STC Ratings for Wood Siding or Vinyl Siding

[a***@sympatico.ca]

Hi,
I was wondering if anyone could tell me what the STC ratings would be on a
house constructed of codeboard, insulation, drywall and either wood siding
or vinyl siding on the outside??
Thanks in advance!

[Noral Stewart]

First, STC is a property of a partition, not of an overall structure like a
house. Second, some assumptions have to be made, such as that the wall in
question does not contain windows or doors that are typically weaker, and is
well built. I am not sure exactly what you mean by codeboard, but presume
it is some type of sheathing behind the siding. Assuming wood studs,
materials directly attached to studs, mineral wool or fiberglass insulation,
the STC of the wall if tested would probably be in the low to mid 30's.
Beware that the actual difference in sound level between the outside and
inside is significantly less than the STC, even before you start accounting
for factors such as weak windows and doors.

Post by a***@sympatico.ca
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone could tell me what the STC ratings would be on a
house constructed of codeboard, insulation, drywall and either wood siding
or vinyl siding on the outside??
Thanks in advance!

[Ken Plotkin]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:16:04 GMT, "Noral Stewart"
<***@ixdotnetcomdotcom> wrote:

[snip]

Post by Noral Stewart
Beware that the actual difference in sound level between the outside and
inside is significantly less than the STC, even before you start accounting
for factors such as weak windows and doors.

A tremendous problem with STC for this kind of question is that STC is
intended for evaluating interior-to-interior sound insulation, not
exterior-to-interior sound. STC is based on transmission of typical
indoor noise spectra, which are higher frequency than the
transportation noises that are usually of interest for exterior walls.

Exterior Wall Rating (EWR) was developed to account for this. It's an
STC-like composite, but based on road, rail and aircraft spectra.
Unfortunately, it never caught on, so the mis-use of STC continues.

Ken Plotkin

[Noral Stewart]

Post by Ken Plotkin
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:16:04 GMT, "Noral Stewart"
[snip]
Exterior Wall Rating (EWR) was developed to account for this. It's an
STC-like composite, but based on road, rail and aircraft spectra.
Unfortunately, it never caught on, so the mis-use of STC continues.
Ken Plotkin

And another rating also designed for transportation noises and exterior
walls is the OITC or outdoor-indoor transmission class. Of course, any
single number rating can be misleading if the actual sound spectrum differs
significantly from that assumed in the rating. However, in addition to
considering the differences in sound spectra, you also have to consider the
differences between sound transmission between two interior diffuse spaces,
and from the outdoor free-field environment to the indoor diffuse
environment.

[Dave Fagen]

Ken Plotkin <***@nospam-cox.net> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...

<snip>

Post by Ken Plotkin
Exterior Wall Rating (EWR) was developed to account for this. It's an
STC-like composite, but based on road, rail and aircraft spectra.
Unfortunately, it never caught on, so the mis-use of STC continues.
Ken Plotkin

In the US, ASTM E-1332-90 "Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class" (OITC)
is comparable to (EWR) and also has not caught on for widespread use.

Dave Fagen

[Brian Marston]

Post by Ken Plotkin
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:16:04 GMT, "Noral Stewart"
[snip]
A tremendous problem with STC for this kind of question is that STC is
intended for evaluating interior-to-interior sound insulation, not
exterior-to-interior sound. STC is based on transmission of typical
indoor noise spectra, which are higher frequency than the
transportation noises that are usually of interest for exterior walls.
Exterior Wall Rating (EWR) was developed to account for this. It's an
STC-like composite, but based on road, rail and aircraft spectra.
Unfortunately, it never caught on, so the mis-use of STC continues.
Ken Plotkin

In Australia, we are currently passing through the transition from STC ratings
to Rw ratings to the complete confusion of our building industry. This is
involving a tremendous amount of recalculation of old data to provide:
1) the STC rating plus, 2) the Rw rating plus, 3) the Rw+Ci rating plus, 4) the
Rw+Ctr rating plus, 5) the OITC ratings. (OITC was adopted by window
manufacturers).

[The simultaneous transition from IIC ratings to Lnw+Ci ratings is a story all
of its own].

The thought that materials with frequency dependent transmission loss
characteristics can be replaced by a single number, and we can therefore
dispense with frequency based calculation, is attractive but impractical in a
real-world design situation.

