ASCE Dox Plank Design Info

AEI 2008: Building Integration Solutions © 2008 ASCE
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF DOX PLANK
Anthony M. Dolhon, PE, M.ASCE
Senior Associate, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., 14 Washington Road, Suite 501, Princeton
Junction, New Jersey 08550; Telephone: (609) 799-7799; Facsimile: (609) 799-7088;
E-mail: adolhon@wje.com
Abstract
This paper presents a literature search on the early developments in floor and roof
slabs constructed of “assembled concrete blocks” made from precast, lightweight
hollow core blocks, commonly referred to today as Dox Plank. This survey includes
period design guides, reference standards, United States patents, technical manuals,
product catalogs, plank manufacturers, design assumptions, design theory, and the
manufacture of planks. The findings will aid the architect/engineer in conducting a
performance evaluation by identifying the original design parameters, such as the
allowable unit stresses, area of embedded steel, material properties, etc., as well as by
identifying serviceability concerns. Assembled concrete block type planks are
formed by assembling a row of hollow core, lightweight concrete blocks into a
prestressed plank. The most common of the assembled concrete block systems was
the “Dox Plank,” initially known as “Doc’s Blocks.” It was named for its inventor
Bernhard A. “Doc” Vander Heyden, who patented improvements in the planks and
the methods of constructing them in 1954 (United States Patent No. 2,696,729), and
subsequent improvements in 1965 (United States Patent No. 3,172,932). Although
Dox Plank is just one variation on the assembled concrete block system, it came to
represent the industry.
Introduction
Past performance of old or historic buildings in service can be an indicator of future

performance. But when past performance alone is insufficient to evaluate
serviceability deficiencies such as floor or roof sag, separation between adjacent
planks, differential deflection between adjoining planks, separation of individual
blocks within an assembled plank, water penetration through an individual plank or
between adjacent planks, corrosion of embedded steel reinforcement, or cracking and
spalling are evident or when superimposed concrete overlays, re-roofing, change in
building use, addition of dead loads, or renovation has occurred or is being
considered, further investigation and analysis may be warranted. When they are
Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

Downloaded 23 Aug 2010 to 71.245.122.185. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
warranted, the analysis can be challenging, if not incomplete, without the basic
understanding of the original plank design, materials, and manufacture of the planks.
This paper presents a literature search on the early developments in floor and roof
slabs constructed of “assembled concrete blocks” made from precast, lightweight
hollow core blocks, commonly referred to today as Dox Plank. This survey includes
period design guides, reference standards, United States patents, technical manuals,
product catalogs, plank manufacturers, design assumptions, design theory, and the
manufacture of planks. The findings will aid the architect/engineer in the
performance evaluation by identifying the original design parameters, such as the
allowable unit stresses, area of embedded steel, material properties, etc., as well as by
identifying serviceability concerns.
Description
Assembled concrete block systems are an assembly of a row of hollow core,

lightweight concrete blocks formed to make a prestressed plank. Figure 1 illustrates a
typical Dox Plank.
The planks are formed by assembling a row of hollow core, lightweight concrete
blocks, placed upside down on a work table, compressing the blocks together,
inserting steel reinforcing bars into aligned channels in the longitudinal direction of
the row of blocks, grouting the reinforcing into place, curing the assembled plank,
and then relieving the externally applied compression, thereby forming a prestressed
plank.
Once the plank has cured, it is then turned over and hoisted into position on the job
site to form a floor or roof slab. The tongue and grooved edges of the blocks allowed
the planks to be keyed with adjacent planks to provide shear transfer, thereby forming
a slab. Once the planks were in place, a thin concrete overlay may or may not be cast
on the supporting planks. If a topping is cast, it is intended to fill in the grooves
between planks resulting in greater strength through composite action.
The assembled concrete blocks had the advantages of being factory made with greater
supervision, control, and uniformity than would otherwise be available on the job
site. The planks could be quickly erected and once in place serve as a working
platform for other trades during construction and as a ceiling for the floor beneath the
platform. The hollow cores and lightweight aggregate reduced the overall weight of
the slab. The hollow cores had the added advantage of being used for utilities or as
air ducts. The underside of the planks formed a flat ceiling which may or may not
have been plastered.
Historical Background
Assembled concrete block systems gained popularity in the 1940’s and 1950’s as an
economical alternative to wood and light steel joists for relatively light loads. They

