WSP @ The Mailbox, Birmingham A Case Study Presentation by James - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
wsp the mailbox birmingham a case study
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

WSP @ The Mailbox, Birmingham A Case Study Presentation by James - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 21, 2022 170 likes •451 views

WSP @ The Mailbox, Birmingham A Case Study Presentation by James Healey and Adam Walker December 2019 The Office Layout Neighbourhoods Activity Based Working Meeting Rooms Open Bistro The Street The Town Hall The

slide-1
SLIDE 1

WSP @ The Mailbox, Birmingham – A Case Study

Presentation by James Healey and Adam Walker December 2019

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Layout Neighbourhoods Activity Based Working Meeting Rooms Open Bistro The Street The Town Hall

The Office

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Activity Based Working 5.6mH Ceiling Exposed soffit / services Low absorption Desks 2.3m apart, 1.1mH screens between 20 no. meeting rooms

The Office

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Activity Based Working Collaborative booths

The Office

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Activity Based Working Project Desks The Street The Bistro

The Office

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Activity Based Working Phone booths

The Office

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Activity Based Working The Street and The Town Hall

The Office

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Activity Based Working The Town Hall

The Office

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Activity Based Working Privacy chairs High backed sofas Breakout & Dining area

The Office

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Historical Standards & Guidance Some useful information Outdated Doesn’t reflect ABW principles

Guidance

Document Parameter ‘Good’ conditions BS 8233 Unoccupied LAeq,T(dB) 45 – 50 BCO External noise NR40 (Leq,T) Building services noise NR40 (Leq,T)

BS 8233 & BCO

  • BS 8233: 2014 – room absorption
  • BCO 2019 – fit-out considerations
  • BS 8233: 1999 – Privacy Rating
  • Dw +LA > 75 = reasonable
  • Dw + LA > 85 = good
slide-11
SLIDE 11

ISO 3392-3: 2012 Some relevant paramters Not reflective of ABW No account for occupancy noise level

Guidance

Parameter ‘Poor’ conditions ‘Good’ conditions D2,S (dB) <5 ≥7 LpA,S,4 m (dB) >50 ≤48 rD (metres) >10 ≤5

BS EN ISO 3382-3: 2012

  • Speech Transmission Index
  • Unoccupied background noise, LA90,T
slide-12
SLIDE 12

Collaborative Activity 45 to 50 LAeq,T Low speech level difference Low T60 High spatial decay rate of speech List of active areas not comprehensive

Guidance

French Norm NF S 31-199

Activity Ambient noise Speech level difference between stations Reverberation time Spatial decay

  • f speech

Collaborative 45 to 50 LAeq,T Dn < 4 dB 0.6s (250Hz to 4kHz) <0.8s at 250Hz D2,s > 9 dB Low collaborative 40 to 45 LAeq,T Dn ≥ 6 dB 0.6s (250Hz to 4kHz) <0.8s at 250Hz D2,s > 7 dB Call centre 48 to 52 LAeq,T Dn ≥ 6 dB 0.6s (250Hz to 4kHz) <0.8s at 250Hz D2,s > 7 dB

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Vallenga et al Promotes principles of significance of signal to noise ratio and low STI Proposes liveliness rating

Guidance

Apex study More comprehensive list of ABW uses Background based on LA90,T Some uses in WSP office not covered

Liveliness

Use Type Liveliness Rating Breakout 8 Meetings 7 Phone (call centre) 6 Collaborative 6 Non-collaborative 5 Focused phone 6 (as a source) / 4 (as a receiver) Focused individual work 3

Proposed Method for Measuring 'Liveliness' in Open Plan Offices’. Vellenga*, Bouwhuis and Höngens. M+P | Muller-BBM group ISO 3382-3: Necessary but not sufficient. A new approach to acoustic design for activity-based-working offices. J Harvie-Clark & F Larrieu. Apex Acoustics Ltd.

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Activity-Based-Work Non-collaborative Collaborative Focused Collaborative Focused Pair Breakout & Dining

Testing

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Quantities STI Dn Noise (Leq,5min, L90,5min, L05,5min) Dw T60 Subject impressions

Testing

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Speech Transmission Non-collaborative to non- collaborative Collaborative to non- collaborative Focused collaborative to non-collaborative Focused Pair to non- collaborative Breakout & Dining to non- collaborative Cellular Privacy Sound Insulation & T60

Testing

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Open Plan Working Acoustic conditions at the workstation Relationship between workstations Reduction in speech between workstations

Sound Environment

Cellular Working Sound Insulation Privacy Comfort 58 / 54 / 51 55 / 52 / 48 57 / 54 / 51 57 / 54 / 51 58 / 55 / 51 59 / 56 / 53 61 / 58 / 55 61 / 57 / 53 52 / 48 / 42 54 / 50 / 47 A: 61 / 57 / 53 B: 70 / 66 / 58 44

