<%BANNER%>

Soundscapes of Justice, Trial Courtrooms

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044686/00001

Material Information

Title: Soundscapes of Justice, Trial Courtrooms
Physical Description: 1 online resource (162 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Nickchen Von Crawford, Cory Charles
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: secondsubmission
Architecture -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Architecture thesis, M.S.A.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Acoustic performance of trial courtrooms, in the United States, is defined for federal courtrooms via the PBS P-100 document and US Courts Design Guide, but there are no acoustic performance standards for county courtrooms.  It is reasoned that county courtroom acoustic performance may be less than adequate due to the non-existent acoustic standards.  Extensive acoustic research on classrooms has established that all occupants should receive equal acoustic performance at all receiver locations.  Accordingly, there is a need for similar acoustic performance for the occupants in county and federal trial courtrooms.  Soundscape Theory approach was applied in order to determine the appropriate methodologies and selected measurement techniques.  Twelve courtrooms (4 federal, 4 county and 4 historic) located in Central Florida, were evaluated for Room Criteria, Noise Isolation Class, Reverberation Time and Speech Transmission Index.  The results of the study indicate the acoustic performance for federal and county courtrooms is similar regardless of age or volume with low RC and NIC values.  Although the RT values increased (beyond 1 second) as room volume increased, the desired STI values were within the desired acoustic performance range.  This research indicates there is a need for standardized field measurement procedures and further refinement of the preferred acoustic performance standards that can be applied to justice occupancies.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Cory Charles Nickchen Von Crawford.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.A.S.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Siebein, Gary W.
Local: Co-adviser: Shrivastav, Rahul.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044686:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044686/00001

Material Information

Title: Soundscapes of Justice, Trial Courtrooms
Physical Description: 1 online resource (162 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Nickchen Von Crawford, Cory Charles
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: secondsubmission
Architecture -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Architecture thesis, M.S.A.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Acoustic performance of trial courtrooms, in the United States, is defined for federal courtrooms via the PBS P-100 document and US Courts Design Guide, but there are no acoustic performance standards for county courtrooms.  It is reasoned that county courtroom acoustic performance may be less than adequate due to the non-existent acoustic standards.  Extensive acoustic research on classrooms has established that all occupants should receive equal acoustic performance at all receiver locations.  Accordingly, there is a need for similar acoustic performance for the occupants in county and federal trial courtrooms.  Soundscape Theory approach was applied in order to determine the appropriate methodologies and selected measurement techniques.  Twelve courtrooms (4 federal, 4 county and 4 historic) located in Central Florida, were evaluated for Room Criteria, Noise Isolation Class, Reverberation Time and Speech Transmission Index.  The results of the study indicate the acoustic performance for federal and county courtrooms is similar regardless of age or volume with low RC and NIC values.  Although the RT values increased (beyond 1 second) as room volume increased, the desired STI values were within the desired acoustic performance range.  This research indicates there is a need for standardized field measurement procedures and further refinement of the preferred acoustic performance standards that can be applied to justice occupancies.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Cory Charles Nickchen Von Crawford.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.A.S.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Siebein, Gary W.
Local: Co-adviser: Shrivastav, Rahul.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044686:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 SOUNDSCAPES OF JUSTICE, TRIAL COURTROOMS By CORY NICKCHEN VON CRAWFORD A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ARCHITECTURAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Cory Nickchen von Crawford

PAGE 3

3 To my mother and late father for teaching me the value of education and my wi fe for her patience and support

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Clay County Clerk of the Circuit Court James Jett, Information Technology Specialist II Eddy Richard and Director of Finance/ Information Technology Rick Dingle for the Clay County Clerk of the Circuit Court. I thank Sergeant Doug Unsworth and Corporal Derek DeLand of the La I thank Corporal Rick Johnson of the and Chief Judge Daniel B. Merrit t S enior of the 5 th Judicial Circuit of Florida. I thank Man agement Director Walter Kruja ick, Maintenance S hift Supervisor M ichael Renaud and Mainte nance Tradesworker Angel Rosado of Osceola County Facilities. I thank Senior Court Operations Manager Susan Phillips of the 18 th Judicial Circuit of Florida and Titusville Court Services I thank Staff Assistant for Facilities Dev elopment Annette Fitzpatrick and Director for Public Works Scott Cottrell of Sumter County. I thank Information Technology Specialist Jason Miller and Clerk of Court Jessica Lyublanovits of the U nited S tates District Court for the Northern District of Flo rida I thank Court Operations Supervisor Jim Leanhart of the U nited S tates District Court for the Middle District of Florida I thank Deputy Wes Thornal United States Marshals Service and Supervisory Deputy Eric Thompson U nited S tates Marshals Service.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 15 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 17 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 19 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 21 Soundscapes ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 21 Sonic Environment ................................ ................................ ........................... 21 Social Spheres ................................ ................................ ................................ 21 Classroom Acoustics ................................ ................................ .............................. 23 Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) ................................ ................................ ............. 23 Background Noise ................................ ................................ ............................ 24 Exterior noise ................................ ................................ ............................. 24 Interior noise ................................ ................................ .............................. 25 Facility noise ................................ ................................ .............................. 25 Occupant noise ................................ ................................ .......................... 25 Reverberation Time (RT) ................................ ................................ .................. 27 Ideal Acoustic Criteria for Classrooms ................................ .............................. 28 Additional acoustic considerations ................................ ............................. 28 Courtroom Acoustics ................................ ................................ ............................... 31 Co urtroom Architecture ................................ ................................ .................... 31 Acoustic Performance of Courtrooms ................................ ............................... 38 Acoustic Guidelines ................................ ................................ ................................ 38 State Courts Design Guide ................................ ................................ ............... 38 Federal Public Building Service P 100 ................................ ............................. 39 US Courts Design Guide ................................ ................................ .................. 40 Acoustic performance design requirements ................................ ............... 40 Acoustic Research of Portuguese Courtrooms ................................ ................. 41 Cited Acoustic Standards per the P 100 and United States Courts Design Guide 42 Privacy Level ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 42 Noise Isolation Class (NIC) ................................ ................................ .............. 43 Room Criteria (RC) ................................ ................................ ........................... 43 Speech Transmission Index (STI) ................................ ................................ .... 44 Speech transmission index for public address (STIPa) .............................. 46 Reverberation Time ................................ ................................ .......................... 47