Even for external noise spectrums with the same overall dB(A) level, the same
construction (of known STC) will result in different internal overall dB(A)
values for each spectrum.

Each of these single number ratings need to be put back where they belong, as
'indicative' values of a components performance.

It is up to the acoustician to specify the STC ratings as a first pass and to
follow through with frequency based calculations to confirm the adequacy of the
construction chosen by the architect or builder.

I am currently passing through this exercise with a project where we know the
internal noise spectra, but have to achieve an overall frequency based noise
criteria at residences 20 metres away. Access to the frequency based
transmission loss data has been critical with constructions with the same STC
ratings having to be rejected, while a construction of lower STC passes (due to
its frequency based transmission loss characteristics).

[Alain Bradette]

Post by Brian Marston
In Australia, we are currently passing through the transition from STC ratings
to Rw ratings to the complete confusion of our building industry. This is
1) the STC rating plus, 2) the Rw rating plus, 3) the Rw+Ci rating plus, 4) the
Rw+Ctr rating plus, 5) the OITC ratings. (OITC was adopted by window
manufacturers).

Good to see that Australia is joing up to Europe in that concern. The
system with Rw + correction factors has been in used for about 5 years
here in Norway. I use it almost every day and it works very well since
it's logical and simple: each type of noise source (traffic, train,
plane) has a correction factor according to the speed and/or type of
source (goods train, high speed train, etc).

The noise limit for internal noise level is in dBA. The calculation
method for external noise giving resultats in dBA, it's just a matter
of subtracting the Rw+Ci for the external noise level + correction for
RT60 in the room + corection for areal of each part of the fasade and
that's it, you get your internal noise level.

This method is very good but requires an enormous job of measurement
in order to get Rw+Ci-data for a wide range of construction types /
materials. That was done in Norway by the Norwegian institut for
Buildings and the results are available in a handbook. unfortunately,
you have to know a bit of norwegian to be able to use the book. I
guess that, at least, Sweden and Danmark has a similar handbook. If
they don't have a english version, I guess it might be possible to
find an agreement on translation between Australia and one of these
countries. That would be at least a start!

Alain Bradette

Post by Brian Marston
[The simultaneous transition from IIC ratings to Lnw+Ci ratings is a story all
of its own].
The thought that materials with frequency dependent transmission loss
characteristics can be replaced by a single number, and we can therefore
dispense with frequency based calculation, is attractive but impractical in a
real-world design situation.
Even for external noise spectrums with the same overall dB(A) level, the same
construction (of known STC) will result in different internal overall dB(A)
values for each spectrum.
Each of these single number ratings need to be put back where they belong, as
'indicative' values of a components performance.
It is up to the acoustician to specify the STC ratings as a first pass and to
follow through with frequency based calculations to confirm the adequacy of the
construction chosen by the architect or builder.
I am currently passing through this exercise with a project where we know the
internal noise spectra, but have to achieve an overall frequency based noise
criteria at residences 20 metres away. Access to the frequency based
transmission loss data has been critical with constructions with the same STC
ratings having to be rejected, while a construction of lower STC passes (due to
its frequency based transmission loss characteristics).

[Angelo Campanella]

Post by Ken Plotkin
A tremendous problem with STC for this kind of question is that STC is
intended for evaluating interior-to-interior sound insulation, not
exterior-to-interior sound.

Agreed

Post by Ken Plotkin
STC is based on transmission of typical
indoor noise spectra,

It's not even that elegant. I have observed, and seen and heard the
arguments for, the development of the STC 'rating curve'. It's history
is long and anarchic. It seems that before and during WWII, the means of
deriving a single number for transmission loss test results was to
average tl values from maybe 100-500 Hz (exact range not certain,
probably pure tone or warble tone tests from 128cps through 4096cps.
This was practiced by NBS personnel and others at the time.

