Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 16

David Sklar Kiockdown Center Preliminary Acoustics Review

Report | February 12, 2014

This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party.

Job number


Ove Arup & Partners P.C. 77 Water Street New York NY 10005 United States of America www.arup.com


David Sklar

Knockdown Center Preliminary Acoustics Review

Document Verification


Job title

Knockdown Center Preliminary Acoustics Review

Job number

Document title File reference

Document ref Revision Date Filename Description

2013_02_03_R01_KnockdownCenter_AcousticsReview.docx Final Report


Feb 3, 2014

Prepared by Name Signature

Checked by

Approved by

Dave Rife

Dave Rife

Raj Patel

Final Report ROl


Feb 12, 2014


Prepared by Name Signature

Checked by

Approved by

Dave Rife

Dave Rife

Raj Patel



| S\

Issue Document Verification with Document

I Report | February 12, 2014 | Ove Arup & Partners P.C.

David Sklar

Knockdown Center Preliminary Acoustics Review

Executive Summary
We conducted environmental noise measurements in the vicinity of the Knockdown Center site. Assessment of noise impact from very loud amplified sound events such as rock, hip-hop, or DJ gigs have the potential to exceed NYC DEP Noise code limits at low frequencies specifically. Moderate amplified events are unlikely to exceed noise code limits. We would recommend that Knockdown Center put in place measures in order to be able to control overall sound level, and to modify frequency specific levels to avoid noise code violations or fines. The alternative would be to add an additional mass heavy construction around the existing building, with an appropriate air space between the two structures at the roof and upper level. It is understood that the owners would like to expose as much of the existing building as possible in terms of interior finishes. This will likely result in room acoustic conditions that will be overly reverberant for good quality music experiences, compared to other venues that have live shows as their primary revenue generating source. If reverberation control is desired at any point, we recommend incorporating 4-in. thick sound absorbing treatment distributed evenly over at least 50% of the ceiling area. As much of the upper brick wall separating the two main event spaces should be removed as possible. A direct line of sight should be maintained between the back of one room and the upper wall of the other, in order to maintain good loudspeaker coverage to the whole floor for 6,000 person events. Mechanical systems noise is currently NC55-60 with the unit heaters on. We would usually recommend NC30-35 in amplified music event space or for exhibition/performance spaces. Other back of house spaces would ideally be in the range of NC40-45.

| Report | February 12, 2014 | Ove Arup & Partners P.C.

Page 1

David Sklar

Knockdown Center Preliminary Acoustics Review

Arup was contracted by David Sklar to carry out a desk based study to investigate key aspects of Knockdown Center (52-19 Flushing Avenue, Flushing New York 11378) - specifically existing conditions, design, and operations as a venue for amplified music. Areas of investigation include: sound isolation relative to the New York City Noise Code room acoustics recommendations MEP systems background noise

This report summarizes our findings based on noise measurements and observations made on and around the site, and our desk based study.

Sound Isolation
2.1 New York Citv Noise Code
The 2005 New York City Noise (NYCNC) code states the following requirements for commercial music: 24-231 Commercial music, (a) No person shall make or cause or permit to be made or caused any music originating from or in connection with the operation of any commercial establishment or enterprise when the level of sound attributable to such music, as measured inside any receiving property dwelling unit: (1) is in excess of 42 dB(A) as measured with a sound level meter; or (2) is in excess of 45 dB in any one-third octave band having a center frequency between 63 hertz and 500 hertz (ANSI bands numbers 18 through 27, Inclusive), in accordance with American National Standards Institute standard SI.6-1984; or (3) causes a 6 dB(C) or more increase in the total sound level above the ambient sound level as measured in decibels in the "C" weighting network provided that the ambient sound level is in excess of 62 dB(C).


Existing Conditions

The closest residential properties to the Knockdown Center are on 54th street, across the street of the site perimeter to the northeast. The dwellings are two story buildings with windows facing the Knockdown Center site, and are approximately 90 feet from residential window to the main part of the building that would house large rock/pop/dance events. Figures 1 and 2 show plan and perspective views of the geometric relationship between the residential building and the Knockdown Center venue.

| Report | February 12, 2014 | Ove Arup & Partners P.C.