PAGE 6

6 3 METHOD ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 48 Selected Acoustic Measurement Procedures ................................ ......................... 48 Noise Isolation Class ................................ ................................ ........................ 48 Room Criteria ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 48 Speech Transmission Index ................................ ................................ ............. 50 Reverberation Time ................................ ................................ .......................... 51 Privacy Level ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 54 Equipment ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 54 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 56 Individual Courtrooms ................................ ................................ ............................. 56 Clay County Courthouse ................................ ................................ .................. 56 Hernando County Courthouse ................................ ................................ .......... 58 Lake County Courthouse ................................ ................................ .................. 60 Osceola County Courthouse ................................ ................................ ............ 62 Gainesville Federal Courthouse ................................ ................................ ....... 64 Ocala 3A Federal Courthouse ................................ ................................ .......... 66 Ocala 3B Federal Courthouse ................................ ................................ .......... 68 Orlando Federal Courthouse ................................ ................................ ............ 70 Brevard Historic Courthouse ................................ ................................ ............ 72 Hernando Historic Courthouse ................................ ................................ ......... 74 Osceola Historic Courthouse ................................ ................................ ............ 76 Sumter Historic Courthouse ................................ ................................ ............. 78 Courtrooms by Category ................................ ................................ ......................... 80 All Courtrooms ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 81 Noise Isolation Class ................................ ................................ ........................ 81 Room Criteria ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 82 Reverberation Time ................................ ................................ .......................... 85 Clarity ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 91 Speech Transmission Index ................................ ................................ ............. 93 5 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 97 Cited Criteria ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 97 United States Court Design Guide Preferred Criteria ................................ ....... 97 USCDG Cited Standards ................................ ................................ .................. 99 Soundscape Theory Approach ................................ ................................ ............. 100 Recommended Standards ................................ ................................ .............. 103 Noise isolation class ................................ ................................ ................ 103 Room criteria ................................ ................................ ............................ 103 Speech transmission index ................................ ................................ ...... 103 Reverberation time ................................ ................................ ................... 104 Faade outside inside noise reduction (OINR) ................................ ........ 105 Impact isolation class (IIC) ................................ ................................ ....... 105 Minimal Hearing Standards ................................ ................................ ................... 105

PAGE 7

7 Normal Hearing Individuals ................................ ................................ ............ 105 Hearing Impaired, Second Language, Older/Younger Listeners .................... 106 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 107 APPENDIX A MEASURED COURTROOM DATA ................................ ................................ ...... 109 B NOISE ISOLATION CLASS ................................ ................................ .................. 145 C ROOM CRITERIA DATA ................................ ................................ ...................... 146 D REVERBERATION TIME DATA ................................ ................................ ........... 147 E SPEECH TRANSMISSION INDEX Data ................................ .............................. 150 F SPEECH TRANSMISSION INDEX CALCULATION SHEET ................................ 154 G ALPHA BAR CALCULATIONS ................................ ................................ ............. 155 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 1 56 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 162

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 Courtroom background information. ................................ ................................ ... 20 2 1 Summary of studies that have e xamined unoccupied and occupied classroom background noise levels ................................ ................................ .... 26 2 2 Acoustic performance requirements per the US Courts Design Guide (USCDG) ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 40 2 3 USCDG room partition requirements ................................ ................................ .. 42 2 4 USCDG Speech Transmission Index (STI) rating system ................................ .. 44 4 1 Cou nty courtroom information ................................ ................................ ............ 80 4 2 Federal courtroom information ................................ ................................ ............ 80 4 3 Historic courtroom information ................................ ................................ ............ 80 5 1 Comparison of USCDG and standard STI value to subjective measures ........... 99 5 2 Preferred criteria current and proposed field testing standards ........................ 100 5 3 Averaged soundscape theory approach acoustic results ................................ 101 5 4 Averaged centralized acoustic results ................................ .............................. 102 A 1 Clay County Noise Isolation Class ................................ ................................ .... 109 A 2 Clay County Room Criteria ................................ ................................ ............... 109 A 3 Clay County Speech Transmission Index ................................ ......................... 109 A 4 Clay County Reverberation Time interrupted noise method (INM) .................. 109 A 5 Clay County Reverberati on Time integrated impulse response method (IIRM) 110 A 6 Hernando County Noise Isolation Class ................................ ........................... 111 A 7 Hernando County Room Cri teria ................................ ................................ ...... 111 A 8 Hernando County Speech Transmission Index ................................ ................ 111 A 9 Hernando County Reverberation Time (INM) ................................ ................... 111 A 10 Hernando County Reverberation Time (IIRM) ................................ .................. 112