35

Area LAeq,5m Non-collaborative 55 Collaborative 56 Focused Collaborative 48 Focused Pair 50 Breakout & Dining 57 - 66

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Sound Insulation / Privacy Rating

Moveable Wall

Rw 47 dB Dw 35 dB PR = 79

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Sound Insulation / Privacy Rating

Fixed Wall

Rw 50 dB Dw 42 dB PR = 77

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Liveliness

Proposed Method for Measuring 'Liveliness' in Open Plan Offices’. Vellenga*, Bouwhuis and Höngens. M+P | Muller-BBM group Key Points Start at 40 dB LAeq,T ΔL up to 4 dB Rating scale in 0.5…

5 5.5 6 6.5 7 8 9 10 4 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8 3 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 5 6 7 2 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 1 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 ≥61

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Key Points PI and MI close, except for focused collaborative Focused collaborative MI higher due to matrix banding and high ΔL Apex similar to WSP PI and MI

Liveliness

Proposed Method for Measuring 'Liveliness' in Open Plan Offices’. Vellenga*, Bouwhuis and Höngens. M+P | Muller-BBM group

Area PI MI Apex Non- collaborative 6 6.5 5 Collaborative 6 6.5 6 Focused collaborative 3 6.0 to 6.5

  • Focused pair

4 5.0

  • Breakout &

Dining (low

  • ccupancy)

8 9.0 8 Breakout & Dining (high

  • ccupancy)

9 10.0 8

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Non-collaborative to non- collaborative NF S 31-199 Dn ≥ 6dB  3382-3 D2,s ≥ 7dB x Low STI – not distracting SNR low, no correlation to STI

Speech Sound Levels & Distraction

Adjacency STI SNR Speaker to c 0.20 @ 3m +2 dB Speaker to d 0.32 @ 5m +3 dB Speaker to e 0.10 @ 7m

  • 1 dB

Adjacency Dn Speaker to c 6 dB Speaker to d 10 dB Speaker to e 10 dB D2,s ≈ 3 dB

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Other Adjacencies Privacy chairs: very Low STI All SNR low, except collaborative, and Breakout & Dining areas Breakout & Dining during high occupancy (lunch) noticeable at desks

Speech Sound Levels & Distraction

Adjacency STI SNR Dn Bothered by Speech Non-collaborative to non-collaborative 0.20 @ 3m 0.32 @ 5m 0.10 @ 7m +2 dB +3 dB

  • 1 dB

6 dB 10 dB 10 dB Low Collaborative (raised voice) to non- collaborative 0.29 @ 4.5m +5 dB 15 dB Low to medium Focused collaborative to non-collaborative 0.15 @ 4.5m

  • 2 dB

13 dB Low Focused pair to non- collaborative 0.03 @ 6m

  • 7 dB

15 dB Very Low Breakout & Dining (1 person raised voice) to non-collaborative 0.41 @ 2m +6 dB 11 dB Medium Breakout & Dining (3 people raised voice) to non-collaborative 0.52 @ 2m +11 dB High

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Speech Level Difference

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 125 Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz 1.0 kHz 2.0 kHz 4.0 kHz 8.0 kHz

Dn, dB Octave Band Centre Frequency, Hz

Dn,Focused_Pair,4m Dn,Breakout_Dining,2m Dn,Collaborative,4.5m Dn,Focused_Collaborative,4.5m Dn,Non-collaborative,3m Dn,Non-collaborative,5m Dn,Non-collaborative,7m

13 dB 15 dB 15 dB 11 dB 6 dB 10 dB

Key Points Performance at high frequencies from focused collaborative Collaborative to non- collaborative 3dB lower than Apex

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Liveliness Fun!

Source / Receiver LR Collaborative Non- collaborative Focused pair Focused collaborative L R 6 6 4 3 Breakout & Dining (high occupancy) 9

  • 9
  • 9
  • 15
  • 18

Breakout & Dining (low occupancy) 8

  • 6
  • 6
  • 12
  • 15

Collaborative 6

  • 6
  • 9

Non-collaborative 6

  • 6
  • 9

Key Points High occupancy breakout impact higher Breakout to non- collaborative lower (ambient noise) Good agreement elsewhere Not achieving this SNR but still works

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Tweaks

Key Points Dining to existing Collaborative area (Dn 15 dB) Focused pair adjacent to non-collaborative (low source, screening) Collaborative to existing focused pair area

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Take-home Points

  • No absorption works in a high ceiling large volume

space

  • Higher activity ambient noise level beneficial
  • Liveliness compares well
  • Privacy chairs = 15dB Dn @ 6m
  • Privacy booths = 13dB Dn @ 4.5m
  • SNR doesn’t always align with subjective benefits
  • Account for activity ambient noise in Dn requirements
slide-28
SLIDE 28

Contact

Thank you. Questions?

James Healey Associate Director, WSP Email: james.healey@wsp.com Adam Walker Graduate Consultant, WSP Email: adam.walker2@wsp.com