# Remove floor tile set in 3/4" concrete



## Dmeyr (Nov 30, 2011)

Hi all, we want to replace our kitchen floor tile...problem is that the existing 6x6 tile was directly set into 3/4" of concrete which looks like it was applied directly to the subfloor. The tile itself is a red terracotta, about 3/8 thick. The work was done in 1979, and the floor is still in excellent condition, I cannot find any cracked grout or tiles and there is no movement. It's just ugly!

So, what would be the best method to remove this stuff? Atomic bomb? Any ideas would be much appreciated - thanks!!


----------



## joecaption (Nov 30, 2011)

Why not tile over it?
A lot easer and faster then trying to remove it.
If you key word "tiling over tile" lots of sites come up with instrutions.
The only draw back is it will throw the height at the baseboards and any other flooring it meets.


----------



## Snav (Aug 20, 2009)

Dmeyr said:


> Hi all, we want to replace our kitchen floor tile...problem is that the existing 6x6 tile was directly set into 3/4" of concrete which looks like it was applied directly to the subfloor. The tile itself is a red terracotta, about 3/8 thick. The work was done in 1979, and the floor is still in excellent condition, I cannot find any cracked grout or tiles and there is no movement. It's just ugly!
> 
> So, what would be the best method to remove this stuff? Atomic bomb? Any ideas would be much appreciated - thanks!!


Are you sure it's over a 3/4" bed of concrete? Have you chipped some of it out or gained access to a side view somehow to verify?

If someone used their setting (leveler or thinset, etc) a leveling compound or something of that nature it's likely that the 3/4" is just in some areas.


----------



## JazMan (Feb 17, 2007)

> If someone used their setting (leveler or thinset, etc) a leveling compound or something of that nature it's likely that the 3/4" is just in some areas.


Snav, I think what he's got is a "mud set" job, not self leveling compounds. 

I too suggest thinking about going over the present tiles, if it's is perfect shape.

Jaz


----------



## Bud Cline (Mar 12, 2006)

It should all just break right out if the mud bed is only 3/4" thick and over a wood subfloor. Bang the hell out of it and it will soon begin to remove itself.


----------



## Dmeyr (Nov 30, 2011)

I checked the edges and can see the concrete under the tiles at two places, but nothing else is visible btwn the tile and concrete. As far as I can tell, the concrete was applied diectly to the wood subfloor. We bought the house in May and the former owners visited and tipped us off on the concrete.

Only problems with tiling over is our refrig is in a built in cabinet and the cab would need to get modified. I suspect we'd run into some issues with the height difference elsewhere - existing tile with bed is already over an inch.

So, would chipping hammer, sledge and elbow grease be the best bet for tear out? Any other suggestions?


----------



## joecaption (Nov 30, 2011)

I use a Bull Dog Bosh brand hammer drill with a chisle made just for tile removal. It's about 2 or 3" wide and has a raised spot in the middle. You go right down the middle of the tiles and it lifts and cracks them in half most of the time.
You need hearing protection, knee pads, gloves, eye protection, a flat shovel, a big shop vac, floor broom, and a few 5 gal. buckets. Trash bags are not going to hold the waste, it's to heavy and to many sharp edges. So your going to have to come up with some way to get rid of the trash.


----------



## Bud Cline (Mar 12, 2006)

> I checked the edges and can see the concrete under the tiles at two places, but nothing else is visible btwn the tile and concrete. As far as I can tell, the concrete was applied diectly to the wood subfloor. We bought the house in May and the former owners visited and tipped us off on the concrete.
> 
> Only problems with tiling over is our refrig is in a built in cabinet and the cab would need to get modified. I suspect we'd run into some issues with the height difference elsewhere - existing tile with bed is already over an inch.
> 
> So, would chipping hammer, sledge and elbow grease be the best bet for tear out? Any other suggestions?


Once you get a hole started down to the subfloor you can probably lift everything out with nothing more than a pry-bar. Listen, it is never a good idea to heap tile on top of tile. I would caution against it. There are times when it may be acceptable but not in this case.

If you have a dishwasher, "look out", that would be a major issue in addition to the fridge issue. Transitions will become an issue. Take out the old tile and concrete below it if it is only as thick as you say. It will take some effort but it won't be that difficult.


----------



## ben's plumbing (Oct 6, 2011)

what ever works best to remove tile for you do it .. it the proper thing to do...ben


----------



## adamavis (Oct 25, 2011)

Sandcoat. remove it buy renting a Demolition hammer from Home Depot.


----------



## Dmeyr (Nov 30, 2011)

Excellent, thanks very much for all the info- going forward with the demo this weekend, will post back how it went...now to figure out the floor assembly-


----------



## Dmeyr (Nov 30, 2011)

Well it's out- took about 5 hours on Saturday and 3 hours on Sunday which included chipping the tile off from the back entry and four stairs there. 