PAGE 9

9 A 12 Lake County Room Criteria ................................ ................................ .............. 113 A 13 Lake County Speech Transmission Index ................................ ........................ 113 A 14 Lake County Reverberation Time (INM) ................................ ........................... 113 A 15 Lake County Reverberation T ime (IIRM) ................................ .......................... 114 A 16 Osceola County Noise Isolation Class ................................ .............................. 115 A 17 Osceola County Room Criteria ................................ ................................ ......... 115 A 18 Osceola County Speech Transmission Index ................................ ................... 115 A 19 Osceola County Reverberation Time (INM) ................................ ...................... 115 A 20 Osceola County Reverberation Time (IIRM) ................................ ..................... 116 A 21 Gainesville Federal Noise Isolation Class ................................ ........................ 117 A 22 Gainesville Fede ral Room Criteria ................................ ................................ .... 117 A 23 Gainesville Federal Speech Transmission Index ................................ .............. 117 A 24 Gainesville Federal Reverberation Time (INM) ................................ ................. 117 A 25 Gainesville Federal Reverberation Time (IIRM) ................................ ................ 118 A 26 Ocala 3A Federal Noise Isolation Class ................................ ........................... 119 A 27 Ocala 3A Federal Room Criteria ................................ ................................ ....... 119 A 28 Ocala 3A Federal Speech Transmission Index ................................ ................. 119 A 29 Ocala 3A Federal Reverberation Time (INM) ................................ ................... 119 A 30 Ocala 3A Federal Reverberation Time (IIRM) ................................ .................. 120 A 31 Ocala 3B Feder al Noise Isolation Class ................................ ........................... 121 A 32 Ocala 3B Federal Room Criteria ................................ ................................ ....... 121 A 33 Ocala 3B Federal Speech Transmission Index ................................ ................. 121 A 34 Ocala 3B Federal Reverberation Time (INM) ................................ ................... 121 A 35 Ocala 3B Federal Reverberation Time (IIRM) ................................ .................. 122 A 36 Orlando Federal Noise Isolation Class ................................ ............................. 123

PAGE 10

10 A 37 Orlando Federal Room Criteria ................................ ................................ ......... 123 A 38 Orlan do Federal Speech Transmission Index ................................ ................... 123 A 39 Orlando Federal Reverberation Time (INM) ................................ ..................... 123 A 40 Orlando Federal Reverberation Ti me (IIRM) ................................ .................... 124 A 41 Brevard Historic Noise Isolation Class ................................ .............................. 125 A 42 Brevard Historic Room Criteria ................................ ................................ ......... 125 A 4 3 Brevard Historic Speech Transmission Index ................................ ................... 125 A 44 Brevard Historic Reverberation Time (INM) ................................ ...................... 125 A 45 Brevard Historic Reverberation Time (IIRM) ................................ ..................... 126 A 46 Hernando Historic Noise Isolation Class ................................ .......................... 127 A 47 Hernando Historic Room Criteria ................................ ................................ ...... 127 A 48 Hernando Historic Speech Transmission Index ................................ ................ 127 A 49 Hernando Historic Reverberation Time (INM) ................................ ................... 127 A 50 Hernando Historic Reverberation Time (IIRM) ................................ .................. 128 A 51 Osceola Historic Noise Isolation Class ................................ ............................. 129 A 52 Osceola Historic Room Criteria ................................ ................................ ........ 129 A 53 Osceola Historic Speech Transmission Index ................................ .................. 129 A 54 Osceola Historic Reverberation Time (INM) ................................ ..................... 129 A 55 Osceola Historic Reverberation Time (IIRM) ................................ .................... 130 A 56 Sumter Historic Noise Isolation Class ................................ ............................... 131 A 57 Sumter Historic Room Criteria ................................ ................................ .......... 131 A 58 Sumter Historic Speech Transmission Index ................................ .................... 131 A 59 Sumter Historic Reverberation Time (INM) ................................ ....................... 131 A 60 Sumter Historic Reverberation Time (IIRM) ................................ ...................... 132 H 1 Alpha bar calculations ................................ ................................ ...................... 155

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Noise Criteria (NC) C urves ................................ ................................ ................. 26 2 2 Room Criteria (RC) C urves ................................ ................................ ................ 27 2 3 Recommended Reverberation Times (RT) for Speech ................................ ....... 28 2 4 Gr eek Revival architecture ................................ ................................ ................. 33 2 5 Second Empire architecture ................................ ................................ ............... 34 2 6 Victorian architecture ................................ ................................ .......................... 34 2 7 Neo Classic architecture ................................ ................................ .................... 35 2 8 Modern architecture ................................ ................................ ............................ 36 2 9 Typical courtroom, corner seated judg e ................................ ............................. 37 4 1 Clay County Courtroom 4, plan view ................................ ................................ .. 56 4 2 Series of Clay County courthouse pictures ................................ ......................... 57 4 3 Hernando County Courtroom E, plan view ................................ ......................... 58 4 4 Series of Hernando County courthouse pictures ................................ ................ 59 4 5 Lake County Courtroom 8, plan view ................................ ................................ .. 60 4 6 Series of Lake County courthouse pictures ................................ ........................ 61 4 7 Osceola County Courtroom 5 D, plan view ................................ ........................ 62 4 8 Series of Osceola County courthouse pictures. ................................ .................. 63 4 9 Gainesville Federal Courtroom 1, plan view ................................ ....................... 64 4 10 Series of Gainesville Federal courthouse pictures ................................ .............. 65 4 11 Ocala Federal Courtroom 3A, plan view ................................ ............................. 66 4 12 Series of Ocala 3A Federal courthouse pictures. ................................ ............... 67 4 13 Ocala Federal Courtroom 3B, plan view ................................ ............................. 68 4 14 Series of Ocala 3B Federal courthouse pictures ................................ ................ 69

