Creating spaces that provide appropriate acoustics is crucial to the function of a school building. While acoustic solutions are often straightforward, sometimes they are not. In the case of D.C .International School (D.C.I), a creative solution was needed to ensure optimal learning without disrupting the budget.

D.C.I is a D.C. public charter school serving 1,750 middle and high school students. Because it was located in D.C., it was required to achieve LEED Gold for Schools by the D.C. Green Building Act—a point system that includes acoustic pre-requisites. The school was also challenged by limited physical space to provide fields and parking, and to meet stringent stormwater and historic preservation requirements. This impacted the placement of all communal spaces—especially the gymnasium, which needed to be full-size to serve the school’s growing sports programs. With a larger campus, D.C.I could have built a free-standing gymnasium with fewer acoustic considerations; such adjacency decisions are made in the feasibility/concept stage of design. However, space was limited and the decision was made to site the gymnasium over the science classrooms—and the challenge was on to find an acoustic solution.

The key challenge introduced by siting the gymnasium over classrooms was noise transfer. The gym was slated to be in use almost every period of the day and after school, meaning structure-borne noise would be continuously transmitted through the floor and into the learning spaces below.

The original acoustic solution proposed by the architect was a floating slab. The base building slab would be poured, and then a second slab poured, which would create an air gap between the two slabs intermediated only by springs. This solution would eliminate noticeable structure-borne noise transmission from the gym floor to the classrooms below. However, when the solution was priced by the general contractor, it added half a million dollars to the budget—an amount the school wanted to invest in other items.

This initiated a value engineering process to see if other viable acoustic solutions could be put in place. One solution, proposed by the design team led by Perkins Eastman D.C., was to move the sound isolation from the floor of the gymnasium to the ceiling of the science classrooms below. This would involve a more standard single slab construction for the gymnasium floor, and separating all suspended elements of the spaces below—ceiling, pipes, mechanical units — from the underside of the slab using springs. A spring-supported, 3-layer gypsum board isolation ceiling installed between these would further deaden noise from the gymnasium above. The acoustician had installed a similar spring-isolated acoustic ceiling at a former university client in a gym over conference rooms, and the contractor estimated that this would provide a 25% cost savings over the floating slab.

In order to choose, D.C.I toured several sites to listen in person to the impacts of varying acoustical treatments. One site visit was to a charter school that had not significantly invested in acoustical treatments between its gymnasium and the offices and music classroom below. While the sound was not noticeable in the music classrooms, staff members expressed frustration at sound transmission into their offices.

In contrast, the impact of basketballs in the gym could not be heard at the aforementioned university’s conference center—even when the collegiate athletes were actively practicing in the gymnasium above. Visiting convinced D.C.I’s Executive Director, Mary Shaffner, that this less expensive spring-isolated solution was the right answer for D.C.I.

Still, there were challenges that arose with this below-slab approach. Per code, the fire alarm sprinkler pipes could not be suspended from springs. There were also specific constructability questions that had to be worked out at later coordination meetings between the contractor and architect. The team had to find a solution that provided the acoustical separation necessary while meeting the contractor’s provided estimate as closely as possible. One compromise included attaching the above-ceiling fan coil units and sprinkler pipes with rigid connections to the gym’s concrete deck but then installing gypsum-backed acoustic ceiling tiles in lieu of standard ceiling tiles. This ultimately achieved the same level of sound isolation while saving money, as the springs were more expensive than the tiles.

The contractor provided a mock-up of the ceiling assembly system for the architect and acoustician to review prior to full installation. During the actual installation, both the architect and the acoustician conducted site visits to ensure the ceiling was being installed per the discussed specifications.

Once installed, the acoustician returned to the building to test the system. These tests showed that structure-borne noise from the gymnasium above did not exceed the level of 45 dB—the equivalent of background mechanical noise. A level of 70 dB is generally where teachers have to use raised voices, so the school’s investment in a ceiling acoustic solution resulted in not having to install any sort of vocal amplification in the science classrooms. Most importantly, it allowed both spaces to be used simultaneously. As D.C.I’s executive director Shaffner stated: “I am really impressed at the lack of sound in our Science Labs. Two PE classes can be going on in the gym and labs are going on in our science classes undisturbed.”