were not recommended for heavy loads or moving machinery, which could cause
impact and vibration.
Assembled concrete block systems emerged in an industry attempt to eliminate or

minimize the cost of carpentry that was otherwise necessary for cast-in-place
concrete formwork. It was an alternative that was particularly well suited for both
residential and light commercial construction and especially for schools.
Numerous variations have focused upon the clamping action using threaded rods and
end plates, grouting process, external tensioning, arching the row of blocks,
interlocking planks, shape of blocks, and the apparatus used in the manufacturing
process. Some of the variations and other improvements are described more fully in
United States Patent Nos. 1,891,597 (Jagdmann, 1932), 1,921,285 (Davis and Brush,
1933), 2,044,382 (Dunagan, 1936), 2,075,633 (Anderegg, 1937), 2,299,070 (Rogers
and Price, 1942), 2,631,450 (Lachaise, 1953), 2,645,115 (Abeles, 1953), 2,696,729
(Vander Heyden, 1954), and 3,172,932 (Vander Heyden, 1965). Most are structurally
indistinguishable. Cataloging these variations is beyond the scope of this paper.
The system that attracted the most attention was Dox Plank, initially known as
“Doc’s Blocks.” It was named for its inventor Bernhard A. “Doc” Vander Heyden,
who patented improvements in the planks and in the methods of constructing them in
1954 and subsequent improvements in 1965. He also founded the Dox Plank
Manufacturers Association, which licensed manufacturers across the eastern half of
the United States (Figure 2). Although Dox Plank is just one variation on the
assembled concrete block system, it came to represent the industry.
In 1954, the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute was formed. By then, the

prestressed concrete industry had already emerged. With the advent of prestressed
concrete and the production of high strength steel reinforcement (especially wire
strands), and the increased compressive strength of concrete, prestressed concrete
improved upon the disadvantages of conventionally reinforced concrete that had used
assembly hollow core block. This naturally led to its decline and eventually
discontinuation.
Minimum Standard Requirements for Precast Concrete Floor and Roof Units
Around the 1920’s, the American Concrete Institute (ACI) tasked its newly formed
Committee 711 to undertake a critical examination of precast concrete joist,
superimposed concrete floor systems, and construction methods on the state of the art
with recommendations for minimum standard requirements. Committee 711’s report
titled, “Precast Joist Concrete Floor Systems,” was submitted to ACI on
July 25, 1929. The report was later published by ACI in January 1940. It pertained
to three systems: 1) precast concrete joist with cast-in-place slab, 2) precast concrete
joist with precast concrete slab, and 3) independent precast joist with concrete slab
(i.e., precast slab that is not bonded to the joist).

The 1940 report of the ACI Committee 711 evolved into the “Proposed Minimum
Standard Requirements for Precast Concrete Floor Units,” which was later published
in 1944 (ACI, 1944) and revised again as proposed standards in 1946 (ACI, 1946).
In October 1946, ACI adopted the standard on “Minimum Standard Requirements for
Precast Concrete Floor Units (ACI 711-46)” as a supplement to the ACI “Building
Regulations for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-41).”
In November 1952, ACI Committee 711 first recognized the popularity of assembled
concrete block systems and specifically incorporated them into its proposed revision
of the standard (ACI, 1952) along with the revision to reference the updated ACI
standard, “Building Regulations for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-51).” By that
time, concrete block systems had been widely used and some types of planks and
manufacturing methods had already been patented. In the case of Dox Plank, the
application for the first of two patents had already been filed.
Initially, ACI Committee 711 (ACI, 1952) proposed subdividing the manufacture and
assembly of concrete blocks into essentially arched and prestressed systems. It
distinguished the two in stating those: 1) “With contact faces between units ground to
provide uniform bearing between units and to provide a slight camber to the
assembly,” and 2) “With contact faces parallel, but with a tension in the lower
moment bars sufficient to align and hold the assembly together and to provide slight
camber.” Subsequent, Dox Plank patents incorporated both the arching and
prestressing.
In 1953, ACI adopted the proposed revisions of Committee 711 (ACI, 1953). It
became the first ACI standard specifically devoted to assembled concrete blocks. It is
also devoted to segmental concrete, which includes tee-beam joists, concrete joists,
and I-beam joists. The Standard specifies concrete protection for reinforcement,
materials, manufacture, tests, and other requirements.
In 1957, proposed revisions of ACI 711-53 incorporated reference to the

