Acoustic characteristics of floor treatments for elementary school classrooms

Phase 1 of this study [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129(4), 2523 (2011)], determined the effects of hard versus soft flooring on overall speech and activity noise levels in elementary classrooms. A significant decrease in overall levels was found in carpeted rooms. This phase sought to investigate a range of...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2011-10, Vol.130 (4_Supplement), p.2388-2388
Hauptverfasser: Lesser, Ari M., Wells, Adam P., Vigeant, Michelle C., Celmer, Robert D.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Phase 1 of this study [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129(4), 2523 (2011)], determined the effects of hard versus soft flooring on overall speech and activity noise levels in elementary classrooms. A significant decrease in overall levels was found in carpeted rooms. This phase sought to investigate a range of floor materials and their pertinent properties. Nine different floor materials were mounted to 3 in. concrete slabs and evaluated using a battery of acoustic, impact, and chair scrape tests. Tested materials included vinyl composition tile, resilient rubber athletic flooring (virgin, blended/synthetic, and recycled), polyurethane, vinyl cushion tufted textile carpet, and rubber-backed commercial nylon carpet. Impedance tube measurements of sound absorption were made using International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 10534-2, while sound power measurements according to ISO 3741 were made while either (a) tapping on each mounted sample with a standard tapping machine or (b) while reciprocating an elementary classroom chair back and forth to produce repeatable scraping sounds. In general, the two carpet samples resulted in the lowest sound levels and the highest absorption. The relative performance of each material will be presented along with a discussion of additional usability factors, such as maintenance, cost, and durability. [Work supported by Paul S. Veneklasen Research Foundation.]
ISSN:0001-4966
1520-8524
DOI:10.1121/1.3654569