After WWII, German rebuilding and testing of bombed out building in many
German cities brought the need for more definitive test analyses. The
observed that a definitive concern was the transmission of amplified
voice signals, typically emitted from radio sets of that period, and the
100-4,000 Hz range was a reasonable way to represent it, but some
frequency weighting ws in order to make the results more meaningful.
Since masonry has a coincidence dip around 300 Hz, accuracy in that area
was unimportant, Since radio sounds and voices have relatively little
energy below 100 Hz (then), there was no need to evaluate their walls
and floors below that frequency. Finally since masonry also has good
noise isolation at lower frequencies, there really was no motivation to
devote efforts to lower frequency sounds. A rating scheme involving 16
(a nice round and square number) 1/3 octave band center frequencies plus
a nice 0, 1 and 3- slope dogleg "curve" was evolved and everybody was as
pleased as plum for decades. The US used 125 Hz and 4,000 Hz as terminal
frequencies (ASTM E413), but the European rating scheme (ISO 717) used
100Hz and 3125 Hz as terminal frequencies, paying tribute to the fact
that lower frequencies needed more attention. The US stuck doggedly to
125 Hz as the lower limit, adding an 8 dB limit for the greatest
deviation of test data from that dog-leg curve to cover for any really
bad coincidence dip (drywall and window glass) or low frequency (double
leaf walls) transmission loss deficiencies.

The "Significance and Use" statement for ASTM E413, the US dog-leg
rating curve scheme clearly states in 4.2 that "...This classification
method is not appropriate for sound sources with spectra significantly
different from (speech, radio, and television). Such source include
machinery, industrial processes, bowling alleys, power transformers,
musical instruments, many music systems and and transportation noises
such as motor vehicles, aircraft and trains."

And yet STC remains prominent today. A few brave new souls have ventured
to practice ASTM E1332. This uses a weighted 'transportation noise'
spectrum from 80 Hz up) as an hypothetical impingement, then tallies the
A-weighted result of the purveyed noise. The result is "OITC"
(Outside-Inside Transmission Class"). The EWR is similar.

Post by Ken Plotkin
which are higher frequency than the
transportation noises that are usually of interest for exterior walls.
Exterior Wall Rating (EWR) was developed to account for this. It's an
STC-like composite, but based on road, rail and aircraft spectra.
Unfortunately, it never caught on, so the mis-use of STC continues.

We in ASTM E33 strongly (severely?) recommend the application of E1380
(OITC) for the rating of all facade elements including doors, windows,
walls and roofs.

Angelo Campanella

[Ken Plotkin]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 03:21:04 GMT, Angelo Campanella
<***@att.net> wrote:

[snip]

Post by Angelo Campanella
And yet STC remains prominent today. A few brave new souls have ventured
to practice ASTM E1332. This uses a weighted 'transportation noise'
spectrum from 80 Hz up) as an hypothetical impingement, then tallies the
A-weighted result of the purveyed noise. The result is "OITC"
(Outside-Inside Transmission Class"). The EWR is similar.

[snip]

I don't do much (actually, hardly any) architectural acoustics these
days, but I did a fair amount in the 80s. I used EWR, which had been
developed by Wyle, with values computed and published for lots of
building elements. I cringe when I see STC used for exterior to
interior noise analysis.

As I recall, the commonly cited STC for frame construction with
exterior siding and interior drywall is something like 39. I shudder
when people think that's the noise reduction they'll get.

Ken Plotkin

[a***@sympatico.ca]

According to an acoustical engineer, he stated that my house has a rating of
25. I do remember seeing something about OITC and I know in our subdivision
agreement it said the house should be "EW1" ??
There were specific conditions that were supposed to be met because we live
close to a rail line and I can tell you our house is not quiet enough! I
can hear that train blow it's horn very clearly!
Unfortunately for us I understand that there are no codes for a single
detached home as far as noise control is concerned. I feel sorry for the
other people who will be building here and will have the same problems.

Post by Ken Plotkin
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 03:21:04 GMT, Angelo Campanella
[snip]

Post by Angelo Campanella
And yet STC remains prominent today. A few brave new souls have ventured
to practice ASTM E1332. This uses a weighted 'transportation noise'
spectrum from 80 Hz up) as an hypothetical impingement, then tallies the
A-weighted result of the purveyed noise. The result is "OITC"
(Outside-Inside Transmission Class"). The EWR is similar.