ACI “Building Regulations for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-56).” The proposed
revisions of 1957 were adopted as part of ACI 711-58. Table 1 provides the
Allowable Unit Stresses in Concrete that were published in ACI 711-58. Finally,
upon the completion of the ACI Standard, “Minimum Standard Requirements for
Precast Concrete Floor and Roof Units (ACI 711-58),” ACI Committee 711 was
discharged.
With the adoption of the “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete
(ACI 318-63),” which contained both Working Stress and Ultimate Strength Design
methods and also extensive changes in the treatment of shear and bond, ACI-ASCE
Committee 512 on Precast Structural Concrete Design and Construction was formed
to review ACI 711-58 and to recommend any necessary changes.

The result of ACI-ASCE Committee 512’s review was the proposed standard,
“Recommended Practice for Manufactured Concrete Floor and Roof Units,” which
supplemented ACI 318-63 and superseded ACI 711-58.
Most of the specifications given in ACI 711-58 are contained in the report by
ACI-ASCE Committee 512 (ACI-ASCE, 1966). The major additions concerned test
methods for strength design and ultimate strength design, minimum reinforcement
requirements, and quality requirements and acceptance procedures.
In 1967, ACI adopted the standard, “Recommended Practice for Manufactured

Reinforced Concrete Floor and Roof Units (ACI 512-67)”. It later evolved into
“Precast Structural Concrete in Building” (ACI-ASCE, 1974).
Dox Plank Patents
On June 19, 1944, Bernhard A. “Doc” Vander Heyden filed an application, which was
a continuation of an earlier application filed on May 17, 1943, with the United States
Patent Office for improvements in prestressed planks using concrete blocks and the
method of manufacture. A patent (Patent No. 2,696,729) was granted on
December 14, 1954.
The stated objective given in Patent No. 2,696,729 was, “To provide a strong but light
and porous cementitious plank combining great strength with a high thermal and
acoustical insulation factor, which together with its light weight, adapts it for making
of roofs and floors, and the like.” The patent identified 13 claims distinguishing it
from other patents using concrete and clay tile block and their manufacture.
Although the distinctions between Patent No. 2,696,729 and other patents pertaining
to planks with concrete blocks and their manufacture and also the distinction among
the 13 claims made by this patent maybe subtle, most important to the objective of
this paper is not the distinctions, but rather the insight it reveals into the details of the
planks and their manufacture.
The provisions of Patent No. 2,696,729 state that the planks are to be supported at
their ends and that the planks are manufactured by grouting reinforcing bars
throughout the length of the planks, so as to distribute the compressive stress to
individual blocks rather than concentrating it upon the end blocks. The reinforcing
bars are not threaded nor do they extend beyond the end blocks. The provisions also
state that the manufacture provides a means for grinding the face of individual blocks,
aligning the channels and hollow cores within a row of blocks, placing reinforcing
bars at predetermined positions in the plank, compressing the assembly of blocks,
grouting the reinforcing bars while the assembly of blocks remain in compression,
and transferring compressive stress in the blocks through bond with the reinforcing
bars thereby forming a prestressed plank. The provisions also provide a process for
adjusting a plank to correct sag or to create an arch.

