Sofa tables. Again.

I'm about to start on a pair of sofa tables. They are to look like this:

formatting link

I have three possibilities for the inset black areas...

  1. 3/8" black granite tiles, weight about 2.3 lbs./sq.ft

  1. 1/2" soapstone tiles, weight about 9.2 lbs./sq.ft.

  2. 1/2" ply plus laminate or 1/2" mel board, weight about 2 lbs./sq.ft. for the mel, less for ply

Each possible choice presents problems. My preference would be for the soapstone - even though it is much more costly - because it isn't much more difficult to work than wood which means I could easily get a flush surface between it and the wood surround. The problem is the weight...using it, each table would weigh 150 pounds or more. Not real easy to move to clean around.

The problem with the granite or mel/laminate is in getting it and the surrounding surface flush. Can't sand so that means plane/scrape/router trim, all of which are possible, just a bit of a PITA. There will be a shimming underlay under the tile so I'd be able to get it pretty close so the leveling of the wood surround would be minimal. Still, I'd really prefer the soapstone; maybe I'll do it and just forget about moving them to clean :)

I'd really appreciate comments/suggestions from y'all.

Reply to
dadiOH
Loading thread data ...

On 10/19/2016 8:51 AM, dadiOH wrote: ...

...

I fail to grasp the "why" of the difficulty -- unless the proposed material isn't uniform thickness, perhaps?

Reply to
dpb

Big fan of soapstone as well...if it makes a difference, you might want to check your weights again tho...I don't believe the difference in densities between soapstone and granite is that great (I think your granite number is low)

Reply to
bnwelch

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 8:50:20 AM UTC-5, dadiOH wrote: The problem is the weight...using it,

A possible remedy for moving the furniture, is apply felt casters, for hardwood flooring, or vinyl casters, for carpet.

Sonny

Reply to
Sonny

On 10/19/2016 9:02 AM, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote: ...

Yeah, and in fact soapstone is a little more dense than granite despite being softer.

I get something otoo 7.0-7.5 lb/ft2 and closer to 6 for the granite on checking....

Reply to
dpb

On 10/19/2016 9:01 AM, dpb wrote: ...

If it is that, or you're just not wanting to use the precision in setting and cutting a rabbet depth needed, the "trick" to leveling the tiles in situ would be to drill and tap for leveling screws at the corners. You can then "tweak" in minute amounts and account for variations in thickness at heart's content to match whatever is the finished height of the rail.

I do essentially the same thing when mounting the RAS or chopsaw in a long bench--support the saw frame on adjusting levelers that can be locked down so don't have to construct the benchtop itself precisely to match the saw.

Reply to
dpb

I'd go with what looks best.

My reasoning: Little extra effort now, but years of enjoyment later. Moving for cleaning can be made easier with the appropriate feet for the floor. Maybe twice a year you have to slide them out.

I'm not sure why one is more difficult that the other to level.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

On 10/19/2016 9:25 AM, dpb wrote: ...

And, one last comment re: the weight...I'm guessing the end result would be well over 200 lb each with either stone option you've outlined and that there's not enough bulk in the frame to keep it from sagging without center supports just as an initial design thought.

I think with time you'd find the weight to be more of a hindrance -- it'll get harder and harder to do anything with 'em as age which just may be a consideration depending on the house layout and all...not a deal breaker, probably, just a thought to consider longer-term.

Lastly, what strikes me is that if you were really serious re: the soapstone and willing to invest the money, I'd talk to a local cabinet shop and see if they couldn't either fabricate on site or order in thin veneer tiles instead of the full thickness. For the table top that would not be subject to heavy loading or (presumably) impact, with proper backing a much thinner piece of material would be more than strong enough and cut the weight significantly. "It's only money!" :)

Reply to
dpb

I checked again, you're right. I was looking at kg; pound weight is about

5.4 lb/sq.ft.
Reply to
dadiOH

I got the 9+ for soapstone by weighing a few of the tiles I last used (recently).

Reply to
dadiOH

There are beefy center supports.

I'm 83 now. Which is why I'm worrying :)

I have been unable to find any source for thinner tiles. It isn't even all that easy to find soapstone vendors that sell tile, most are focused on slabs. However, skinnying them down is a distinct possibility, wouldn't be all that hard on my drum sander. AAMOF, I've done just that with Saltillo tiles - soft but way harder than soapstone - when I needed thinner pieces. Thanks for the input.

Reply to
dadiOH

Unfortunately, that isn't possible in our case because all the floors are Saltillo tile. I had to work out a leveling mechanism so that I'll be able to keep them from rocking. Thanks for the idea though.

Reply to
dadiOH

I'm seeing custom glass - perhaps etched - price it out here -

formatting link

My rough estimate ran to ~ $ 350. ... .. per each 12 x 72 piece ! Yikes. .. it would look nice, though. John T.

Reply to
hubops

On 10/19/2016 11:30 AM, dadiOH wrote: ...

That'd work but be wasteful of material...I was thinking of a custom fabrication starting with the 5/4 cabinet stock on hand. Essentially, it's a resawing operation. Actually, with a carbide blade if you had a sufficient bandsaw you might be able to do it with the existing tiles altho that's getting a little on the marginal side to expect, probably.

Reply to
dpb

Although one might argue that lb/ft2 is not a precise unit of measurement as weight is a function of mass(volume), not area. Given that the tiles referred to in the OP had different thicknesses, lb/ft3 is the proper unit of measurement for comparison.

Reply to
Scott Lurndal

On 10/19/2016 12:41 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote: ...

Excepting we had the square footage to be covered not the volume of the total tiles. Hence, to get a total weight we needed the weight/sq-ft. of the tiles(*). That measure includes the thickness of the material implicitly so it's perfectly accurate (or at least as accurate as the overall weight and dimensions will allow).

(*) Or, equivalently, he could have told us how many tiles he was going to use and the total weight of an individual tile.

Reply to
dpb

Can't beat empirical evidence... :)

I was recollecting using ~20 lb-psf for computing cabinet supporting structure requirements, etc, and backed it down to 19 as being, I thought I remembered, closer to actual for most material. Those were

5/4 slabs, of course. The 9 would seem to be on the high end of the weight range but not ridiculously so (and I'm certainly not going to argue with your scales :) ). 9*2*5/4 --> 22.5 or 10%
Reply to
dpb

For me, the chance of that working would be zero.

Reply to
dadiOH

That's a much more vigorous YIKE even than that for soapstone tiles which are $10 each. Plus freight. Freight was about $200 for 33 tiles.

Reply to
dadiOH

Probably the easiest and less stressful is to NOT have the wood frame the same height as the stone. I would have the stone slightly recessed.

Reply to
Leon

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.