While D.C.I faced an extreme acoustic design challenge, the process the school went through to identify the solution helped it balance competing strategic priorities and find the best value for the cost. As existing sites are built out and become more constrained, as LEED for Schools certification becomes more prevalent, as more schools invest in amplification systems to meet the needs of students with auditory challenges, and certainly as technology becomes further integrated into classrooms, more and more schools will be faced with decisions on their level of acoustic investment. Best practices like considering adjacencies early in the process, investigating multiple options through site visits, and working with an experienced acoustician, will help.

Kate Dydak is an Assistant Project Manager with Brailsford & Dunlavey, serving as an owner’s representative for charter school construction projects in Washington, D.C.

The post Investing in Acoustics: D.C. International School’s Success Story appeared first on School Construction News.

Fortunately, firms such as Acentech, a multidisciplinary acoustical consulting firm with offices along the East Coast as well as one in Los Angeles, provide architectural acoustics, A/V design, noise control and vibration control for a variety of commercial interior settings. The firm is also deep into the educational market, including a flagship project now underway in New Haven: the new Science Building at Yale University.

The new seven-story, 277,550-square-foot, facility was designed by architecture firms Pelli Clarke Pelli and Stantec (both of which have offices in New Haven), and reimagines the existing J.W. Gibbs Laboratory into a state-of-the-art center for collaborative scientific research. The new building will include a 500-seat lecture hall, aquatics and insect labs, quantitative biology center, imaging suites, shared commons and a rooftop greenhouse. To wit, it will be loud. To address the noise, Acentech is providing highly absorptive finishes, wall construction and even mechanical system noise control.

The facility includes a large lecture hall with sophisticated audiovisual systems, including video conferencing capabilities and support for cinema presentations with surround sound and numerous meeting and collaboration spaces for building users. There will also be smaller student gathering spaces distributed among the professors’ private offices to encourage interaction between faculty and students in an organic manner.

Chief among the concerns Acentech is addressing is the possibility of sounds emanating from one environment wreaking havoc on another. Sensitive laboratory equipment that is susceptible to noise or the vibrations certain noises can produce can become problematic to a variety of research situations. Acentech’s collective, holistic approach to acoustics, A/V, IT infrastructure and security systems will endeavor to mitigate the possibility that such disturbances. For example, video projectors are notorious for their buzzing or the wheezing of their cooling fans — a minor, if an irritating issue on most occasions, but then, most occasions don’t involve an electron microscope and researchers doing delicate research work. Interference on that level can interfere with the validity and accuracy of work being done, which is unacceptable to a center of higher education of Yale’s caliber.

In a report filed by the National Institutes of Health technical bulletin, several factors must be evaluated to determine whether the overall environment for an electromagnetic microscope meets the equipment operating conditions. “Vibration, noise, temperature control, pressure differentials, electrical equipment magnetic fields and radio frequency noise” are among them.

“We are proud of our strong reputation in the education marketplace and truly enjoy collaborating with our clients in school communities,” said Acentech President Jeffrey Zapfe in a statement. “As consultants, when you create a connection with your clients and understand the why of a project, the process becomes far more meaningful and successful. We are extremely proud of these projects and look forward to seeing these facilities contribute to and inspire the education of future generations of students.”

Completion of the Science Building at Yale University is expected by the end of 2019.

The post Of Sound Mind: Acentech Brings Sound Isolation to Yale’s New Science Building appeared first on School Construction News.

Q: How did Acentech decide to move into this particular niche? It’s such an obvious problem, and yet it seems like there are few companies that tackle it. What’s the backstory?