On December 29, 1960, Mr. Vander Heyden filed an application for subsequent
improvements in the method of manufacturing a concrete plank. The patent was
granted on March 9, 1965 (Patent No. 3,172,932). It identified ten claims pertaining
to prefabricated or drilled access ports for pressure grouting in special blocks
provided at predetermined intervals along the length of the plank and to provide a
step-by-step process of grouting.
Technical Manuals and Standard Specifications
The Dox Plank Manufacturer’s Association licensed those manufacturers complying

with Patent No. 2,696,729 or its patent application. Figure 2 lists the licensed Dox
Plank manufacturers. Each manufacturer produced its own technical manual, which
included standard specifications, design assumptions, design tables, and installation
details.
The standard specifications indicate that the design was performed in accordance
with ACI 711-46, ACI 711-53 or ACI 711-58 and the corresponding building
regulations given in ACI 318-41, ACI 318-51, or ACI 318-56, respectively. The
specifications also indicate that the concrete strength of the concrete block and
topping shall be 2,500 pounds per square inch or greater and 3,000 pounds per square
inch, respectively. For concrete toppings, the toppings shall be reinforced with
welded wire fabric. On roof slabs and other areas where no concrete topping is
required, a grout coat of 1 to 3 cement and sand mix shall be thoroughly swept into
the top surface of the plank after it is placed. The bearings shall provide a minimum
of 3 inches on masonry and concrete beams and 2-1/2 inches on structural steel.
Reinforced Concrete Design
The assumptions used in the load capacity design are:
1. The maximum tensile stress of reinforcing steel is 20,000 pounds per square
inch
2. The maximum compressive stress of concrete blocks is 1,125 pounds per
square inch (Table 1)
3. The maximum compressive stress of concrete toppings is 1,350 pounds per
square inch (Table 1)
4. The concrete topping slab weighs 145 pounds per cubic inch
5. The ratio of the net area to gross area of a typical plank is 0.55
The design for bending of simple span planks under uniformly distributed load using
the Working Stress Design method yields the following standard formula:

where the values of and have been derived from a T-beam section in accordance
with the ACI Reinforced Concrete Design Handbook and as illustrated in Figure 3,
The design summary for standard 8 x 16 plank section with topped and untopped
sections is tabulated in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Applying basis engineering
principles for simple span beams, the available uniformly distributed load may be
computed. Tables 4 and 5 give the available uniform load for 8 inch x 16 inch planks
with various reinforcing bar sizes and span lengths.
Guidelines for Performance Evaluation
In conducting a performance evaluation of an existing old or historic building in

service constructed of “assembled concrete blocks” made from precast hollow core
blocks, and in particular Dox Plank, the author recommends that the
architect/engineer consider the following guidelines in the performance evaluation:
1. The “prestressing” cited in the reference standards, patents, and technical

manuals is a misconception and should not be confused with conventional
prestressing used today. Although the reinforcing bars were tensioned prior to
being placed into service, assembled concrete blocks and in particular Dox
Planks, are conventionally reinforced. Incidental prestressing used in Dox
Plank is insignificant to long-term performance and since prestressing could
not be considered permanent, it was therefore not used as a factor in the
design. The magnitude of the prestress in the reinforcing steel was about
20,000 pounds per square inch, far less than conventional prestressing of
about 150,000 pounds per square inch used today.
2. The design equations for bending and shear are given in Equations 1-5 above.
These equations were derived from design for bending of simple span planks
under uniformly distributed load using the Working Stress Design method and
T-beam section in accordance with the ACI Reinforced Concrete Design
Handbook.
3. Deviations from original construction or subsequent field modifications, such
as the erection of intermediate bearing wall(s) to support simple span planks,
openings made in the planks to accommodate stairways or ducts, concrete
overlays that increase the thickness of the topping slab, changes in applied