[snip]
I don't do much (actually, hardly any) architectural acoustics these
days, but I did a fair amount in the 80s. I used EWR, which had been
developed by Wyle, with values computed and published for lots of
building elements. I cringe when I see STC used for exterior to
interior noise analysis.
As I recall, the commonly cited STC for frame construction with
exterior siding and interior drywall is something like 39. I shudder
when people think that's the noise reduction they'll get.
Ken Plotkin

[Ken Plotkin]

Post by a***@sympatico.ca
According to an acoustical engineer, he stated that my house has a rating of
25. I do remember seeing something about OITC and I know in our subdivision
agreement it said the house should be "EW1" ??
There were specific conditions that were supposed to be met because we live
close to a rail line and I can tell you our house is not quiet enough! I
can hear that train blow it's horn very clearly!
Unfortunately for us I understand that there are no codes for a single
detached home as far as noise control is concerned. I feel sorry for the
other people who will be building here and will have the same problems.

I'm out of date on current standards in that area, so I don't know
exactly what OITC and EW1 are. But a reasonably built frame house
with no attention to sound insulation will have (with windows closed)
a noise reduction of about 25 dB. That value is what you should get
if you put a sound level meter on your front lawn (or back yard) and
one in your living room and compare the A-weighted levels.

There are places that specify what interior noise levels must be
attained in new construction. Sometimes it's zoning, sometimes code,
and sometimes coercion by the planning commision when a developer
seeks a permit. Some kind of national standard is really needed.

Ken Plotkin

[Angelo Campanella]

Post by Ken Plotkin
I'm out of date on current standards in that area, so I don't know
exactly what OITC and EW1 are.

e.g.:

ASTM E90: defines lab method that gives TL 80 Hz upwards on a specific
specimen (wall, window, door, etc.).

ASTM E 413: procedure to use E90 TL values from 125 Hz to 4,000 Hz to
produce the STC 'single number rating' for that specimen.

ASTM E1332: procedure to combine E90 TL values with a standard outdoor
(transportation) noise spectrum to produce the single number OITC for
that same specimen.

Post by Ken Plotkin
There are places that specify what interior noise levels must be
attained in new construction. Sometimes it's zoning, sometimes code,
and sometimes coercion by the planning commision when a developer
seeks a permit. Some kind of national standard is really needed.

I use two: One is the DNL 45 required by HUD. Thus, a house with a 24
dBA noise reduction shell in a DNL 65 zone will net a DNL41 interior,
which passes HUD muster.

I also use during design the old 55 dBA maximum level for any event that
may result in 15% of the persons being awakened from sleep. I know
that's an old notion, but it works well for a second check.

Thus, within a 24 dBA shell house, when a 90 dBA maximum over flight
occurs, the interior noise has a (90-24=) 66 dBA maximum which I refuse
to allow if at all possible. If over flight noises max to only 80 dBA,
then that house shell is marginally acceptable.

Considering the locomotive horn blasts mentioned here earlier, train
horns are rated as a minimum of 105 dBA at 100 feet. This fellow may be
about 500 feet from the horn blasts (105-14=) 91 dBA; 91-24 = 67 dBA
(ouch!), so, yes, he has a real problem, in my opinion....

Ang. C.

[a***@sympatico.ca]

So, here's what the town had to say:

"The subdivision agreement states that in order to mitigate the adverse
effects of noise; the walls should be constructed with "wood siding" (i.e.
Wall Type EW1).
Unfortunately, there is no explanation given as to a specific "Sound
Transmission Classification" which this wall type would produce. STC
ratings are the standard utilized in the Ontario Building Code. In order to
cross reference the Building Code "STC" ratings with the subdivision
requirement for and "EW1" wall type, the Contractor engaged the services of
an acoustical engineer. The resulting engineer's report identified the OITC
rating of the prescribed EW1 Wall Type as "25".
The same report went on to detail the OITC of various standard wall
construction types, including the wall assembly constructed at your
residence. The OITC rating for the exterior walls of your dwelling, where
vinyl siding has been substituted for the prescribed wood siding, was
estimated to be "25", which complies with the subdivision agreement."

Can anyone explain this to me please? Isn't there a difference between STC
and OITC? Why isn't there rating for wood siding, but there apparently is
for vinyl siding??

Thanks!

Post by a***@sympatico.ca
According to an acoustical engineer, he stated that my house has a rating of
25. I do remember seeing something about OITC and I know in our subdivision
agreement it said the house should be "EW1" ??
There were specific conditions that were supposed to be met because we live
close to a rail line and I can tell you our house is not quiet enough! I
can hear that train blow it's horn very clearly!
Unfortunately for us I understand that there are no codes for a single
detached home as far as noise control is concerned. I feel sorry for the
other people who will be building here and will have the same problems.

