second structural method foreshortens the course, and thus adds to the expense of the wall structure.

It is, therefore, a feature of the present invention that the flanges, extending at the ends of the web-portion angularly from its outer face, are not of the same length, and that in assem- .bling the units into a masonry course, only the shorter flanges of contiguous units are overlapped, with the terminal end surfaces of the flanges facing the inner surface of the web of a complementary unit.

.A second feature of this invention is that the difference in length of the two flanges is greater than the thickness of the web-portion. In forming the masonry course, the longer flanges of adjacent units are placed with their outer surfaces in coextensive opposition and in parallel relationship. It will thus be obvious that the terminal ends of the short flanges will be spaced from the webs toward which they extend. The space may be closed with a filling of mortar, making the mortar bond at the interlocked, shorter, flanges substantially equal in area to that at the joint formed by the opposing long flanges. 1

Each pair of flanges thus forms a load-supporting stud of substantially equal strength and bearing area; and further, the web-portions of the channelled units form co-extensive walls on each side of the studs, each wall carrying an equivalent portion of the total load.

The flanges of the units are formed with Vertical, preferably angular, grooves. In erecting successive courses of the wall, the units are laid in such manner that opposing-long-fiange and interlocked-flange joints alternate throughout the full height of the wall structure. adjacent flanges align to form a vertical passageway, which in each course registers vertically with the lower course. The vertical keyway thus formed may be utilized to accommodate vertical structural reinforcement.

The adaptability of the structural unit to this method of assembly into a wall marks an additional feature of this invention; namely, that the extended reach of the wall is accomplished at no sacrifice of structural strength. An opposing-long-flange joint, presumably weak in tensile strength, is. supported above and below by an interlocked joint possessing great resistance to forces inducing tensile stress. The wall structure is similarly resistant to compression, and the entire wall is characterized by its resistance to the formation of cracks or fissures occasioned by expansion or contraction.

These and other features will pear.

In the accompanying drawing:

Fig. 1 is a perspective, showing the assembly of channel-shaped structural units into courses of a completed wall, and additionally showing vertical structural reinforcement.

Fig. 2 is a plan section, taken through 22 of Fig. 1.

Fig. 3 is a similar section taken through 3-3 of Fig. 1, and representing the next higher course above that of Fig. 2.

Fig. 4 shows the use of surfacing material to impart wall continuity.

Fig. 5 is a detail, in perspective, of the structural unit.

Referring to Fig. 5, I0 represents a structural hereinafter ap- Grooves of s unit, precast or otherwise prefabricated of concrete or similar moldable structural material. The unit It! is preferably rectangular in front elevation, and has a web II with flanges I2, I3 projecting from the ends thereof, at preferably right angles to the plane of the web. The outer surface I Id of the web may have a smooth or textured finish.

It is a feature of this invention that the flanges I2, I3 are substantially equal in all dimensions except outward extension from the face He or the web. It is an additional feature that, as shown in Figs. 2 and 3, the difference in outward extensions of the flanges is greater than the thickness of the web II. The inner. surface of the flange I2 and the outer surface of flange I3 are preferably formed with a vertical groove, as at I20. and I3a respectively, the median lines of the grooves being equidistant from face Ila.

In erecting a masonry wall, it has been the immemorially old practice to break the vertical joints between successive courses by staggering the bricks or other structural units in one course with respect to those in a lower course. With the improved structural unit I0, the vertical joints between courses are made secure, and the faces of the wall bonded, in a novel manner.

Referring to Fig. 1, a masonry wall I5 is represented as having four courses, I50, I51); I50, I567, the respective courses being formed of units If! so laid that the shorter flanges I2 of contiguous units overlap or interlock. The flange I3 of adjacent units are coextensively opposite each other. As the depth of the flanges I2 is less than that of the flanges I3 by slightly more than the thickness of the web II, the terminal ends of the flanges I2 will be spaced from the inner surface of the webs I I toward which they extend.

The units If) are laid in mortar, and bonded to adjacent units with mortared joints. Also, mortar is used to close the space between the flanges I2 and the webs II. A roughly Z-shaped joint I6 is formed by the flanges I2, this joint having a crosssectional area practically equal to the crosssectional area of the joint Ilia between flanges I3 of adjacent units. In this construction, the joints I6, IBa, may be considered to be of approximately equal strength in vertical shear.

A wall constructed with vertical joints, as I6, Ilia, in vertical continuity throughout all of its courses would be structurally deficient, as it may be assumed that joints Ifia are weak in tension, and that joint I6 could be opened by suflicient horizontal pressure oppositely directed at the ends of a course. Such tensile and compressive stresses might be the result of the expansionv and contraction of the course after its erection. This structural deficiency is overcome without the necessity of staggering the units, by the simple expedient of reversing the relative position of the joints IGa with respect to lower and upper courses, as shown in Figs. 1, 2, and 3. Joints I6, IBa thus alternate throughout successive courses, and the continuity of vertical joints is effectively broken.

A comparison of Figs. 2 and 3 shows that the total bearing or verticalload-carrying area of twoadjacent flanges I3 is substantially equivalent to the bearing area formed by the interlocked flanges I2. Each cooperating pair of flanges forms stud-sections of comparatively equal loadbearing capacity, and in the completed wall, as shown in Fig. 1, the stud-sections formed alternately by flanges I3 and flanges I2 register in vertical alignment to form a continuous loadbearing structure.