Page 2

Knockdown Center Preliminary Acoustics Review

vi , \
\ - ,

* V % w *

Figure 1: Site Plan View with Venue and Closest Residential Building





.; a"


Figure 2: Perspective View from Closest Residential Window to Venue

I Report | February 12, 2014 | Ove Arup & Partners P.C.

Page 3

Knockdown Center Preliminary Acoustics Review

Perimeter measurements of 2-minute duration were conducted on 20 December, 2013 between the hours of 4:00-5:00pm. The neighboring background noise levels are shown in Figure 3.
Knockdown Center - Site Background Noise


g 20.0

10.0 i

1. Flushing Avenue near Entrance - 71 dB(A) Leq 2. 54th St @ Residential - 71 dB(A) Leq 3. 54th St @ corner of RR tracks - 70 dB(A) Leq 4. SW Corner of Interior Site - 51 dB(A) Leq 5. NW Corner of Interior Site - 55 dB(A) Leq


Frequency (Hz)

'5 ^-"&j pr-'j-J-i
,.<********$ . J * ' ^ |.

t " *



Figure 3: Site Background Noise Measurements and Locations

I Report / February 12, 2014 J Ove Arup 8 Partners P.C.

Page 4

Knockdown Center Preliminary Acoustics Review


Predicted Sound Levels

Moderate and typically loud amplified events are unlikely to exceed the noise code at the nearest residence. Very loud amplified levels from rock/pop, hip-hop, or House/DJ events could be border-line with respect to overall level, but will likely exceed code at low (bass) frequency. The following tables summarize various types of events and the relation of sound levels to the noise code if they were held in the Knockdown Center.

\ ^ ( \ ( Ki-quii i-itirnt 1:- 4 2 i l l t ( \ ) : i l K L"siili-nrc Level Inside Venue, dB(A) 85 95 105 110 115 Level at Residence, dB(A) 23 33 38 42 42 Peak Energy

Event Type

Moderate Event Typical Loud Event Very Loud Hip-Hop Very Loud House/DJ Very Loud Rock

N/A N/A Low End, 63-80 Hz Low End, 63-100 Hz Low and Mid, 80Hz, 600Hz

M <M

Kii|iiii tiiiint 2: 4? dli in I 3 Oit.iM- liiiniN fium (>3-5IH) 11/ ;ii Ki-sidi-m i-

Levels at 1/3 Octave Band Frequencies at Residence, dB Event Type 63Hz Moderate Event Typical Loud Event Very Loud Hip Hop Very Loud House/DJ Very Loud Rock 23 39 58 63 S4 80Hz 24 36 46 55 55 100Hz 25 36 38 48 47 125Hz 26 31 37 43 46 160Hz 23 26 35 38 38 200Hz 20 32 29 39 37

I Report | February 12, 2014 | Ove Arup & Partners P.C,

Page 5

Knockdown Center Preliminary Acoustics Review

{i'<]iiimm-ni 3: - ft dlti< ) \hu\i- Vniliii'ul Sound 1 r\i'l Ambient Sound Level at Residence, dB(C) 64 64 64 64 64 Sound Level at Residence, dB(C) 32 44 58 67 59 dB(C) Above Ambient at Residence -32 -20 -6 3 -5

Event Type

Moderate Event Typical Loud Event Very Loud Hip Hop Very Loud House/DJ Very Loud Rock



There are two approaches to ensuring levels outside the venue are not in violation ofNYCNC: Operational Approach - make sure levels from audio systems inside the venue are controlled and do not exceed maximum values. These maximum levels are predicted to be:

1 i-vi-K ai I 3 Oi-l:i\i- li.tnd 1 rL-ijiii-nck-s Inside \ rimr. ill!














Sound Isolation Design Approach - construct an additional mass layer around the existing A-frame roof, with at least 10-ft of airspace between the existing roof and the additional roof. The additional assembly would need to be mass heavy, at least 12psf This could be achieved in a variety of buildups (green roof, rigid insulation plus gypsum layers, insulated glass units).

| Report | February 12, 2014 | Ove Arup & Partners P.C.

