The 32nd International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering Jeju International Convention Center, Seogwipo, Korea,

August 25-28, 2003

[N543] Ways to Improve the Acoustic Comfort in an Open Plan Solution.

Nils-ke Andersson

Affiliation: Saint-Gobain Ecophon AB P.O.Box 500, SE-260 61 Hyllinge, Sweden Email address:nilsake.andersson@ecophon.se

ABSTRACT In Europe the use of open plan solutions has increased dramatically over the past decade. High demands are made on the room acoustic environment if acceptable acoustic comfort is to be achieved. There is on one hand a need to have enough speech intelligibility for local discussions and phone calls and on the other hand to have some level of privacy. A good acoustic environment in open plan areas is dependent on many factors. These can be the sound absorbing properties of the different surfaces, the effectiveness of screens (barriers), the layout of the premises and peoples proximity to each other. This paper focuses on a study of the surfaces located above the workplaces and the interaction between those surfaces and screens. Laboratory measurements were carried out in order to evaluate the performance of different suspended ceilings according to ASTM E-1110 and E-1111 (expressed as the AC-value). A laboratory-like mockup area was also set up to study additional measures that could be taken to improve privacy. It was apparent that the acoustic comfort in terms of privacy is very dependent on the sound absorbing properties of the ceiling and the effectiveness of the screen. The study also shows that additional measures, such as free-hanging sound absorbing units, can further improve privacy. KEYWORDS: Acoustic comfort, Articulation class, Open plan offices, Privacy. Open plan offices, Privacy, INTRODUCTION In Europe and many other parts of the world the use of open plan solutions has increased dramatically over the past decade. Open plan solutions are often based on the belief that, within a department, openness between workplaces stimulates communication and the sharing of information. In addition such solutions provide considerable flexibility, resulting in easier adaptation to reorganisation; this is especially valuable in project oriented businesses. Another belief is that investments can be reduced by accommodating a larger number of the employees and by spending less on the construction of workplaces, in comparison with the construction of more traditional private, closed offices.

Open plan solutions, however make high demands on the acoustic environment if an acceptable level of acoustic comfort is to be achieved. There is a paradox, on one hand you need good enough speech intelligibility to allow personal discussion and phone calls and, on the other hand, you need a reasonable level of privacy. If two people, each at their own workplace, can clearly hear each others conversation, they may feel disturbed and uncomfortable. Many people in open plan environments complain about disturbance and annoyance due to poor acoustics. A number of studies [1] show that people working in open offices can experience stress, frustration and even physiological effects (strains, heart rate, etc). Some researchers even suggest that, if negative stress is to be avoided, our brains need periods of rest from annoying sounds during the course of a workday. Other researchers [2] show that, if there is a lack of privacy, it is possible that more complex work, needing higher concentration, will be performed less effectively, with more errors occurring. BACKGROUND A room with many reflective, hard surfaces and little sound absorption will result in an unfavourable environment in which sounds bounce around and take a long time to fade. This increases the noise level and decreases speech intelligibility. Sound propagation will also disturb employees, both across larger distances as well as at workplaces that are close to each other. It is therefore necessary to put a lot of efforts into the development of good acoustic solutions in open plan environments. Good acoustic comfort involves strengthening wanted sounds where speech intelligibility is needed and, at the same time, eliminating or minimising unwanted sounds, so that they are not perceived as disturbing. Better knowledge of workplace design suggests that good acoustics can be achieved through means of short reverberation time, low background noise level, appropriate layout and good organisation of work. In the field of acoustics the main tools for creating acceptable solutions in open plan environments are the following: Prevention of sound propagation over large distances. Acoustic ceilings with very high level of sound absorption. Sound absorbing furniture, screens and other interior fittings. Sound absorbing partition, facade wall cladding and sound absorbing carpet (if accepted).

By taking the above into account it is possible to create an acoustic environment that, to a certain extent, satisfies the employees needs, both with regards to their interaction with colleagues and to their own level of privacy. It must be emphasised here, however, that for more demanding work and for people, who are sensitive to disturbance, separate private offices are preferable. Such offices should have a reasonable level of sound insulation, both for the sake of wellbeing as well as for employee efficiency. Quiet rooms should, at least, be widely available for employees to move into if and when required. This paper focuses on a study of the effect of different surfaces located above the workplaces and also the interaction between those surfaces and the screens separating the workplaces.