loads from roof top mechanical units, or re-roofing over an existing roof may
change the load distribution and may decrease the available live load capacity.
Often the available live load is minimal and there is little margin for
additional loads.
4. The original design parameters, such as the allowable units stress, area of
embedded steel reinforcement, and material properties are provided herein.
5. Notable serviceability deficiencies, such as floor or roof sag, separation
between adjacent planks, differential deflection between adjoining planks,
separation of blocks within an assembled plank, water penetration through an
individual plank or between adjacent planks, corrosion of embedded steel
reinforcement, or cracking and spalling, cracks in the concrete topping
running parallel to the joint formed between side-by-side planks are indicators
of performance.
Conclusions
This paper raises the awareness of the performance evaluation of assembled concrete
blocks, and in particular Dox Plank, used in existing floor and roof construction.
Guidelines for the performance evaluation of Dox Plank are presented based up a
literature search.
This paper did not include a discussion of segmental concrete or cantilevered planks.
Although the original Dox Plank design did permit planks to be used as cantilevers,
only simple span construction is considered in this paper.
Notation
The following symbols and abbreviations were used in this paper:
= width of plank (in)

= effective depth of section (in)
= rebar diameter (in)
= depth of cover (in)
= compressive strength of concrete (psi)
= extreme fiber stress of concrete (psi)
= extreme fiber stress of steel (psi)
= modular ratio,
= thickness of compression block (in)
= tensile steel area (in2)
= modulus of elasticity of concrete (psi)
= modulus of elasticity of steel (psi)
= span length (ft)
= maximum bending moment of concrete section (lb ft)
= maximum bending moment of steel section (lb ft)

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Ms. Penny Sympson, Corporate Librarian,

Mr. Mark R. Chauvin, PE, Senior Associate, and Mr. Dennis Rolander, PE, Senior
Associate for their assistance in research and guidance; to Mr. David S. Finley, EIT,
Associate II for his assistance in numerical analysis, research, and preparation of
figures; and to Mr. Keith J. Niedrist for preparation of the figures. All are with Wiss,
Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.
References
Jagdmann, Karl E. W. (1932). “Building Block and the Construction of Floors and
the Like.” United States Patent Office, Patent No. 1,891,597, Patented
December 20, 1932.
Dunagan, Walter M. (1936). “Masonry Unit.” United States Patent Office,

Patent No. 2,044,382, Patented June 16, 1936.
Anderegg, Frederick O. (1937). “Reinforced Ceramic Building Construction and

Method of Assembly.” United States Patent Office, Patent No. 2,075,633, Patented
March 30, 1937.
American Concrete Institute, Reported by ACI Committee 711 (1940). “Precast Joist
Concrete Floor Systems.” Proceedings of the American Concrete Institute,
Volume 36, Title 36-15, Journal of the American Concrete Institute, January 1940,
297-312.
American Concrete Institute, Reported by ACI Committee 711 (1944). “Proposed

Minimum Standard Requirements for Precast Concrete Floor Units.” Proceedings of
the American Concrete Institute, Volume 40, Title 40-17, Journal of the American
Concrete Institute, Volume 15, No. 4, February 1944, 305-317.
American Concrete Institute, Reported by ACI Committee 318 (1945). ACI

Standard, “Building Regulations for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-41).”
Proceedings of the American Concrete Institute, Volume 41, Title 41-23, Journal of
the American Concrete Institute, Volume 16, No. 6, June 1945, 559-619.

Minimum Standard Requirements for Precast Concrete Floor Units.” Volume 42,
Title 42-11, Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Volume 17, No. 3,
Proceedings, American Concrete Institute, January 1946, 245-258.

Standard, “Minimum Standard Requirements for Precast Concrete Floor Units
(ACI 711-46).” Proceedings, American Concrete Institute, Volume 43, Title 43-6,

Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Volume 18, No. 2, October 1946,
133-146.

Standard, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-51).”
Proceedings, American Concrete Institute, Volume 47, Title 47-43, Journal of the
American Concrete Institute, Volume 22, No. 8, April 1951, 589-652.
Menefee, F.N. (1951). “Advances in Precast Floor Systems.” Proceedings, American

Concrete Institute, Volume 48, Title 48-8, Journal of the American Concrete Institute,
Volume 23, No. 12, October 1951, 113-124.

