Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1979 - 16

(a) W' and %" poly-vinyl placed on a concrete sub-floor;
(b) W' poly-vinyl mounted on individual 4' x 8' sheets %"
plywood butted together and placed on a concrete
floor;
(c) W' poly-vinyl mounted on 314" plywood placed on a soft
pine stage floor of 1 X 4 tongue and groove over 1 X 6
diagonals with 15# asp. felt between. Floor was supported by 2 X 4 sleepers on 16" O.c.;
(d) W' poly-vinyl laid directly on the stage floor noted
above;
(e) stage floor without poly-vinyl.
PROCEDURE: Dancers performed leaps and jumps, pirouettes, glissades, heel work, and character stomping.
RESUL TS: When poly-vinyl was placed directly on concrete (a), %" was discernibly more resilient than W'. When %"
plywood was placed between material and the concrete, resiliency of both W' and %" material seemed the same as with
material over concrete alone. There was a perceptible increase in resiliency when material was placed on the soft pine
stage floor (d) as opposed to the concrete. The addition of the
314" plywood (c) again produced no discernible difference.
There was a perceivable difference between the resiliency of
the pine floor without poly-vinyl and the pine floor with polyvinyl. Fatigue inducement was present in conditions (a) and
(b) but not in (c), (d), or (e).
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that both W' and %"
poly-vinyl add resiliency to whatever sub-floor may be under
them. While %" material was more resilient than W', %" over
concrete was deemed acceptable for dance conditions. (Concrete, while unsafe for leaps and active movement, seemed
totally lacking in resiliency.) The lack of perceptible differences when plywood was inserted as an added base, and a
noted difference between concrete and soft pine indicates
that the sub-floor, under certain conditions, can enhance
resiliency. With regard to fatigue inducement, it is clear that
the sub-floor is critical; poly-vinyl alone will not provide adequate cushioning.

TEST 2
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the surface characteristics of poly-vinyl were acceptable for dance footwear and
movements, whether the surface was resistant to abrasion,
and to what degree sound generation was prevented.
TEST COMPONENTS AND CONDITIONS: Same as Test 1.
PROCEDURE: Same as Test 1.
RESUL TS: In all conditions it was impossible for the dancers to slide in bare feet and in regUlar ballet slippers. Whenever bare skin touched the poly-vinyl, a "floor burn" was
easily inflicted. When toe shoes were used, turns were difficult on %" poly-vinyl but easily executed on the W' material.
The %" material was susceptible to abrasion when turns were
done in toe shoes; W' material showed no tendency toward
abrasion. Sound generation was prevented to such a degree
that any character or tap work was impossible.
CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of turns done on toe
on W' material, poly-vinyl provides a surface condition totally
unacceptable for dance in terms of bare feet or the normal
range of dance footwear.

TEST 3
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate surface characteristics relative
to normal stage action and the material's capability to lessen
foot noise.
14

Theatre Design & Technology

TEST COMPONENTS AND CONDITIONS: Student actors
in street shoes.
(a) W' and %" material placed on concrete;
(b) W' material mounted on 3/4 " plywood, placed on concrete;
(c) W' material mounted on %" plywood, placed on stage
floor noted preViously;
(d) W' material placed directly on stage floor.
PROCEDURE: Actors performed a variety of movements
with a view toward qualitative evaluation.
RESUL TS: Actor movement was uninhibited by the material in all conditions. Actors gave positive responses to polyvinyl as a surface for running, jumping, turning, rolling, and
sitting. The surfaces provided smooth, comfortable action.
Foot noise was virtually non-existent even under intense action such as running. The %" material was noted as more
resilient. Several actors noted the "comfort" of the material
and its freedom from splinters. Most, even when asked directly, did not note a difference in test conditions regarding a
change in sub-flooring.
CONCLUSIONS: As a surface on which to act, poly-vinyl
appears acceptable.

TEST 4
OBJECTIVES: To determine response to puncture and
ability to accept and hold puncturing hardware.
TEST COMPONENTS AND CONDITIONS: Poly-vinyl in
conditions (a)-(d), Test 3. Assorted screws, bolts, nails.
PROCEDURE: Poly-vinyl was punctured by screws, nails,
etc. to simulate the anchoring of scenery.
RESUL TS: Penetration of the poly-vinyl left a permanent
hole. The hole was clean, with no cracking, splitting, or tearing occurring. No other damage to the material appeared to
result from penetration. Poly-vinyl was incapable of "holding"
penetrating hardware including screws of various diameters.
CONCLUSIONS: Since penetration or puncture leaves a
permanent hole, long-term use under conditions of frequent
puncture is questionable. However, since the material is not
damaged in any way other than by the presence of a clean
hole, poly-vinyl would probably be acceptable under conditions in which infrequent puncturing occurred. If anchoring of
scenery to the floor were required, poly-vinyl would be useless unless placed over a sub-floor capable, for example, of
holding stage screws.

TEST 5
OBJECTIVES: To determine poly-vinyl's response to caster
pressure (compression set), and ability to withstand abrasion.
TEST COMPONENTS AND CONDITIONS: Poly-vinyl in
conditions (a)-(d). Test 3. 4" diameter X 1W' rubber tired
casters with loads to 400 Ibs. per caster.
PROCEDURE: Wagons, loaded to 400 lbs. per caster, were
rolled across the poly-vinyl. Swivel casters were turned in
place.
RESUL TS: Material showed no permanent deflection in
any condition of thickness or sub-floor. No abrasions resulted
from turning casters in place. Manufacturer-supplied information (noted above) indicates that with 2716 psi at 50%
compression for 72 hours, 60% recovery is immediate, 100%
recovery occurs after 72 hours.
CONCLUSIONS: As a floor surface for stage wagons,
heavy scenic units, etc. poly-vinyl is excellent.
USITT/Spring. 1979

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1979