PAGE 12

12 4 15 Orlando Federal Courtroom 5 A, plan view ................................ ........................ 70 4 16 Series of Orlando Federal courthouse pictures ................................ .................. 71 4 17 Brevard Historic Courtroom 3, plan view ................................ ............................ 72 4 18 Series of Brevard Historic courthouse pictu res ................................ ................... 73 4 19 Hernando Historic Courtroom A, plan view ................................ ......................... 74 4 20 Series of Hernando Historic courthouse pictures ................................ ................ 75 4 21 Hernando Historic Courtroom A, plan view ................................ ......................... 76 4 22 Series of Osceola Historic courthouse pictures ................................ .................. 77 4 23 Sumter Historic Courtroom, plan view ................................ ................................ 78 4 24 Series of Sumter Historic courthouse pictures ................................ .................... 79 4 25 RC (mean and standard deviation) by courtroom ascending age ....................... 83 4 26 RC (mean and standard deviation) by courtroom volume ................................ .. 83 4 27 RC (mean and standard deviation) by maximum courtroom height .................... 84 4 28 RC (mean and standard deviation) by Air Conditioning operation and courtroom category ................................ ................................ ............................. 84 4 29 Reverberation Time mean of the interrupted noise method ( INM ) and averaged integrated impulse response method ( IIRM ) (three sources) by ascending room volume ................................ ................................ ..................... 86 4 30 Reverberation Time mean of the INM and averaged IIRM (three sources) by ascending room volume with the corrected RT for Osceola Historic .................. 87 4 31 Reverberation Time standard deviation for IIRM (three sources) listed by ascending room volume ................................ ................................ ..................... 88 4 32 Orlando Federal IIRM RT for each source path receiver location ...................... 89 4 33 Orlando Federal IIRM Reverberation Time, standard deviation of all source mean values. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 90 4 34 Reverberation Time mean and standard deviation by the source location for all receiver l ocations versus octave band frequency for Orlando Federal .......... 91 4 35 Clarity mean and standard deviation by the source location for all receiver locations versus octave band frequency for Orlando Federal ............................. 92

PAGE 13

13 4 36 Speech Transmission Index ( STI ) mean values listed by ascending room volume ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 94 4 37 STI standard deviation list ed by ascending volume ................................ ............ 95 B 1 Clay County ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 133 B 2 Hernando County ................................ ................................ ............................. 134 B 3 Lake County ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 135 B 4 Osceola County ................................ ................................ ................................ 136 B 5 Gainesville Federal ................................ ................................ ........................... 137 B 6 Ocala 3A Federal ................................ ................................ .............................. 138 B 7 Ocala 3B Federal ................................ ................................ .............................. 139 B 8 Orlando Federal ................................ ................................ ................................ 140 B 9 Brevard Historic ................................ ................................ ................................ 141 B 10 Hernando Historic ................................ ................................ ............................. 142 B 11 Osceola Historic ................................ ................................ ............................... 143 B 12 Sumter Historic ................................ ................................ ................................ 144 C 1 Noise Isolation Class data for all courtrooms ................................ .................... 145 D 1 Room Cri teria data for all courtrooms ................................ ............................... 146 E 1 Reverberation Time data for all courtrooms with source of judge ..................... 147 E 2 Reverberation Time data for all courtrooms with source of podium .................. 148 E 3 Reverberation Time data for all courtrooms with source of witness .................. 149 F 1 Speech Transmission Index data for all courtrooms for unassisted source of judge ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 150 F 2 Speech Transmission Index data for all courtrooms for unassisted source of podium ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 151 F 3 Speech Transmission Index data for all courtrooms for unassisted source of witness ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 152

PAGE 14

14 F 4 Speech Transmission Index data for all courtrooms for assisted source of house ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 153 G 1 Speech Transmission Index formula calculation ................................ ............... 154

PAGE 15

15 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S ASA Acoustic Society of America ASHA American Sp eech Language Hearing Association ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers C 80 Clarity D 50 Definition Index dB Decibel dB ( A ) Decibel A weighted dB ( B ) Decibel B weighted dB ( C ) Decibel C w eighted DNR Did Not Record EDT Early Decay Time HVAC Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning IIRM Integrated Impulse Response Method INM Interrupted Noise Method NC Noise Criteria NIC Noise Isolation Class PBS Public Building Services P 100 Document RASTI Rapid Speech Transmission Ind ex RC Room Criteria RT Reverberation Time S/N Signal to Noise Ratio SNR Signal to Noise Ratio STC Speech Transmission Coefficient

PAGE 16

16 STI Speech Transmission Index STIPA Speech Transmission Index for Public Address TS Target Strength US United States USCDG Uni ted States Courts Design Guide