Revision of Minimum Standard Requirements for Precast Concrete Floor Units
Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Volume 24, No. 3, November 1952,
169-184.
Lachaise, Jean Celestin Hippolyte. (1953). “Prestressed Reinforced Concrete Floor

Beam.” United States Patent Office, Patent No. 2,631,450, Patented March 17, 1953.
Abeles, Paul William (1953). “Composite Structural Member and in the Manufacture
Thereof.” United States Patent Office, Patent No. 2,645,115, Patented July 14, 1953.

Standard, “Minimum Standard Requirements for Precast Concrete Floor Units
Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Volume 25, No. 1, September 1953, 1-15.
Heyden, Bernard A. Vander (1954). “Cementitious Plank and Method of

Constructing It.” United States Patent Office, Patent No. 2,696,729, Patented
December 14, 1954.

Proceedings, American Concrete Institute, Volume 52, Title 52-57, Journal of the
American Concrete Institute, Volume 27, No. 9, May 1956, 913-986.

Revision of ACI Standard 771-53 Minimum Standard Requirements for Precast
Concrete Floor and Roof Units.” Proceedings, American Concrete Institute,
Volume 54, Title 54-24, Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Volume 29,
December 1957, 441-448.

Standard, “Minimum Standard Requirements for Precast Concrete Floor and Roof

Units (ACI 711-58).” Proceedings, American Concrete Institute, Volume 55,

Title 55-4, Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Volume 30, No. 1, July 1958,
83-94.

June 1963.
Heyden, Bernard A. Vander (1965). “Method of Manufacturing a Concrete Plank.”

United States Patent Office, Patent No. 3,172,932, Patented March 9, 1965.
American Concrete Institute, Reported by ACI-ASCE Committee 512 (1966).

“Proposed ACI Standard Recommended Practice for Manufactured Reinforced
Concrete Floor and Roof Units (Proposed Revision of ACI 711-58).” Proceedings,
American Concrete Institute, Volume 63, No. 6, Title 63-30, June 1966, 625-636.
American Concrete Institute, Reported by ACI-ASCE Committee 512 (1967). ACI

Standard, “Recommended Practice for Manufactured Reinforced Concrete Floor and
Roof Units (ACI 512-67).” Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Title 64-16,
April 1967, 185.
American Concrete Institute, Reported by ACI-ASCE Committee 512 (1974).

“Precast Structural Concrete in Buildings.” ACI Journal, Title 71-35,
November 1974, 537-549.

A - Tongue and Groove Edge

B - Channel Opening
C - Reinforcing Bar
D - Hollow Core
E - Shims (placed as necessary
to form an arch)
Figure 1. Typical Dox Plank

Connecticut Minnesota Pennsylvania

Plasticrete Corp. Doxplank of Minnesota Baltimore Concrete Plank Corp.
Hamden, Connecticut (Dox Block System) Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania
St. Paul Park, Minnesota
District of Columbia Baltimore Concrete Plank Corp.
Nabco Plank Co. New Jersey Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Washington, DC Doxplank Co., Inc.
(Multiplex Concrete Co., Inc.) Doxplanks of Northeastern PA
Florida East Orange, New Jersey (Dox’s System of Pennsylvania)
Maule Industries, Inc. Portage, Pennsylvania
Miami, Florida New York
Cossitt Concrete Products, Inc. Nelville Concrete Pipe Co.
Maule Industries, Inc. New York (Neville Cement Products Corp.)
Miami Beach, Florida Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Doxplank of New York, Inc.
Illinois North Chili, New York Tennessee
Doxplank of Wisconsin, Inc. Knox Concrete Products, Inc.
Glenview, Illinois Latta Brook Corp. Knoxville, Tennessee
Elmira, New York
Maryland Texas
Baltimore Concrete Plank Corp. Mid-State Concrete Plank, Inc. Valley Builders Supply Co.
Baltimore, Maryland Hamilton, New York Pharr, Texas
Massachusetts Schaefer Brothers Co., Inc. Wisconsin

