"TradeIn.com has been providing quality office furniture to our clients
since 1985"
___________________________________________________
Products
| Specials
| Contact Us|
Our Company
| Facilities
Infrastructure Technology
|
Office
Products
Weekly Specials Our
Company
|
The following is excerpts from a case study on acoustics. The sources of this file include the following: Mooreland, J.B., “Speech Privacy Evaluations in Open Plan Offices using the Articulation Index,” Noise Control Engineering Journal (July/August 1989). ASTM Committee E-33 on Environmental Acoustics Del Gaudio, ed., Planning and Design the Office Environment. Harris, David A., “Acoustic Ergonomics: A Challenge for the 90’s,” Facility Management Journal (May/June 1991). Controlling open-plan acoustics is difficult; sorting it out requires starting with the problem—or rather the problems. Regardless of the particulars, the experts have determined that controlling open-plan acoustics always comes back to controlling the same three acoustical problems: sound level, speech intelligibility, and sound paths. Because sound paths act like light waves—i.e., they spread out spherically, in many directions, on all planes at once—the most workstation panels can ever do is act something like a lampshade. No matter how large a portion of sound wave a systems panel can corral, there will always be portions left free to leap over, creep under, bend around or seep through those panels—continuing on their way in search of someone to disturb. While hang-on components like flipper door units can increase the acoustical shape of panels, they also cut down on the sound absorbency of those panels. Clearly, panels with no hang on components have a lot more surface area available to absorb sound waves than do those that carry flipper door units, work surfaces, work organizers, tack boards, and filing drawers or cabinets. As workstations become more compact, these hang on components now create a larger proportion of a shrinking amount of panel surface, undercutting the absorption capabilities of the panel that carry them. (Worksurfaces in particular are positioned between the speakers face and the lower portion of the panel. They render those lower portions totally ineffective as acoustical elements). It is even more difficult to control acoustics than this example demonstrates. That’s because open-plan spaces can vary so much in architectural and design elements—among them room dimensions; ceiling height and structure; placement and structure of lighting fixtures; floor and wall coverings; and number, size and placement of windows and doors. Most of these elements are usually set by the time anyone starts thinking about acoustics. Changing that mix changes what’s ultimately feasible in terms of good speech privacy. The acoustical experts have learned how little acoustical difference panels make if the other required elements are not present. They also recognize that panels are not the most important factor: Ceiling height, ceiling absorbency, and the sound-masking system are all more critical to speech privacy than are panels. In addition, and perhaps the most important, the panel height, the distance between speaker and listener, the sound-masking system, and the panel’s sound blocking ability are all more important to speech privacy than is panel absorbency. **For a complete copy of this article, please contact Ben Maxwell (800)434-7400
___________________________________________________ Products | Specials | Contact Us| Our Company| Facilities Infrastructure Technology ___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________ |