PAGE 17

17 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Architectural Studies SOUNDSCAPES OF JUSTICE TRIAL COURTROOMS By Cory Nickchen von Crawford August 2012 Chair: Gary Siebein Co chair: Rahul Shrivastav Major: Architectur e Acoustic performance of trial courtrooms, in the United States, is defined for federal courtrooms via the PBS P 100 document and US Courts Design Guide, but there are no acoustic performance standards for county courtrooms. It is reasoned that county courtroom acoustic performance may be less than adequate due to the non existent acoustic standards. Extensive acoustic research on cla ssrooms has established that all occupants should receive equal acoustic performance at all receiver locations. Accordingly, there is a need for similar acoustic performance for the occupants in county and federal trial courtrooms. Soundscape Theo ry approach was applied in order to determine the appropriate methodologies and selected measurement techniques. Twelve courtrooms (4 federal, 4 county and 4 historic) located in Central Florida, were evaluated for Room Criteria, Noise Isolation Class, Re verberation Time and Speech Transmission Index. The results of the study indicate the acoustic performance for federal and county courtrooms is similar regardless of age or volume with low RC and NIC values. Although the RT values increased (beyond 1 sec ond) as room volume increased, the desired STI values were within the desired acoustic performance range. This research indicates there is a need for standardized field

PAGE 18

18 measurement procedures and further refinement of the preferred acoustic performance st andards that can be applied to justice occupancies.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Trial Courtrooms In the United States, all trial courtrooms are not created equal, acoustically speaking. A courtroom utilizes the primary instrument of speech to find truth. W ith poor architectural acoustics, the spoken word becomes ineffective and the not just house old documents; it is a place to engage in argument, to discern a clear und erst anding through the spoken word. For this study, an investigation of trial courtroom acoustics was undertaken. Trial courtrooms are the traditional courtrooms containing a judge, jury, witness, defendant, attorneys, clerk, bailiff and recorder all loca ted in the well, separated from the public by the bar. In the United States, Trail court can either be held in Federal or County courthouses depending on jurisdiction. With regards to arch itectural acoustic, there are few published quantitative guideline s for county courtrooms, whereas ther e are two gui delines for federal courtrooms that contain specific acoustic parameters. Objectives There were four objectives for this study. 1. Explore the qualitative acoustic soundscape of a courtroom, 2. Review cu rrent architectural acoustic performance guidelines for courtrooms, 3. Determine/select the field test methods or standards to evaluate the acoustic performance for courtrooms, 4. Using the testing battery, acoustically measure and compare (12) twelve cour trooms divided into three categories; (4) Federal, (4) County and (4) Historic ( Table 1 1 ) In theory, all Federal courtrooms have to conform to the federal acoustic requirements. County courtrooms do not have to follow any acoustic requirements. Federal courthouses designers have to abide by requirements set fourth, where county

PAGE 20

20 designers actively choose to have bad acoustics, it is a passive selection by the owner, archit ect and contractor of initial cost savings of finishes, mechanical devices, architectural geometry etc. and later eventual concessions of value engineer decisions (to ensure is budget is maintained) that eventually affect the acoustics negatively. The pur pose of testing Historic courtrooms was to evaluate the prevailing architectural designs and examine how their acoustic performance impacts modern courtroom acoustic design and construction methods. Table 1 1. Courtroom b ackground i nformation Courthouse Courtroom Name Original Construction Post Construction Clay County 4 1980 1993 Renovation Hernando County E 2000 Lake County 8 1992 Shell Out 2004 Fit Out Osceola County 5 D 2001 Gainesville Federal 1 1963 2008 A udio /V isual Ocala Federal 3 A 19 59 Ocala Federal 3 B 1959 2002 Renovation Orlando Federal 5 A 2007 Brevard Historic 3 1912 1988 Renovation Hernando Historic A 1913 1993 Restoration Osceola Historic HISTORIC 1890 2002 Restoration Sumter Historic HISTORIC 1913 2001 Restoration

PAGE 21

21 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Soundscapes Sonic Environment It is vital to understand a sonic environment in order for any measured data to energy in any given context, we w how that environment is understood by those living with in it (Truax 11). Schafer defined a soundscape as a sonic environment; a definition that reflected his engagement with the envi ronmental movements of the 1970 s and emphasized his e of the soundscape of that era (Thompson 1) Emily Thompson defines the soundscape as an auditory or aural landscape (1). In a soundscape, a hi fi system is one possess ing a favorable signal to noise ratio. The hi fi soundscape is one in which discrete sounds can be heard clearly because of the low ambient noise level (Schafer 43). The brain is adept at pattern detection, but a minimum signal to noise ratio is required so that the desired signal may be separated from any competing noise. Situations where signal detection is difficult or impossible Social Spheres One consideration in a soundscape is the source path receiver As Durand R. Begault PhD wrote, acoustical analysis involves not only the sound source but also who is hearing it (receiver) and everything in between (the path). The path is made up of the environment encompassing both sound source and receiver (Salte r 27). As part of