We found that the mud set depth ranged from the high point at 3/4" to as deep as 1-5/8" in some areas, so there's some floor prep that needs to be done.

It was hard work, but not terrible. Used a Bosch chipping Hammer and it worked great.

Now on to the floor flatness....


----------



## adamavis (Oct 25, 2011)

Dmeyr said:


> .. Used a Bosch chipping Hammer and it worked great.


That's what I used too. :thumbsup:


----------



## Bud Cline (Mar 12, 2006)

> Now on to the floor flatness....


So...is the basic subfloor now that far out-of-level?


----------



## Dmeyr (Nov 30, 2011)

It's off 1" in the 8' direction in the 8x10 main kitchen and 5/8" off in both directions in the 5x7 breakfast nook. although its "generally" flat in these slopes, it's not flat enough for the tile. And where the two areas intersect is a problem with two directional sloping.

It seems like it would take a lot of SLC to bring this up to level. Ideally, I'd like it to be level, especially since the old tile was nicely level.

With the room size and depth that I'm dealing with is SLC a good option still? Or is there a better alternative? I'd need a lot of SLC which gets pricey.


----------



## Bud Cline (Mar 12, 2006)

You can add pea-gravel to SLC to bulk-up the product and save a few bucks, but still costly. One fifty pound bag of SLC will yield fifty square feet at 1/8" thick...that gets pricey quick.

I think what I would do instead is to go right back with an old fashion "mud-job" like you had before. A whole lot cheaper, a little more work, but easily do-able. The use of the word "easily" in this case is relative.:yes:


----------



## Dmeyr (Nov 30, 2011)

Makes sense, what should be used as the mud nowadays? Is the process to lay down paper, then mesh over the ply and use a screed to level the mud across the whole floor? Do you then just set directly into the mud? Thanks bud-


----------



## Bud Cline (Mar 12, 2006)

> Makes sense, what should be used as the mud nowadays? Is the process to lay down paper, then mesh over the ply and use a screed to level the mud across the whole floor?


Correct.



> Do you then just set directly into the mud?


No, don't even think about that. What a pain that is. Once the screed has set plan on using thinset to install the tiles.

I always tried to work in "paths" of about 48 to 60 inches wide between my screeds. This doesn't mean the whole thing can't be done monolithically however which is the best way to do it. I use 1" rigid electrical conduit for screed-guides then drag with a sharp straightedge.

The mix is typically 4 or 5 sand to 1 Portland. It is mixed very dry so that you can squeeze a clump in your hand. The parallel screeds are elevated to level using the mud and then the additional mud is tossed in place and compacted by hand, I use a mag float. Once compacted slightly above the screeds I drag & shave with the sharp straightedge. Once flat, the pipe screeds can be removed and the voids filled, this time dragging off of the newly placed flat cement surface also using a straightedge.

The truth is any bagged sandmix can also be used but it is generally mixed 3:1 in the bag. A little sharp-sand can be added to bring-up the recipe but it isn't necessary.


----------



## Dmeyr (Nov 30, 2011)

What would be the minimum thickness for the mud at the high points in the floor? Our old floor was minimum 3/4", but set on top or paper and mesh on the diagonal plank subfloor.

Should I still do the 3/4" ply under the mud job?

This mud job idea is interesting - the old floor was absolutely solid.

Assuming that the thinset could be directly applied to the set mud or would backer be needed?


----------



## Dmeyr (Nov 30, 2011)

One more question - what's a typical set time for the mud before tiling?


----------



## Bud Cline (Mar 12, 2006)

This is the way all tile floors were done years ago. The typical recommendation for thickness is a minimum of 1-1/4" but a true-minimum of 3/4" works if you don't spend too much time crawling around on it to install the tile. If there is any flex in the substrate the thinner (3/4") mud could break up from your weight being on it while setting the tiles. In (the old days) the tile was set/pounded directly into the fresh mud screed but (trust me) you don't want to deal with that bag-o-worms.

Those floors were solid for sure and this is still the best way to do a tile floor but the technique has gone by the wayside as new products have been developed.

No additional backer of any kind is required.

If you were to add 3/4" plywood that would serve to stabilize the (untrustworthy) slats, but this would reduce your ability to add the mud screed. You could add the plywood and then use SLC. This way the SLC could theoretically be feathered as needed at the high spots. If you did that you wouldn't be able to add pea gravel.


----------



## Bud Cline (Mar 12, 2006)

> One more question - what's a typical set time for the mud before tiling?


