The University Center Meeting Room Project

By Keith Crawford, Timothy Gant, Karim Bahri, Michael Craig and Stephen Ahlgrim Audio Arts & Acoustics Independent project, spring 2013 Columbia College Chicago Faculty Advisor: Ted Uzzle

Contents -Project team -Project introduction -Measurement -Results & discussion -Deliverable suggestions -Conclusion

Project team Stephen Ahlgrim................................................Project Manager Audio Arts & Acoustics, Sound Contracting Karim Bahri..................................................Acoustical Engineer Audio Arts & Acoustics, Acoustics Keith Crawford.......................................Audio System Designer Audio Arts & Acoustics, Live and Installed Sound Timothy Gant...................................Consulting Audio Architect Audio Arts & Acoustics, Sound Contracting Michael Craig...............................................Systems Consultant Audio Arts & Acoustics, Sound Contracting

Project Introduction The University center is a multi-collegiate housing and domestic facilities complex. Within this building there are fitness rooms, housing units, entertainment rooms, laundry facilities, corporate meeting rooms and a dining hall. This complex services three universities and one college all of which are located in the surrounding south loop neighborhood of Chicago. The University Center management approached the Columbia College Chicago Audio Arts & Acoustics department in need of a solution to a very big problem in one of their conference rooms, located near the dining facility. The issue was that the noise from the kitchen and dish room could be heard through the wall of their Lake Room. This obviously interfered with the meetings and events going on in this room, especially during peak dining hours and during catering. In the beginning of the spring semester this group of 5 Columbia College Chicago students began meeting to plan out every step that would have to be taken from day one of the project to the final delivery date. Without any help from the faculty of the college they worked diligently throughout the semester: testing, analyzing, confabulating methods, and finally working together on a proposed deliverable solution At the end of the semester we are delivering the management with a legitimate plan in order to fix the issues they were coming up against.

Transmission Loss Measurement

(April 2013)

- Equipment:
Laptop with SpectraPLUS, dodecahedron loudspeaker, amplifier, Behringer ECM 8000 test microphone, Sound devices USB Pre2.

- Path:
Laptop with - Procedure: SpectraPLUS Sound Devices USB Pre2 Amplifier Dodecahedron loudspeaker Microphone test

-Procedure:
A pink noise excitation signal is generated in the dishroom and the sound levels are measured in both the source room (dishroom) and the adjacent receiving room (conference room) but not simultaneously. Using SpectraPLUS, the Team recorded about 10 seconds for each test and would then post-process the samples. The difference of the sound levels on either side of the wall is the Transmission Loss (TL) of the common partition. The same methodology is used to measure the TL between the corridor and the conference room.

Fig1. Loudspeaker and microphone positions

Fig2. Measurement setup in the corridor

Fig3. Measurement setup in the conference room (dish room side)

Fig4. Measurement setup in the conference room (corridor side)

- Results and Discussion:

What has been measured in this experiment is the loss in level of sound that has been transmitted through your conference room walls, called transmission loss. We are measuring level in decibels (dB). A higher rating indicates more loss, i.e. less noise in conference room. According to Sound Insulation Prediction (v6.3), the average transmission loss (TL) levels between the two tests give a Field Sound Transmission Class (FSTC) value of 34 (+/- 3). The FSTC is often 5 dB or so worse than laboratory STC rating. Therefore we can assume that the subject partition (wall) is actually rated around STC 39 (+/- 3).

Fig.5 Transmission Loss between the Dishroom and the Conference room

Fig.6 Transmission Loss between the Corridor and the Conference room

Since the experimenters were not provided with the wall construction material information, it is assumed that it should be similar to one of the most common wall constructions in commercial buildings, 5/8 type X gypsum board on each side with an air gap of 3.5 (88mm) and timber stud as frame type (steel studs made such little difference in our model that it was negligible for our purposes).

In fact, a hypothetical partition like this is rated at STC 37. Besides the fact that the STC values are quite similar, the global shape of the spectrum curves look quite similar. Frequency spectrum is important because the measured STC ratings for these partitions are an average across the spectrum. The concerning issues of dish noise and human speech need to be considered separately from something like the low rumble noise of a refrigerator.

Fig7. TL curves: Average measured vs. Hypothetical partition

Note: Some potential flanking paths and field measurement conditions were not taken into consideration.

-Suggestions:
The mass law offers the most easily accessible rough approximation, therefore here are some suggestions based on either adding mass or adding air space (with insulation). These suggestions reflect standard acoustical practices universally practiced. They do not account for particular products or processes carried out by specific companies. By doubling the panels on each side, the partition would be STC 48. By doubling the air gap (7/178mm) the partition would be STC 41. By adding 3 of fiberglass for insulation between the panels, the partition would be STC 48. By doubling the panels and adding 3 of fiberglass the partition would be STC 56, then would be STC 63 by doubling the timber stud. These suggestions have been drawn out for your clarity:

These options would exhibit different degrees of sound isolation in different segments of the frequency spectrum.

Fig8. TL curves: different suggestions

Fig.9 TL levels and STC of the different options

Conclusion:
The STC 63 which is the result of a double timber stud, two layers of 5/8 type X gypsum board on each side with an air gap of 3.5 (88mm), 3 of which is consumed by fiberglass (0.6 lb/ft3) seems to be the most adequate solution, however the STC 56 partition, consisting of doubling the drywall panels and filling the air gap with 3 of fiber glass, would also be an adequate solution since cost would be less and the transmission loss (TL) would be high enough at high frequencies to solve the main noise issue which is the dish noise coming from the kitchen through the wall in common with the Lake conference room.