PAGE 22

22 defining a soundscape for courtrooms, it is important to define communication paths. Spaces Speak Are You Listening? Experiencing Aural Architecture defines the concept of social spheres: Whereas physical distance is measured in meters or feet, social distance depends on the social context. The social anthropologist Edward T. Hall divided social distance into four spheres: (1) the intimate sphere, which ends at about half a meter (1 2 feet) and is received for intima te friends and relatives; (2) the personal sphere, which ends at about 1 meter (3 feet) and is received for acquaintances; (3) the conversational sphere, which ends at about 4 meters (12 feet) and is reserved for oral interchanges with strangers; and (4) t he public sphere, which is determined by the acoustic horizon and is impersonal an d anonymous ( 34). In court proceedings, all four spheres can be observed. The intimate sphere occurs with many private, side conversations such as Attorney Client. The pers onal sphere is also used for private conversation such as Judge Attorney (side bar). The conversational sphere is the main open public communication conversation that occurs in the well. The public sphere is bounded by the acoustic horizon which is conta ined by the floor, ceiling and walls of the courtroom Truax states t he presence of a steady level furthest distance from which sound may be heard ( 26). With this fo undation, we define an acoustic arena as the area where listeners can hear a sonic event (target sound) because it has sufficient loudness to overcome the background noise (unwanted sounds) (Blesser 22). In addition, in its broader sense, rhythm divides t he whole into parts. An appreciation of rhythm is therefore indispensable to the designer who wishes to comprehend how the acoustic environment fits together (Schafer 226). By utilizing a soundscape based theory approach, fundamental questions can be iden tified such as what are the sources, who are the receivers, where are the source(s) and receiver(s) located, what sounds are in the background, what sounds are in the

PAGE 23

23 forefront, do the background and forefront sounds impact the target signal, what is the d that impacts interior and/or exterior sounds? The soundscape approach is a tool that identifies the sonic environment and helps the acoustician in the selection pro cess of what testing methods and standards to utilize when performing an acoustic evaluation. Classroom Acoustics An issue facing this research was the lack of literature specifically on courtroom architectural acoustics. Therefore it was necessary to uti lize the closely related and well documented area of research in classroom acoustics. Although the size of a classroom is typically smaller than a courtroom, the qualitative desire of excellent intelligibility is shared by both venues. Signal to Noise Rat io (SNR) Cyril Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control defines intelligibility : The understanding of spoken works is defined here as intelligibility; voice is n ot included in this term. H. Levitt and J. Webster noted the major factors affecting speech intelligibility include the spectrum and temporal of voice, distance from the talker to with the words used by the speaker (16.1). recognition tests, we know that the fraction of the words understood by listeners, (t hat is, the intelligibility of the speech), is most influenced by how loud the speech is relative to the level of ambient noise. For near to complete understanding of speech, the speech must be at least 15 decibels louder than other interfering sounds (2 ) This is

PAGE 24

24 commonly referred to as the signal to noise ratio (SNR) and refers to the desired sound signal to that of the noise floor or background noise. : S peech is a highly complex signal that varies in frequency and level quickly during conversational speech. Even when one speaks at a relatively constant overall level, individual phonemes in a sentence vary in level by 30 to 40 dB. A sentence that is produced at an average level o f 65 dB ( A ) then, may contain vowels that are as high as 75 80 dB and conso nants as low as 45 50 dB (31). Further, a number of research reports (Soli and Sullivan ) have shown while adults can understand familiar speech under conditions of SNR = 0 dB, child ren cannot (Nelson 29). Children with special needs constitute a large portion of the school populations and these children need even more favorable acoustics. In particular, children who are learning English (who speak other languages at home) seem to b e particularly vulnerable to background noise and reverberation (30). Background Noise Background noise is the total noise from all sources other than a particular sound that is of interest (Harris 2.3). Background noise, for the purpose of this research, is influenced by four sources: 1) External noise ingress 2) Internal noise ingress 3) Facility noise (no occupants) and 4) Occupant noise. Exterior n oise Exterior Noise Sources are the residual sounds that ingress through an exterior partition separating a room from the exterior of the building. From the ASA T he noise reduction of exterior walls is also important since many noisy and potentially disruptive activities go on outside the school. Most schools are built with br ick or concrete block exterior walls, which are good sound barriers, but with inadequate windows that permit considerable sound

PAGE 25

25 transmission. To provide noise reduction, windows must be well sealed. Double paned glass provides better noise reduction than single paned glass (as well as better thermal insulation and decreased energy costs) (9). Interior n oise Interior Noise Sources are the residual sounds that ingress through an interior partition separating a room from an adjacent room. sroom Acoustics article: The noise from adjacent rooms disrupts the learning process, especially during quiet reading times or test taking. Fifty years ago, when school walls were typically built of heavy brick or concrete block, this was not as much of a problem. In recent decades, the need to lower construction costs has led to the use of thin, lightweight wall materials that provide little noise reduction (7). Facility n oise Facility noise refers to noise generated by the building systems. The se noise sources ar e located within the room. They include HVAC (VAV boxes, diffusers, and exhaust fans), plumbing/piping, electronic equipment cooling fans such as audio visual projector, personal computers, computer racks, audio amplifiers and electrical equipme Occupant n oise Occupant noise is internal noise from the occupants themselves not from the the classroom assist o r impede the learning states that measurements of noise levels in classroo ms show, that the noise levels of attentive students during a teaching activity are 5 to 10 decibels louder than the noise levels found i n the unoccupied room (4). T Children with Normal Hearing and with Hearing Impairme Smaldino state s that background noise levels studies that have examined unoccupied