Page 6

Knockdown Center Preliminary Acoustics Review

Room Acoustics 3.1 Existing Conditions

The interior finishes in the main venue spaces are currently concrete, glass, brick, and wood, all largely sound reflecting. The reverberance in the room is expected to diminish quality of amplified music played in the space. Lower frequencies will likely sound 'muddy,' and high frequencies 'harsh.'

Figure 4: Concrete, glass, brick, and wood finishes in the interior of the venue spaces



It is understood that the client would like to expose as much of the existing building as possible, and the aesthetic of the original building is potentially as or more important than acoustic excellence for music events. On this basis, there is no intention to install sound absorbing material at this time. If eventually you determine it is needed, we recommend broadband sound absorbing material to be distributed evenly over a minimum of 50% of the ceiling area. This would most basically take the form of 4-in. thick mineral wool or glass fiber board, 4-6pcf density. The sound absorbing material can be faced

| Report | February 12,2014 | Ove Arup & Partners P.C.

Page 7

David Sklar

Knockdown Center Preliminary Acoustics Review

with a black woven facing and fixed directly to the wood boards, be held in a wire mesh, or wrapped in fabric and fixed via a frame directly to the wood boards. An example material is 4-in. thick Roxul Rockboard, type 40 or 60. A green alternate is Bonded Logic's recycled denim Ultrasonic Pro Panels, stacking two 2in. thick panels to create the overall desired thickness. Literature attached. This sound absorbing material can and should be incorporated into any dividing partitions that are built to separate the two large rooms. Incorporating as much sound absorbing material in the partition as possible is best. It can be faced with acoustically transparent fabric or perforated wood/metal.


Brick Wall Dividing Two Main Spaces

It is our recommendation that as much of the brick wall separating the two main spaces is removed, from a sound system sightline point of view. In the case that both spaces are used as one for a performance with up to 6,000 people in the audience, the audio system needs to 'see' every head in the house. For the audience at the very back, there is a concern that they will not receive direct sound from the stage, which is critical (even if delay/fills are used). We recommend removing at least as much of the wall is necessary to maintain a direct visual connection between a flown audio system on one side of the two rooms to a standing person on the other end. See Figure 5.

_ 'sr.-w.Ji'i

i-sEswwaasE. 2w&3#3?
f . T

% "



* *-. r - . . .

*#* * *. -



Figure 5: Area in blue to be removed so main audio system can cover entire floor of both spaces, from one end to another

I Report | February 12, 2014 | Ove Arup & Partners P.C.

Page 8

David Sklar

Knockdown Center Preliminary Acoustics Review

MEP Background Noise

4,1 Existing Conditions
The venue currently houses unit heaters, as shown in Figure 5. The units produce considerable noise when they are running, as shown in Figure 6. The background noise of the space was measured at NC55-60 with the units on.


Center Mechanfeat i a c f c fw u n i Hofe

25 00 1000 20M Osteve BmO CeftterFfequency |H *) SS$HeN'Mito gmm H r t f 0

Figure 6: Mechanical Background Noise

| Report | February 12, 2014 | Ove Arup & Partners P.C.

Page 9

David Sklar

Knockdown Center Preliminary Acoustics Review



If a ducted mechanical system were to be designed, we would recommend a mechanical background noise target of NC30-35 for the performance spaces, and any space in the facility that may one day house a performance or sound installation. Figure 7 shows our recommended mechanical background noise targets.

i *i

i t


LJr~ [
.. i


Figure 7: Mechanical Background Noise Targets


| Report | February 12, 20141 Ove Arup & Partners P.C.

Page 10


ROXUL ROCKBOARD8 Provides Superior Sound Absorption

Acoustic Performance
ROXUL stone wool insulation products have a propensity for high acoustical performance. There are two physical characteristics that support this result. One is the multi-directional fiber orientation. The other is a factor of their density. The ROCKBOARD family of products is available in various densities to support different applications. ROCKBOARD 60 in particular has exceptional energy absorbing characteristics and is effective at reducing sound transmission across a wide range of frequencies.