EVALUATION QUANTITIES Speech intelligibility is probably the most common way of expressing the level of clarity with which spoken words can be understood. For acoustic comfort, good speech intelligibility is essential in meeting rooms as well as in other, more spontaneous meeting places. Nowadays it is mainly measured as the STI-value (Sound Transmission Index) according to IEC 6026816. It is a measurement between two points in a room and takes into account the influence of the conditions of the room on the transfer of sound within a wide frequency range. In the past, when computer capacity was lower, another quantity was often used, the RASTI-value (Rapid Speech Transmission Index). This took considerably fewer frequencies into account in the calculation. Lack of speech intelligibility can be used as a simple mean to describe privacy, however a more sophisticated quantity exists, taking into account the importance of each frequency and giving the Articulation Class. Speech privacy is a term used to estimate how people can work and not be disturbed at a certain workplace, taking two different situations into account. One is how much disturbance other people cause and the other is with what degree of confidentiality a person can have a discussion or carry on telephone conversation at his workplace. In the ASTM system, a series of standards dealing with this evaluation has been developed. For evaluation of a complete room configuration, including background noise levels, ASTM E 1130 gives direction for measuring and calculating the AI-value (Articulation index), from which the Privacy is achieved. To support this standard at product and laboratory level, there is a standard guide for open office acoustics, ASTM 1374, giving an overview of standards for different types of products. In this overview, ASTM E 1111 [3] deals with suspended acoustic ceilings, ASTM E 1375 deals with acoustical office screens or barriers and ASTM E 1376 deals with wall finishes or other furniture panels. These three standards give directions for measuring the interzone attenuation between different positions in a laboratory mock-up and for calculating the nominal interzone attenuation at different frequencies from 200 Hz up to 5000 Hz. Another standard, ASTM E 1110 [4], gives directions for calculating the AC values (Articulation Class). Measurement of the AC value is important, in order to evaluate the performance of different ceilings in open plan offices and thus to evaluate the level of speech privacy. PERFORMED INVESTIGATIONS Several laboratory measurements have been carried out over the last years to evaluate the performance of different suspended ceiling systems expressed as AC values, all in a standardised room set up according to ASTM E 1111, certified by UL (Underwriters Laboratories). To study additional measures for improvement of the AC value and thus for achievement of better conditions for a high level of speech privacy, a laboratory-like mock-up area was used. The additional measures were so-called FHUs (Free Hanging Units), meaning that the normal suspended, acoustic ceiling was supplemented with additional sound absorbers (FHUs) that hang below the suspended ceiling. These FHUs were tested in different sizes, position and configurations. Measurements were performed as in ASTM E 1111, but with some additions and deviations.

TEST ROOM SET-UP The laboratory mock-up was close to that specified by ASTM E-1111 and the following factors were applicable: Length of room: 11.58 metres. Width of room: 5.67 metres. Height of room: 3.45 metres. The test room was fitted with a wall-to-wall acoustic ceiling with high sound absorption, Absorption Class A according to EN ISO 11654. Surrounding walls were covered with highly absorptive panels in order to simulate an open plan solution and the floor was covered with a sound absorbing carpet. The screens used were 1.5 metres high, had a 22 mm chipboard core and had highly absorptive surfaces. For the additional measures the Class A sound absorbing suspended ceiling system was supplemented with FHUs with equivalent sound absorbing properties, size 2.4 x 2.4 m and installed underneath in different configurations. The following situations were examined (Fig. 1):

Fig. 1 Five test configurations (S = sending side, R = receiving side).

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Without FHU and without screen. Without FHU but with screen. With FHU above receiving side and with screen. With FHU above sending side and with screen. With FHU on both sides and with screen.

For each configuration objective measurement of the interzone attenuation was performed as well as a subjective listening test for assessment of speech privacy. MEASUREMENT AND CALCULATION DESCRIPTION Measurement Procedure The standard measurement according to ASTM E 1111 will not be described here; the details can be found in the standard. However, the laboratory mock-up (Fig. 2) is, in many respects, in accordance with the standard and will be described here, as will the calculation of the interzone attenuation.

Fig. 2 Test room cut view (soffit height = 3,45 m)

The loudspeaker was situated 1.80 m from the screen position. The output from the loudspeaker was determined as the average of three measurements at distances of 0.60, 0.90 and 1.20 m from the loudspeaker. The height over the floor was 1.2 m. At the receiving side the sound pressure levels were measured every 0.30 m between 2.1 and 4.2 m from the source. In addition to these positions a measurement at a distance of 6.9 m was performed. All microphone positions were in this case also 1.2 m above the floor. The interzone attenuation is the difference between the sound pressure level at the reference position and the level measured at a receiving point. Interzone attenuation is calculated for each one-third octave band in the frequency range 200-5000 Hz. The nominal interzone attenuation at a specified point is calculated as the mean value for the point in question and two adjacent positions, 0.3 m to either side. AC Calculation According to ASTM E 1110 the articulation Class (AC) is calculated from the nominal interzone attenuation (in dB) by multiplying the nominal interzone attenuation at each frequency with a weighting factor, and adding them together. The weighting factors used for the calculation come from ANSI S 3.5, giving the fraction of overall speech intelligibility contained within the associated one-third octave frequency band. These weighting factors are determined for a male voice, at normal voice level, the language being American. Each calculated AC value is rounded off to the nearest multiple of 10. The lowest of the calculated AC values may be presented as the minimum articulation class, being the worst case, without stating the distance or location RESULTS AC Measurement A wide range of different sound absorbing ceilings, based on different types of material, has already previously been tested for the Articulation Class (AC value). Below is a table showing some of the main findings.