PAGE 26

26 and occupied classroom have fo und varying results (363). ( Table 2 1 ) list the studies as well as a synopsis of the findings. Table 2 1. Summary of studies that have examined unoccupied and occupied classroom background noise levels Author Unoccupied Occupied Sanders (1965) 42 dB ( B ) to 58 dB ( B ) 52 dB ( B ) to 69 dB ( B ) Nober & Nober (1975) DNR 65 dB ( A ) Bess, Sinclair & Riggs(1984) 41 dB ( A ) 50 dB ( B ), 5 8 dB ( C ) 56 dB ( A ), 60 dB(B), 63 dB ( C ) Finitzo Heiber (1988) DNR 48 dB ( A ) to 68 dB ( A ) Source : C. Crandel and J.Smaldino In time the Noise Criteria (NC) standard was established for appropriate background noise level s depending on room use. David Egan sta tes that Noise criteria curves can be used to specify the steady, or continuous, background noise level (not activity noise from occupants of room). The NC rating for a noise situation usually means the lowest NC curve that is not exceeded by any octave b and sound pressure level ( 233). NC curves are a set of curves in which the lower frequencies allow for higher amplitudes ( Figure 2 1 ) Figure 2 1. N oise Criteria Curves. Source : Noise in Bu ildings. Noise Control 1957, p.1

PAGE 27

27 Blaz work on Room Criteria ( RC ) curves provides a more comprehensive evaluation of noise environments than NC curves RC curves extend from 16 Hz to 4 kHz in place of 63 Hz to 8 kHz for NC curves (Mehta 165). The RC value is obtained by comparing noise levels, made in unoccupied rooms with all systems operating, with a set of curves (Templeton 141). RC curves are not really curves but straight lines with a 5 dB per octave slope (Mehta 166) ( Figure 2 2 ) Fig ure 2 2. Room Criteria C urves Source : ASHRAE Transaction s 87(1), Pt. 1, 1981 p. 1 Reverberation Time (RT) Reverberation time is the rate at which sound decays in a room once the source has abruptly ceased. Specifically, it is the number of seconds it takes for sound to decay by 60 dB, which is why it is sometimes referred to as RT 60 (Brooks 41). As with all acoustic preferred criteria, the preferred reverberation time has been adjusted ov er time. 925 work, that for rooms for speech, reverberation should always be kept below one second In 1958, the optimum range for RT lowered

PAGE 28

28 for rooms constructed for speec h depending on room volume ( Figure 2 3 ) Preferred 851). In 1985, Bradley reverberati on times for classrooms were estimated to be in the range of 0.4 0.5 seconds (854). Figure 2 3 Recommended Reverberation Times for Speech Source: Knudsen, V. and C. Harris Acoustical Design in Architecture p.173 Ideal Acoustic Criteria for Classroo ms To achieve appropriate acoustical conditions in an educational setting, ASHA recommends the following: 1. Unoccupied classroom noise levels must not exceed 35 dB ( A ) 2. The signal to 3. Unoccupied classroom reverberation times must not surpass 0.6 seconds in smaller classrooms (<10,000 ft 3 ) or 0.7 seconds in larger rooms (>10,000 ft 3 and <20,000 ft 3 ) ( ASHA 1). Additional acoustic c onsiderations T he ies: R ooms such as classrooms and meeting rooms are intended for speech communication, but they are often not designed to optimally support this intended use. When acoustical design issues are ignored, inaccurate

PAGE 29

29 communicati on such as in a law court or boardroom can result, and the associated costs can far exceed the relatively modest price of an appropriate acoustical design for the room. Both excessive ambient noise and inappropriate room acoustics can degrade the intellig ibility of speech in rooms. As listeners we often do not realize that we are having difficulty understanding speech because of our quite remarkable abilities to guess the correct word in noisy or reverberant conditions (1). Optimum acoustic conditions bas ed on tests with young adults (college students) are not stringent enough for most other subjects. In particular younger students, older listeners, and hearing impaired subjects require lower background noise levels and reverberation times to achieve the 846). Nabelek and increase as reverberation time decrease s and that the detrimental effects of reverberation depend on the age of the subjects. Both 10 year olds and older subjects of 64 to 72 years were more negatively influenced by reverberation time than were young adults (846). The negative effects of noise and reverberation are usually more obvious when listening in a second language in which we are less able to use context to guess particular words. Of course, listeners with any hearing impairment will be more affected by inadequate acoustics and excessiv e noise, as will very young and very old listeners with normal hearing. These groups are less capable of processing the speech sounds recognition by grades 1, 3 and 6 and Sato indicate the results clearly show the importance of better conditions, with lower noise levels, for younger students. However, it will not be obvious to adult listeners that younger children cannot under stand speech in moderately noisy conditions (27).

PAGE 30

30 Some particular types of rooms also require special considerations. Rooms used for tele and video conferencing are intended to function somewhat like recording studios in that speech sounds are picked up by microphones and transmitted to remote locations. The speech is usually transmitted as a single channel or monaural signal, remote location is reduced because the norm al benefits of binaural hearing are lost Perfect fidelity of course, is technically impossible to achieve because every stage of the signal transfer process inevitably adds noise or distortion to the signal, however slight (Trua x 10). Unfortunately the sound reinforcement loudspeaker system does not solve all acoustic problems and in some cases can create additional acoustic phenomenon. Sonic Experience: A Guide to Everyday Sounds : D elocalization, a for m of the ubiquity effect, implies recognition of an error in localizing a sound source. As with the ubiquity effect, the listener does not know where the sound source comes from; however, with the delocalization effect, the listener knows exactly where th e sound seems to come from, while at the same time being conscience that it is an illusion (38). The underlying issue with addressing the additional acoustical considerations is not only for increased intelligibility, it also has to do with concentration a s identified in In many everyday classroom situations, children will only understand a portion of the words that are spoken to them, even if they are clearly spoken simple words. The problem becomes more acute for younger children and others such as hearing impaired and second language listeners. When difficult listening conditions persist for some time, some