Doxplank of Massachusetts Rochester, New York Fond Du Lac Concrete Products
Medford, Massachusetts Fond du Lac, Wisconsin
Ohio
Michigan Cleveland Builders Supply Co. Vander Heyden, Inc.
Wm. Moors Concrete Products Cleveland, Ohio Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Fraser, Michigan
Columbia Concrete Products
Toledo, Ohio
Figure 2. Licensed Dox Plank Manufacturers

Figure 3. Stress Diagram
Table 1. Allowable Unit Stresses in Concrete

(Based on ACI 711-58)
Allowable Unit Stresses,
For Any When Strength of Concrete is Fixed by

Strength of the Water-Content in Accordance with
Concrete as ACI 711 Section 302
Description Fixed by Test
in Accordance Compressive Strength,
with ACI 711
Section 302
2,000 2,500 3,000 3,750
Flexure,
900 1,125 1,350 1,688
Extreme fiber stress in compression
Shear, , but
Flat slabs at distance, , from the edge of not to exceed 60 75 75 75
column capital or drop panel 75 psi

Table 2. Dox Plank Section Data - 8 x 16 Plank Section, Toppeda

Design Data:
Tensile Moment
Effect. Controlling Controlling
Steel of
Depth Moments Shears
Area Inertia
Std.
Sect.
833T
834T
844T 0.40 8.81 0.212 0.930 4,097 10,286 3,254 5,792 4,913 170.6
845T 0.51 8.77 0.236 0.922 5,155 11,287 3,211 6,430 4,840 207.2
855T 0.62 8.75 0.258 0.917 6,218 12,067 3,187 7,088 4,810 242.0
856T 0.75 8.71 0.283 0.911 7,439 12,726 3,151 7,711 4,759 278.9
866T 0.88 8.69 0.306 0.908 8,680 13,295 3,134 8,366 4,733 314.1
867T 1.04 8.65 0.333 0.905 10,177 13,802 3,109 8,992 4,686 352.5
877T 1.20 8.63 0.357 0.902 11,676 14,186 3,091 9,629 4,674 389.1
a
Notes: Tabular data was compiled from Dox Plank catalogs.

Table 3. Dox Plank Section Data - 8 x 16 Plank Section, Untoppeda

Design Data:
Tensile Moment
Effect. Controlling Controlling
Steel of
Depth Moments Shears
Area Inertia
Std.
Sect.
833 0.22 6.88 0.241 0.927 1,754 5,588 2,533 3,381 98.9
834 0.31 6.83 0.290 0.923 2,443 6,064 2,504 3,899 127.9
844 0.40 6.81 0.332 0.919 3,129 6,371 2,485 4,424 153.7
845 0.51 6.77 0.378 0.917 3,958 6,600 2,465 4,936 180.1
855 0.62 6.75 0.418 0.916 4,792 6,765 2,455 5,462 203.5
856 0.75 6.71 0.459 0.915 5,756 6,882 2,438 5,967 225.8
866 0.88 6.69 0.494 0.914 6,726 6,974 2,428 6,483 245.8
867 1.04 6.65 0.532 0.913 7,893 7,027 2,411 6,974 265.2
877 1.20 6.63 0.564 0.912 9,070 7,074 2,401 7,480 282.8
a
Notes: Tabular data was compiled from Dox Plank catalogs.