Type of product Micro perforated painted surface on 40 mm glass wool core Micro perforated painted surface on 20 mm glass wool core Fissured patterned painted surface on 16 mm wet-felt core Perforated 13 mm plaster board with acoustic tissue back Painted reflective surface on 40 mm glass wool core
Table1 Articulation Class (AC values).

AC value 200 180 150 150 130

From experience an AC value of at least 190 is recommended in order to be able to achieve a reasonable level of speech privacy in an open plan office. This value can nowadays be attained with products that are universally available to reasonable costs. Products with AC values over 200 are very rare. Measurement with Additional Measures In a room, such as the mock-up with very absorptive surrounding surfaces, it is obvious that the addition of a screen between two workplaces (configuration 2) will dramatically improve the sound attenuation, resulting in improved speech privacy. As seen in the diagram (Fig. 3) below, the AC value is more than doubled [5], increasing from 70 to 180. If we instead use the measure LpA, which is more easily recognisable, the improvement is only about 8 dB in both listening positions. This can be seen in table 2 below.

Fig.3 AC (Articulation Class) results for the five measurement configurations - good speech privacy is achieved for AC values above 190.

1 2 3 4 5

Sound pressure level difference (sender - receiver) - LpA Position 2 Position 1 (distance 2.7 m) 10,6 16,3 19,0 23,7 21,9 24,2 21,5 25,4 23,6 24,8
Table 2 Improvement of interzone attenuation in dB.

If a FHU unit is added above the source (configuration 4), further improvements are achieved. The AC value increases significantly and reaches 210, which is extremely high. The improvement measured as LpA, is only a few dB, which only shows how inaccurate LpA is for such evaluations. Configuration 3 and 4 also confirm the experience from practice that measures taken closer to the source are much more effective. In the last test configuration FHUs are installed on both the sending and receiving sides (configuration 5) in order to achieve maximum improvement. The AC value increased to an incredible 220 but LpA only by a few dB when the listening position was closer to the source. DISCUSSION An acoustic ceiling system with a high level of sound absorption or high articulation class (AC 190) decreases sound propagation in an open office solution, so that employees do not disturb one another across long distances. It also creates favorable speech conditions, since the voice can be kept low when talking to people near the workplace. All in all, this will contribute to improved privacy at workplaces located further away. The experiments tend also to confirm the difficulty in achieving a sufficiently high level of speech privacy in open plan offices, since speech intelligibility is very good locally (near the source). This problem can probably only be solved if quiet rooms are available, when people need privacy for different reasons. The addition of screens, in an environment with an effective acoustic ceiling, means that people can experience some level of privacy much closer to the source. An absorbing screen is therefore a good complement to an acoustic ceiling. However, note that a screen will only be effective in this combination; it will have a very limited effect without a good acoustic ceiling. By adding free hanging units the experiments show that it is possible to reduce sound propagation so much that the AC value is dramatically improved also close to the source. In real conditions, where some background noise is always present, this means that a certain level of speech privacy or acoustic comfort is achieved. This also means that moderately complex work can be performed without intrusive disturbance, and that it is possible to converse with a certain degree of confidentiality. It also means, of course, that people who are sensitive for one reason or another can adapt more easily to such working conditions in open plan solutions.

CONCLUSION This study is of interest in connection with the design of open plan offices. It shows that the acoustic comfort in terms of speech privacy is very dependent on the sound absorbing properties of the acoustic ceiling system and on the effectiveness of the screens. The study also shows that additional measures, such as free hanging sound absorbing units, can be valuable complements to a good acoustic ceiling in open plan offices, thereby resulting in further improvement of the environment for the employees. They also increase the possibility for people to have better interaction with colleagues at workplaces nearby. Further investigations are needed to assess details for the free hanging units and their interaction with nearby interior components. This may concern the height, size, shape or acoustic properties of the free hanging units or their distance to surrounding elements, such as screens. Additional studies are planned to be carried out in 2003. REFERENCES
1. G.W.Evans, D.Johnson, ;Stress and Open Office Noise; Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 779783 (2000). 2. N.D.Weinstein, ;Effect of Noise on Intellectual Performance; Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 548-554 (1974). 3. ASTM, ; E 1111-92, Test Method for Measuring the Interzone Attenuation of Ceiling Systems; (1996). 4. ASTM, ; E 1110-86, Standard Classification for Determination of Articulation Class; (1994). 5. SP (Swedish National Testing and Research Institute), ; Report P103057-B, Simplified test for determination of Interzone attenuation and Articulation Class; (2001).