Post by Ken Plotkin
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 03:21:04 GMT, Angelo Campanella
[snip]

Post by Angelo Campanella
And yet STC remains prominent today. A few brave new souls have ventured
to practice ASTM E1332. This uses a weighted 'transportation noise'
spectrum from 80 Hz up) as an hypothetical impingement, then tallies the
A-weighted result of the purveyed noise. The result is "OITC"
(Outside-Inside Transmission Class"). The EWR is similar.

[snip]
I don't do much (actually, hardly any) architectural acoustics these
days, but I did a fair amount in the 80s. I used EWR, which had been
developed by Wyle, with values computed and published for lots of
building elements. I cringe when I see STC used for exterior to
interior noise analysis.
As I recall, the commonly cited STC for frame construction with
exterior siding and interior drywall is something like 39. I shudder
when people think that's the noise reduction they'll get.
Ken Plotkin

[Noral Stewart]

The STC was originally developed to rate and compare interior walls and
their ability to block the sound of speech, radios, and small household
appliances. For many years there was no really appropriate rating for
exterior walls subjected to transportation noises. STC was used by default.
Around 1990, ASTM devised the new rating OITC or Outdoor-Indoor Transmission
Class to rate exterior walls. It is based on the same measured data for the
wall except measured to lower frequencies, but calculated differently than
the STC. It has not become widely used. OITC ratings are typcially several
points lower than the STC for the same wall reflecting the fact that
transportation sounds contain strong low frequency sound that is hard to
block.

The other problem you face with exterior walls is that there is very little
available test data. Since most codes address interior walls but not
exterior walls, the manufacturers of gypsum and other materials have
incentive to fund testing of interior walls but not exterior walls. Thus,
we are faced with estimating the performance of most exterior walls based on
very little available test data.

Post by a***@sympatico.ca
"The subdivision agreement states that in order to mitigate the adverse
effects of noise; the walls should be constructed with "wood siding" (i.e.
Wall Type EW1).
Unfortunately, there is no explanation given as to a specific "Sound
Transmission Classification" which this wall type would produce. STC
ratings are the standard utilized in the Ontario Building Code. In order to
cross reference the Building Code "STC" ratings with the subdivision
requirement for and "EW1" wall type, the Contractor engaged the services of
an acoustical engineer. The resulting engineer's report identified the OITC
rating of the prescribed EW1 Wall Type as "25".
The same report went on to detail the OITC of various standard wall
construction types, including the wall assembly constructed at your
residence. The OITC rating for the exterior walls of your dwelling, where
vinyl siding has been substituted for the prescribed wood siding, was
estimated to be "25", which complies with the subdivision agreement."
Can anyone explain this to me please? Isn't there a difference between STC
and OITC? Why isn't there rating for wood siding, but there apparently is
for vinyl siding??
Thanks!

Post by a***@sympatico.ca
According to an acoustical engineer, he stated that my house has a rating

of

Post by a***@sympatico.ca
25. I do remember seeing something about OITC and I know in our

subdivision

Post by a***@sympatico.ca
agreement it said the house should be "EW1" ??
There were specific conditions that were supposed to be met because we

live

Post by a***@sympatico.ca
close to a rail line and I can tell you our house is not quiet enough! I
can hear that train blow it's horn very clearly!
Unfortunately for us I understand that there are no codes for a single
detached home as far as noise control is concerned. I feel sorry for the
other people who will be building here and will have the same problems.

Post by Ken Plotkin
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 03:21:04 GMT, Angelo Campanella
[snip]

Post by Angelo Campanella
And yet STC remains prominent today. A few brave new souls have

ventured

Post by a***@sympatico.ca

Post by Ken Plotkin

Post by Angelo Campanella
to practice ASTM E1332. This uses a weighted 'transportation noise'
spectrum from 80 Hz up) as an hypothetical impingement, then tallies

the

Post by a***@sympatico.ca

Post by Ken Plotkin

Post by Angelo Campanella
A-weighted result of the purveyed noise. The result is "OITC"
(Outside-Inside Transmission Class"). The EWR is similar.

