ABSTRACT
From the beginning we knew that simply laying the tiles on the wood directly would most likely not provide the perfect amount of support. IBC, a Danish brick and tile manufacturer, provided us with samples of all of their tiles so that we could select those that would perform best. e Director of Operations from IBC, Mr. Bentzen, considered it an impossible task for us to build an atypical surface with the tiles mounted the opposite direction from usual. e fact that we intended people to walk and dance on these when they are not generally durable enough for this even in a standard installation made him laugh at us good-humoredly. Nonetheless, he gave us a memorable tour of the tile and brick manufacturing facility just outside Copenhagen and when we had made our decision on which tile to use, IBC delivered to the suburban job-site two pallets of roof tiles. In analysis of our tile choice we had originally been drawn to a glossy black glazed roong tile that was signicantly harder and more stylish (Figure 5.14). However, we found that the tile was much more dangerous with wet feet, much hotter in the sun, and far less like a beach then nearly any other choice in their catalog. In the end an unglazed yellow tile met every need, and while the locals told us that the black tiles were in fashion, those who followed these sorts of things speculated that the unglazed yellow was the up-and-coming trend anyway, due to their higher albedo value. Although we carefully selected the lumber and even the angle with which it was mounted to complement the shape of the tiles, there was still an asymmetrical lip on the underside to lock onto neighboring tiles and also variations in manufacturing which the lumber could not easily support (Figure 5.15). So we added closed cell polyethylene foam pipe insulation on top of each raegters (Figure 5.16). is material was perfect because it came pre-split, was readily available and inexpensive. We found that by simply wrapping it on top of each board when the tile was placed on top, it was able to rest nearly in contact with the board and ensured that all of the underside surface of the tile’s “peak” was supported and cushioned from footfalls. We tested a number of foams before settling on one that made adequate contact when relaxed and when stepped on; the optimum solution for support (Figure 5.17). During construction we periodically walked and even stomped on the surface to test the strength of our design (Figure 5.18). We found that while it was adequate in most cases, there were still instances in certain acute situations where the joining angle was less than 160 degrees where the pressure from the tiles pushing
edgewise on one another combined with walking would crack the edges or corners o the tiles repeatedly. To x this, we shaved the tiles or created special shims to add a mere 2-4mm of support to prevent this unique condition from occurring. In those situations it was less a matter of total force and more a question of the force being focused on very specic regions relentlessly. Another problem we found aer construction was that in those same acute joints there would be further cracks along the tops and bottoms of the ripples. ese cracks were remediated by removing all uphill tiles from the rupture and attaching small tabs on top of the laegters that prevented the tiles from sliding down and multiplying their force on the bottom tiles. It is worth mentioning that all of the nal steps in preparing the surface were easily accomplished because the tiles were never attached to the structure, they were simply laid on top in a lapped fashion allowing for easy replacement if one were to be broken in the future (Figure 5.19).