Zapfe: Institutions have always had an interest in protecting their stakeholders from construction vibration and noise. Prior to the Internet, monitoring systems were largely historical records of what happened. But with the arrival of the Internet and with the advent of reliable “remote desktop” applications, it became possible to collect, process and communicate data in real time. Our first remote monitoring project started more than 10 years ago. By our current standards it was pretty basic — we essentially logged onto a remote PC that was running a commercial data acquisition system. We could see the data in real time, but we had no alarm capability. That first project, however, showed us the great benefit that monitoring could provide to our clients. Since then our systems have grown in terms of both measurement and communication capability. One of our clients summed up the value of monitoring as “peace of mind.” When she wasn’t getting alarms, she knew everything was okay.

Q:When beginning construction on an occupied campus, how has sound pollution been handled in the past — or has it? What unique strategies does Acentech deploy?

Zapfe: Typically, before remote monitoring technology, a construction noise study would begin with a model to determine what areas, if any, are likely to be impacted. These models take into account the type of equipment to be used as well as topography and building structures (buildings can shield other buildings from sound). Once the potential impacts are understood, mitigation strategies can be employed. These can range from temporary noise walls to additional glazing on windows, to moving sensitive receivers to another location.

Once the construction began, monitors would be installed to measure the noise. But these monitors were only historical records; they did not provide data in real time unless someone was there to observe the output directly. If real-time information was needed, it invariably involved a live person with a sound level meter.

The arrival of computers and modem technology did provide real-time capability, but these systems were cumbersome to use and the data rates were very limited. The high-speed Internet and Wi-Fi technology exploded the possibilities for noise monitoring systems. Increased data rates and web access pages make it possible to transfer large amounts of data and to share it widely.  

Today, Acentech uses a technology called Remote Monitoring where systems are deployed in sensitive facilities near construction sites and stream data in real time over the Internet. These are not traditional vibration monitors that are used to protect buildings from damage — our systems measure vibrations that are much smaller and can affect a sensitive piece of equipment or sensitive activity inside a building. The measured data is extremely important, and provides managers, administrators, researchers and construction personnel with vibration and noise information in real time, enabling them to anticipate problems in critical situations, implement mitigating actions, document problematic events and account for the effects of such events on research.

Q: Vibrations can be disruptive, and in California (where they are often mistaken for earthquakes), how can they be mitigated?

Zapfe: In many cases, there are lower vibration options for construction (vibratory versus impact pile driving, hoe-ramming versus blasting, etc.). But generally, lower vibration methods take more time and are usually more expensive. The balance between project cost and disruption to neighboring adjacencies is an important issue that needs to be carefully considered. Ultimately, however, the construction has to take place and, at some time, someone is likely going to be affected by the vibration and noise. Here, communication is key. If users know when the disruptive activity is going to take place, they can generally work around it. The one thing that people hate is being surprised. Letting people know early on what they can expect from the project and keeping them in the loop during the project can make the experience much more tolerable.

Q: Acentech recently worked with the New England Conservatory — what was the nature of the project?

Zapfe: Preserving the use of rehearsal and performance spaces of a music school less than 10 feet from a large-scale demolition between Northeastern University and the New England Conservatory. The construction of a new 17-story residence hall on the campus of Northeastern University involved knocking down part of the YMCA facility on Huntington Avenue. Since the New England Conservatory is an abutter to the site — at a distance of 18 inches at its closest point — the demolition raised concerns for the conservatory, which houses sensitive spaces including music instruction rooms, recording studios and performance space in Brown Hall, Williams Hall and Jordan Hall.

To help protect performance and student use of the conservatory from airborne and structurally radiated noise intrusions, Acentech worked with the conservatory and the developer to establish construction-related noise and vibration thresholds. Acentech installed real-time monitoring systems, which provide live feedback and alerts to the construction superintendent and conservatory, notifying of a breach in predetermined noise or vibration levels. Acentech placed its monitoring systems at five noise sensor positions on the roof and two vibration sensor positions on the foundation of the conservatory building directly below critical listening and performance spaces. The real-time monitoring systems have allowed construction to continue and the conservatory to operate in a compatible and cooperative manner.

The post Q&A: Architectural Acoustics Specialists Acentech Are of ‘Sound Mind’ appeared first on School Construction News.

The post Wyoming Facilities Director Builds More than Schools appeared first on School Construction News.