[snip]
I don't do much (actually, hardly any) architectural acoustics these
days, but I did a fair amount in the 80s. I used EWR, which had been
developed by Wyle, with values computed and published for lots of
building elements. I cringe when I see STC used for exterior to
interior noise analysis.
As I recall, the commonly cited STC for frame construction with
exterior siding and interior drywall is something like 39. I shudder
when people think that's the noise reduction they'll get.
Ken Plotkin

[Angelo Campanella]

Post by Ken Plotkin
I don't do much (actually, hardly any) architectural acoustics these
days, but I did a fair amount in the 80s. I used EWR, which had been
developed by Wyle, with values computed and published for lots of
building elements. I cringe when I see STC used for exterior to
interior noise analysis.

STC is still the only tool that many new developers, their contractors,
and their consultants have that provides a commonality. It's a sad
story, but the only way that this situation will improve is that all of
us use the wider spectrum ASAP. It requires that we become conversant of
all of them. I am sure that Wyle has released EWR results a long time
ago. I personally do have them at my fingertips, though I cannot say
that a document with the results you say are published is somewhere in
my files. Perhaps you can entertain us with a few. It would be good to
see whether the E1332 track those of EWR.

Post by Ken Plotkin
As I recall, the commonly cited STC for frame construction with
exterior siding and interior drywall is something like 39. I shudder
when people think that's the noise reduction they'll get.

In 2002 I ran a short series of real-time over flight noise tests on
light frame houses under construction in DNL 65 noise by our airport.
Generally the A-weighed results were 24 to 28 dBA noise reduction, while
my STC calculations were really incomplete, where walls pretended to be
STC 40 and windows STC29. I didn't referee the considerations any
tighter than that. My point, as everyone knows, is that we still are
faced with the preponderance of common knowledge surrounding the STC40
notion, coupled with STC29 windows being offered by window
manufacturers, while the building achieves less than 30 dBA of noise
reduction. One bright spot was that one window manufacturer offered his
test data in OITC as well as STC terms (perhaps OITC22 vs the STC29
values on that window, their test lab providing both).

Angelo Campanella
--------- www.CampanellaAcoustics.com ---------

[Ken Plotkin]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:40:58 GMT, Angelo Campanella

Post by Angelo Campanella
STC is still the only tool that many new developers, their contractors,
and their consultants have that provides a commonality. It's a sad
story, but the only way that this situation will improve is that all of
us use the wider spectrum ASAP. It requires that we become conversant of
all of them. I am sure that Wyle has released EWR results a long time
ago. I personally do have them at my fingertips, though I cannot say
that a document with the results you say are published is somewhere in
my files. Perhaps you can entertain us with a few. It would be good to
see whether the E1332 track those of EWR.

Well, I think that a consultant who just uses STC for exterior walls
is not doing a competent job. Just like when I had my daughter take
her car to Jiffy Lube, and they put the wrong weight oil in it -
bcause that's what they had.

The published EWR numbers ought to be in that FHWA report, as is the
definition of how to make EWR from a TL curve. You can make a TL
curve for just about any residential construction using the methods in
Ben Sharp's HUD report from the early 70s.

Ken Plotkin

[Angelo Campanella]

Post by Ken Plotkin
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:40:58 GMT, Angelo Campanella

Post by Angelo Campanella
ago. I personally do have them at my fingertips, though I cannot say

oops, I meant "do NOT have"

Post by Ken Plotkin
The published EWR numbers ought to be in that FHWA report, as is the

Please define "that" report..

thanks,

Ang. C.

[Ken Plotkin]

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 03:37:41 GMT, Angelo Campanella

Post by Angelo Campanella

Post by Ken Plotkin
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:40:58 GMT, Angelo Campanella

Post by Angelo Campanella
ago. I personally do have them at my fingertips, though I cannot say

oops, I meant "do NOT have"

Post by Ken Plotkin
The published EWR numbers ought to be in that FHWA report, as is the

Please define "that" report..
thanks,

Mange, G.E., Skale, S.R, and Sutherland, L.C., "Background Report on
Outdoor-Indoor Noise Reduction Calculation Procedures Employing the
Exterior Wall Noise Rating (EWR) Method", U.S. Department of
Transportation Report FHWA-TS-77-220, prepared by Wyle Research, March
1978.

