SLOPED ROOF In the second analysis the acoustic effect of a sloped roof is tested. The main dimensions are: ROOM Length: 37m Width: 20.3m Height: 2.5m Again three iterations are performed with difference in the parameter that changes the height and the curve of the roof.
REVERBERATION TIME
PARAMETERS
2.1
2.2
2.3
Frequency [Hz]
Secs [s]
Secs [s]
Secs [s]
62.5
1.31
1.12
1.06
125
1.55
1.37
1.27
250
2.02
1.82
1.62
Table 07 - Parameters
500
2.59
2.44
2.09
1000
5.08
4.66
3.94
2000
4.52
4.16
3.53
4000
4.01
3.74
3.18
8000
3.32
3.02
2.63
The results show that iteration 2.3 has the values that are closest to the desired range of the reverberation time, but that the shape performing the best in relation to clarity is iteration 2.2. Iteration 2.2 is chosen for further analysis despite it being the second best performing regarding reverberation time. The difference is perceived as minor and iteration 2.2 correlates better with the simultaneous aesthetic considerations for the shape of the building.
Table 05 - Reverberation time 2.1
2.2
5m
5m
2.3
5m
5m
CLARITY
5m
2.1
2.2
2.3
Frequency [Hz]
C80
C80
C80
62.5
2.20
2.60
3.22
125
1.11
1.82
2.09
250
-0.58
0.02
0.32
500
-2.17
-1.56
-1.67
1000
-5.46
-5.33
-5.53
2000
-4.89
-4.64
-4.84
4000
-4.23
-4.24
-4.15
8000
-3.37
-3.01
5m
Ill. 180 - Pespective, plan and section
-3.04 Table 06 - Clarity
2.1
2.2
2.3
Height 1
20m
20m
20m
Height 2
20m
5m
5m
Curve
Straight
Straight
Arched
Comparing the sloped roof proposals to the folded roof proposals, it becomes clear that the sloping roof has a better effect. The results for the reverberation time of 1.2 and 2.2 looks much the same, but the results that comes closest to the values of the clarity is achieved through the sloped roof.
146