That depends on a few things. The longer you allow the mud-bed to cure the better. It isn't unusual to be able to get back on it in twenty-four hours but not always. Atmospherics has a little to do with how the cement cures. If it is still "green" you wouldn't want to get on it. Forty-eight hours should do the trick however. This is something an installer develops a "feel for" over time but in your case you don't have that luxury. For you this will be baptism by fire but not to worry. It is easy enough to do.

The key is to get the mud flat and plane the first time around so you aren't having to do patching later. It is surprisingly easy to get the floor flat with a good sharp straightedge. In fact it's kind of fun.


----------



## Dmeyr (Nov 30, 2011)

Bud Cline said:


> If you were to add 3/4" plywood that would serve to stabilize the (untrustworthy) slats, but this would reduce your ability to add the mud screed.


Could 1/4 or 1/2" ply be used instead of the 3/4"? Seems like those could conform nicely to the existing planks while giving some more space for mud depth. Not opposed to taking back the 3/4, just more of a pain than anything else.


----------



## Bud Cline (Mar 12, 2006)

The use of 1/4" is never a recommendation based on lab testing by The Tile Council of North America. Plywood of 3/8" thickness would be the absolute minimum and it should be exterior grade Exposure 1 underlayment based on industry recommendations.

The use of SLC would be the most convenient in that case but you pay for that convenience in the cost of the products.


----------



## Dmeyr (Nov 30, 2011)

Right - was just thinking of the plywood as a way to stabilize/backup plan for the slats if any are iffy. I'm concerned about the mud bed over the 3/4" plywood - if the 3/4" is too stiff to match the existing subfloor and there are even small gaps in areas, it seems like eventually that would sag down and potentially cause issues with the mud bed and tile. 

Just unsure of if a layer of ply should be used under the mud bed - maybe 1/2" ply would be best?


----------



## Bud Cline (Mar 12, 2006)

Okay let's keep going.

Subfloors made of wood slats are common in vintage houses. They are fine for a lot of floor coverings with the exception of tile. The slats have a tendency to move in all directions as a part of their routine expansion and contraction, this is what makes them unstable from that standpoint.

The slats must be addressed in some manner prior to a tile installation. Typically the slats are tamed by the addition of plywood. In cases such as yours the old concrete "mud job" served to stabilize the tile installation because the concrete served as an isolating member of the installation. You can use either method. My biggest fear is if only the mud job is installed and installed too thin this could disrupt the tile installation. In your case you already know it didn't do so in the past so no reason to believe it would in the future. Roofing felt to serve as a slip-sheet and mesh to help stabilize the mud would work. The mud job would be the most cost-effective means of bring the floor surface back to a level condition.

However the more modern version would be to use plywood and then SLC on top, also bringing the floor back to a level condition. Less cost but more labor.


----------



## Msradell (Sep 1, 2011)

It seems like you could use pieces of ¾", ½" and ¼" plywood firmly attached (glued and screwed) basically as shims to bring the lowest areas up close to the required height. Then you could use SLC to complete the leveling. The plywood would drastically reduce how much SLC would be required.


----------



## Bud Cline (Mar 12, 2006)

> It seems like you could use pieces of ¾", ½" and ¼" plywood firmly attached (glued and screwed) basically as shims to bring the lowest areas up close to the required height. Then you could use SLC to complete the leveling. The plywood would drastically reduce how much SLC would be required.


And maybe send-out fissures and fractures and faults in various directions to further decorate the floor.


----------



## Dmeyr (Nov 30, 2011)

Well, we went the mud bed route and it is working great! My husband did all of the mixing and heavy lifting and I did the troweling and leveling. We did have to do two pours as Bud thought so there is a little patching needed at some spots where the two join. Not bad overall and was actually pretty fun. Although my husband may kill me if we ever need to move and mix 30 bags of 80lb concrete again  

Floor is solid, flat and level again. I'm especially proud of the mud stairs!!

Here's a few pics:


----------



## Bud Cline (Mar 12, 2006)

Looks excellent!

Stairs? I don't remember talking about stairs. Those stairs may not serve you well over time.


----------



## Dmeyr (Nov 30, 2011)

Didn't even think about mentioning the stairs earlier - those were mudded originally in the same way as the floor and we tore those out as well last weekend. We figured that if they had lasted 30 years in great shape like the floor that we'd just do those the same way again as well. Only time can tell at this point, 'cause they're in now! 

Thanks again for all of the help & advice!!!!http://www.diychatroom.com/images/smilies/thumbup.gif


----------



## Bud Cline (Mar 12, 2006)

If the stairs were built in a manner that they have survived for that long previously then you should be okay. Stairs however can be a particular problem and don't always survive the abuse of everyday use.


----------