[Angelo Campanella]

Post by Ken Plotkin
Mange, G.E., Skale, S.R, and Sutherland, L.C., "Background Report on
Outdoor-Indoor Noise Reduction Calculation Procedures Employing the
Exterior Wall Noise Rating (EWR) Method", U.S. Department of
Transportation Report FHWA-TS-77-220, prepared by Wyle Research, March
1978.

I've seen and likely have it, but I don't recall any significant library
of EWR values, and especially any update (26 years!).

Ang.

[Ken Plotkin]

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 16:26:17 GMT, Angelo Campanella

Post by Angelo Campanella
I've seen and likely have it, but I don't recall any significant library
of EWR values, and especially any update (26 years!).

Well, since it never caught on, there haven't been many public
updates.

The citation I gave was the background study on EWR. There would have
been another report of similar vintage that was aimed at users. I
remember working from a table one of those reports - must have been
the one I didn't cite. I also remember the table gradually getting
expanded and updated on a proprietary basis after EWR went the way of
Betamax, Amiga and other superior technologies.

I'm out of the office, and won't be back for at least a week, so I
can't check on what that other FHWA report was, but it should be
available from NTIS. There's a modest list of EWR values in "FAA
Guidelines for the Sound Insulation of Residences Exposed to Aircraft
Noise" WR 89-7, DOT/FAA/PP-92-5. That's on the Wyle web site, and
also available from NTIS.

Ken Plotkin

[Angelo Campanella]

Post by Ken Plotkin
There's a modest list of EWR values in "FAA
Guidelines for the Sound Insulation of Residences Exposed to Aircraft
Noise" WR 89-7, DOT/FAA/PP-92-5. That's on the Wyle web site, and
also available from NTIS.

OK. I think I remember that report being circulated among a few of us a
year or so ago. I'll look on my HD...

Thanks,

Ang.

[Angelo Campanella]

Post by Angelo Campanella

Post by Ken Plotkin
There's a modest list of EWR values in "FAA
Guidelines for the Sound Insulation of Residences Exposed to Aircraft
Noise" WR 89-7, DOT/FAA/PP-92-5. That's on the Wyle web site, and
also available from NTIS.

OK. I think I remember that report being circulated among a few of us a
year or so ago. I'll look on my HD...

Found another document by Morrow/Erlich/Abel. Not it.
Looked at Wyle page. Found document. HUGE. Pagination not possible to
fathom. Each section is many megabytes long. Many sections.

OK...
EWR ratings of common elements are buried in there somewhere.. What
price glory?

I'll let that lay for a while.

Ang.

[Ken Plotkin]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 01:29:36 GMT, Angelo Campanella
<***@att.net> wrote:

[snip]

Post by Angelo Campanella
Looked at Wyle page. Found document. HUGE. Pagination not possible to
fathom. Each section is many megabytes long. Many sections.

[snip]

Pagination is by section: 1-1, 1-2, etc.

You can download the TOC and look for the table of EWR values. If it
was on, say, Page 3-12, you would just have to download Pages 1
through 12 of Section 3.

But it's a basic table. I suspect you've got your own personal stash
of TL data that's much more comprehensive.

[Angelo Campanella]

Post by Ken Plotkin
You can download the TOC and look for the table of EWR values. If it
was on, say, Page 3-12, you would just have to download Pages 1
through 12 of Section 3.

I was scared away by the seven megabyte size of the first section and
the four megabyte size of the thirst section where the tables lie.

Post by Ken Plotkin
But it's a basic table. I suspect you've got your own personal stash
of TL data that's much more comprehensive.

I thought it would be a simple task, but not so.

I was just trying to correlate the STC with EWR and my field tests,
since the OITC was only available for one window type.

A builder has wanted to know whether their walls still pass HUD muster.
Rather it's a matter of telling what minimally needs to be added to do
so on one hand, and to evaluate other constructions, on the other.
Materials are changing, literally as we speak. Vinyl siding is common
here, as is plastic foam insulation and OSB sheathing. Not a pretty
sight, acoustically.

Ang. C.

[Ken Plotkin]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 04:27:49 GMT, Angelo Campanella

Post by Angelo Campanella
I was scared away by the seven megabyte size of the first section and
the four megabyte size of the thirst section where the tables lie.

Depends on your connection. I've got cable modem with up to 4 mb/sec
download speed. I still remember what it was like in the dial-up
days. Unfortunately, web designers don't. I'll pass the critique on
to our webmaster.