Table 4. Dox Plank Uniformly Distributed Live Loads -

8 x 16 Plank Section, 2 inch - 3,000 psi Concrete Topping
Span
Std.
Sect.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
833T
834T
844T 159 125 98 77 59 44 32 21
845T 217 175 141 114 92 74 58 45 34 24
855T 276 225 185 152 125 103 85 69 55 44 33 25
856T 283 235 195 163 137 115 96 80 66 54 43 34
866T 285 239 202 171 145 123 104 88 74 62 51
867T 292 249 212 182 156 134 115 99 84 72
877T 295 254 219 189 164 142 123 107 93
Table 5. Dox Plank Uniformly Distributed Live Loads -

8 x 16 Plank Section, Untopped
Span
Std.
Sect.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
833
834 91 71 55 42 31 22
844 83 66 53 41 32 24
845 95 78 64 52 42 34 26
855 87 73 61 50 41 34 27
856 96 81 70 59 50 42 34
866 88 75 65 56 50 44
867 95 82 71 61 54 47
877 88 76 65 58 50


ASCE Dox Plank Design Info

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ASCE Dox Plank Design Info

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

AEI 2008: Building Integration Solutions © 2008 ASCE

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF DOX PLANK

Anthony M. Dolhon, PE, M.ASCE

Past performance of old or historic buildings in service can be an indicator of future

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

Assembled concrete block systems are an assembly of a row of hollow core,

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

Assembled concrete block systems emerged in an industry attempt to eliminate or

In 1954, the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute was formed. By then, the

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

In 1957, proposed revisions of ACI 711-53 incorporated reference to the

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

In 1967, ACI adopted the standard, “Recommended Practice for Manufactured

Dox Plank Patents

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

Technical Manuals and Standard Specifications

The Dox Plank Manufacturer’s Association licensed those manufacturers complying

Reinforced Concrete Design

The assumptions used in the load capacity design are:

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

Guidelines for Performance Evaluation

In conducting a performance evaluation of an existing old or historic building in

1. The “prestressing” cited in the reference standards, patents, and technical

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

The following symbols and abbreviations were used in this paper:

= width of plank (in)

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

The author wishes to thank Ms. Penny Sympson, Corporate Librarian,

Dunagan, Walter M. (1936). “Masonry Unit.” United States Patent Office,

Anderegg, Frederick O. (1937). “Reinforced Ceramic Building Construction and

American Concrete Institute, Reported by ACI Committee 711 (1944). “Proposed

American Concrete Institute, Reported by ACI Committee 318 (1945). ACI

American Concrete Institute, Reported by ACI Committee 711 (1946). “Proposed

American Concrete Institute, Reported by ACI Committee 711 (1946). ACI

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

American Concrete Institute, Reported by ACI Committee 318 (1951). ACI

Menefee, F.N. (1951). “Advances in Precast Floor Systems.” Proceedings, American

American Concrete Institute, Reported by ACI Committee 711 (1952). “Proposed

Lachaise, Jean Celestin Hippolyte. (1953). “Prestressed Reinforced Concrete Floor

American Concrete Institute, Reported by ACI Committee 711 (1953). ACI

Heyden, Bernard A. Vander (1954). “Cementitious Plank and Method of

American Concrete Institute, Reported by ACI Committee 318 (1956). ACI

American Concrete Institute, Reported by ACI Committee 711 (1957). “Proposed

American Concrete Institute, Reported by ACI Committee 711 (1958). ACI

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

Units (ACI 711-58).” Proceedings, American Concrete Institute, Volume 55,

American Concrete Institute, Reported by ACI Committee 318 (1963). ACI

Heyden, Bernard A. Vander (1965). “Method of Manufacturing a Concrete Plank.”

American Concrete Institute, Reported by ACI-ASCE Committee 512 (1966).

American Concrete Institute, Reported by ACI-ASCE Committee 512 (1967). ACI

American Concrete Institute, Reported by ACI-ASCE Committee 512 (1974).

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

A - Tongue and Groove Edge

Figure 1. Typical Dox Plank

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

Connecticut Minnesota Pennsylvania

Massachusetts Schaefer Brothers Co., Inc. Wisconsin

Figure 2. Licensed Dox Plank Manufacturers

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

Figure 3. Stress Diagram

Table 1. Allowable Unit Stresses in Concrete

For Any When Strength of Concrete is Fixed by

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

Table 2. Dox Plank Section Data - 8 x 16 Plank Section, Toppeda