ROCKBOARD 40 - Acoustical Performance

ASTM C 423



125 Hz
0 07 0.18

250 Hz
D.32 0.48

500 Hz
0.77 0.96 1 "7 1.14 1 1?




1 04 1.09 1 10 1.01 1 04

1 05 1.05 1 C3 1.03 1 07

1 05 1.05 1 04 1.04

0 80 0.90 1 00 1.05 1 1C


3.0" /. 0"

0.63 1 03



! ce

ROCKBOARD 60 - Acoustical Performance


Thickness ' 0"

125 Hz
0.G8 0.17 0 3? 0.78

250 Hz
0 33 0.62 0 8' 0.89

500 Hz 0 78 1.00 1 06 1.04

1000 Hz 1 C3 1.05 10? 0.98

2000 Hz 1 02 1.01 0 99 1.01


1 C4 1.01 1 C4 1.02

0 80 0.90 0 91 1.00

1.5" 2 0" 3.0"

ill; ,! .p

! -L H I *-*'u?^

. -

ROCKBOARD 80 - Acoustical Performance

Ai,TM C 47.j



125 Hz
0. i 0 2! 0.43 0.75

250 Hz
0 31

500 Hz
0 8? 0 97 0 9(. 0.89




1.01 1 00 0.97 0.94

1.07 0 95 0.97 1.00

1 0' 1 0(. 1.00



l. 91)

i !.' 7 0"

0 78 0.82

0.90 0.90





available colors;
Natural Fiber Acoustical Panels are available in the following colors for use in many different applications.

Surface; Burning Characteristics ': Flame Spread:'! 0 ) CFire Hazard Classiftaatibri)';.' :::::CClassA).; -&^i

' : Smote Developed: :20 :\';:<aass;A^.:.:.:3^:'..::':.

CoTOsrpn Resistance :..-::S.?'v Fungi: Resistance pdorErnission: :{ :^-Pass.::'::\'\:,":r^;;Jv : /pass ?::' "' .^''.W^iW: "viifh-'-". :'.: .Pass: ::

UL723 ASTM C 739 ASTM C 739 ASTM C 739





fabrication options:
Bonded Logic offers in-house fabrication capabilities for finished parts Die-cutting W i n e lamination (FSK, PSA. Films, Scrims) Wide range of product thicknesses and densities

Natural Fiber Acoustical Panel

Excellent Mais Absorption

Me Itch m Warn Irritation

Resists Mir

acoustical pesfotmaajce:
inches 1 density (| 3

sat Siowtlt

Mo Formaldehyde
250 .31 500 1000 1.01 1.10 1.32 1.22 20C1.00 1.05 1.06 4C22 .99 NRC .80

125 .08

Ho OC Concerns Class-A F'ke Rating

Bonded Logic Natural Fiber Acoustical Panels are manufactured using high performance recycled cotton fibers. The acoustical panels offer exceptional sound absorption, are thermally bonded for durability, contribute to healthy indoor air quality, and help to avoid fiberglass itch/irritation. In addition to offering industry leading noise reduction, natural fiber sound panels also provide thermal insulating performance in applicable installations. The panels are treated with a non-toxic solution that actively inhibits the growth of mold, mildew, bacteria, and fungi. This same treatment also acts as an excellent fire retardant, giving Bonded Logic Natural Fiber Acoustic Panels a Class- A / Class-1 Fire Rating. USES: Natural Fiber Acoustical Panels are available in a variety of colors, creating opportunities for a truly special installation. The colored fibers are all obtained from recycled sources, ensuring that your project not only performs well, but also maintains a high level of sustainability. Natural fiber acoustic panels are very versatile and support several varieties of uses. Whether you are seeking to use stretched fabric panels, creating an entire "soft wall." utilizing baffles to reduce echo/reverberation, or are seeking to source panels for use with a perforated ceiling, Bonded Logic natural fiber acoustical panels offer the performance and sustainability to give your project the winning edge.


.07 .35

.30 .94

1.03 1.03


Sound Absorption was tested in accordance with ASTM C 423 using a Type A mounting per ASTM E 795


density (pcf)

BTU.|n/(h.ff.F) .26

W/(m.C> .037 .039 .039

BTU-ln/(h.fP-F> .26

Vmm.'C) 1.47 1.53

R 3.9

.70 .63

1 2

6 3

.27 .27

.27 .14

3.6 7.4


Tested in accordance with ASTM C * Thermal Conductance (C) and Thermal Resistance (R) values are denved from the material Thermal Conductivity 00 *

IKl -.a





Centres d'intérêt liés