As the vertical grooves I211, I311, are centered in the respective flanges, it will be obvious that grooves in contiguous units will cooperate to form keyways I'I, I8, and that these keyways will alternately vertically align to form a keyway coextensive with the height of the stud. This construction will accommodate vertical steel reenforcement members I9. The placing of the said members may be deferred until several courses are erected, with all mortar joints made except the fill of the keyways. The bars I9 can then be dropped into place and permanently securedby grouting. Final courses can then be laid. Preferably, the members I9 project above the final course, to the end that a structurally good juncture with the superstructure (not shown) can be made.

The units In may be of any conveniently handled size. By alternating an interlocked joint I6 and an outer-face to outer-face joint IBa in a masonary course using the units II], a greater reach or extent of the said course is secured than would be possible if all joints were of the interlocking type; and greater strength is secured than if all joints were of the form of I611. By alternating joints I6, I60, in successive courses, the extended reach of each course is accomplished without sacrifice of wall strength. The said joints are mutually reenforcing against expansion and contraction strains and the formation of fissures induced by such strains is resisted. The completed wall is adaptable to even. loading. The studs are of equal bearing area, and the webs II form coextensive wall faces.

Metal lath, 20, may be suitably secured to the webs II, and a decorative or finish coat of plaster 20a applied. The resulting spaces 2| will accommodate plumbing stand pipes, electrical conduit or other essential accessories (not shown), increasing the utility of the structure.

Having thus described my invention, I claim:

1. A prefabricated masonry structural unit having a rectangular web and flanges at the ends thereof, said flanges being of different depth measured from the face of the web, the proportion of the respective flanges providing for assembling a course of, such units in which the longer flanges of contiguous units arein coextensive outer-face to outer-face relationshipand the shorter flanges of contiguous units are in coextensive inner-face to inner-face relationship, while maintaining the web faces of alternate units in the same plane.

2. A prefabricated masonry structural unit having a rectilinear web and flanges at the ends thereof, said flanges coextensive with said web at the point of juncture therewith and being of different depth measured from the face of the web, the proportion of the respective flanges providing for assembling a course of such units in which the longer flanges of contiguous units are in coextensive outer-face to outer-face relationship and the shorter flanges of contiguous units are in coextensive inner-face to inner-face relationship, while maintaining. the web faces of alternate units in the same plane.

3. A masonry structural unit of substantially U-shaped cross section, said unit comprising a web provided with a flange at each end of the web, said flanges being parallel, one of said flanges being longer than the other by an amount greater than the thickness of the web, the longer flange having. a vertical. groove in an outer face,

the shorter flange having a vertical groove in an inner face, said flanges being so proportioned that when the said units are arranged to form a masonry course and the longer flanges of contiguous units are in coextensive outer-face to outer-face relationship and shorter flanges of contiguous units are in coextensive inner-face to inner-face relationship, the Web faces of alternate units are in substantially a common plane.

4. A masonry structural unit of substantially U-shaped cross section, said unit comprising a web provided with a flange at each end of the web, said flanges being parallel, one of said flanges being longer than the other by an amount 3 greater than the thickness of the web, the longer flange having a centrally disposed vertical groove in an outer face, the shorter flange having a centrally disposed vertical groove in an inner face, said flanges being so proportioned that when the said units are arranged to form a masonry course and the longer flanges of contiguous units are in coextensive outer-face to outer-face relationship and shorter flanges of contiguous units are in coextensive inner-face to inner-face relationship, 10

the web faces of alternate units are in substantially a common plane.

HERBERT ALFRED FABER.

Referenced by
Citing PatentFiling datePublication dateApplicantTitle
US2954646 *Feb 4, 1958Oct 4, 1960Kopp Philip EHollow wall tile and structures made therefrom
US3101572 *Mar 9, 1959Aug 27, 1963Gert StengerConstruction with building elements made of glass
US3196582 *Jan 17, 1962Jul 27, 1965Morton M RosenfeldWall and block therefor
US3197933 *Dec 18, 1961Aug 3, 1965John N BurnsInterlocking concrete decking
US3279135 *Jan 23, 1963Oct 18, 1966Jacobsen Raymond KComposite column for precast concrete structures
US3735549 *Dec 28, 1970May 29, 1973Shuart BBuilding construction
US4142340 *Jul 11, 1977Mar 6, 1979Howard Milton LBuilding enclosure made from standard construction unit in side walls and roof deck
US4231199 *Feb 8, 1978Nov 4, 1980Aries SaMethod and components for construction of building from concrete slabs
US4336675 *Sep 29, 1980Jun 29, 1982Marcel PereiraConstruction system
US5400563 *May 26, 1994Mar 28, 1995Marylyn HouseCombination column and panel barrier system and method of construction
US5471811 *Jul 21, 1992Dec 5, 1995Marylyn HouseCombination traffic barrier and retaining wall and method of construction
US5509249 *Mar 28, 1995Apr 23, 1996Marylyn HouseCombination column and panel barrier system and method of construction
US5588786 *Jun 7, 1995Dec 31, 1996Marylyn HouseCombination retaining wall and method of construction
US6213689 *Apr 12, 2000Apr 10, 2001Tokusuke Co., Ltd.Construction unit for a retaining wall and a method for constructing the retaining wall
EP1803864A1 *Dec 27, 2006Jul 4, 2007Depka, Bogna MariaLoad bearing building wall comprising small wall members
Classifications
U.S. Classification52/609, 52/438, 52/574, 52/454, 52/416
International ClassificationE04B2/02, E04B2/28
Cooperative ClassificationE04B2/28, E04B2002/0297
European ClassificationE04B2/28