PAGE 31

31 Consequently we should provide these listeners with better listening conditions so that they have equal accessibility to speech com Courtroom Acoustics The type of courtroom chosen for this research was a trial courtroom This is a courtroom with the sources being the judge, witness and attorneys (plaintiff and defendant) with multiple receivers of the judge, witness, recorder, jury, and attorneys all located in the well area, separated from the public area via the bar. For this research, speech is the target signal; however as noted, the primary source comes from multiple locations, unlike classroom acoustics, and has multiple receiver locations. In addition, there is no preferred hierarchy source path receiver acousti cs; meaning the source location of the judge position should not have better acoustic performance than the witness location, and similarly, the receiver in a jury location should have the same acoustic performance at a receiver in a public location. Cour troom Architecture The composite of numerous surfaces, objects, and geometries in a complicated environment creates an aural architecture (Blesser 2). Architecture, like a giant, hollowed out sculpture, embeds those who find themselves within it; it is to be apprehended from within. But that embedding differs between the aural and visual modalities because human activities produce sound but not light (Blesser and Salter 16). The purpose of reviewing the historical architectural styles is to understand the link between the architectural exterior style and the influence on the interior style and how that connection plays a vital role in architectural acoustics. If the exterior was made of stone, the interior carried through to the interior, and so forth wit h other materials. Typically interiors styles made use of hard materials. These materials reduced sound

PAGE 32

32 transmission from room to room. These materials also reinforced natural acoustics because they are reflective as opposed to absorbent. Reflective ma terials increase the reverberation time. To understand how the current and future courtroom acoustics should operate, it is necessary to look into architectural history. The US court system along with most of the US government was based on the British cour t system. In England during the 12th and early 13th centuries, the English courts would operate by physically moving and temporarily setting up from location to location as it travelled with the king on his journeys (Alfini 1 3). This means acoustically e ach location would be different. Sometimes court would be held outdoors. Acoustically this is not a good venue for optimal communication. During the middle ages courts were loud, noisy places where well designed acoustics were not the main goal; however they were becoming located in permanent locations. The interior would be constructed of the materials of the time: heavy stone walls and floors, high ceilings and wood furniture. By the 17th century the US courts system in the colonies resided in a perman ent location, but they did not reside in a courthouse. Courtrooms were located in various venues. Court was held in public buildings such as meeting houses, taverns, urban centers and multifunctional civic buildings known as town houses (McNamara 2). Co urt being held in town houses occurred for several reasons; obviously funds were part but also availability of materials and skilled labor. Depending on the location of these buildings, the architecture would range from single story buildings to three sto ries that would be viewed as a New England mansion (Flanders 39). There are specific architectural styles recognizable in US history which shaped courthouse design.

PAGE 33

33 From the mid to late 1700 beginning t o take shape and began to sculpt the architecture of the US courthouses (Burns 27). Note this architectural style occurred after the revolutionary war (1775 1783) and size of the US at the time was the thirteen colonies and they resided in the Eastern par t of the US. The Spanish had already been developing New Spain for almost a century prior to the Revolutionary War in the west (Texas, and California, Rio Grande) (Robinson 7), therefore Spanish architecture will influence the architecture in the states i n the future. In the early to mid 1800 s courthouses were being designe d with the Greek Revival Period (F igure 2 4 ), (P ittsylvania County Courthouse). Figure 2 4 Greek Revival a rchitecture The Greek Revival Period was followed closely by Second Empire (Thrane 11 ) or Romanticism (Brink 99), (F igure 2 5 ), (Boston Old City Hall).

PAGE 34

34 Figure 2 5 Second Empire a rchitecture In the late 1800 s the Victorian Period (F igure 2 6 ), (Terrell County Courthouse) started and died out by 1900 Figure 2 6. Victorian a rchitecture Simultaneously wa s the Neo Classical Period (F igure 2 7 ), (Logan County Courthouse) which outlasted the Victorian style and lasted until the 1930 s.

PAGE 35

35 Figure 2 7 Neo Classic a rchitecture Early Modernism started and then stopped. During th e Great Depression, there was a return to t he colonial style. In the 1930 s with the Art Deco movement, the courthouses began to shift to a more business like and less liturgical style. Unfortunately during WWII and the post war period, court projects went on hold and did not retain any interest by architects or citizens (Flanders 13). The Mo dern Period started in the 1950 s (F igure 2 8 ), (Peoria County Courthouse). All these designs were a reflection and expression of what society believed to hold true of t he legal system. As these courthouses grew in size, logistics became a problem. There were designs that incorporated the multi uses of the building. For instance a courthouse and post office would sometimes be located in the same building which can stil l be found currently. In time it was discovered which combination of activities did and did not work. More often than not these rooms had poor acoustics because the people responsible for their construction were not aware that it could be otherwise (Broo ks 1).

PAGE 36

36 Figure 2 8 Modern a rchitecture Technology also shaped architecture throughout history. Electricity changed architecture so as to include electric incandescent lighting. By the mid 1886 Edison plants had produced and sold over 330,000 lamps (Bo wers 109). Air conditioning started to be integrated as well i n courthouses in the early 1900 s. In 1928 and 1929, the US Congress used Carrier equipment to cool its chambers (Ford 35). In time courtroom layout, such as the position of the judge, witness, prosecution, defendant, jury and public, has been altered slightly. T here was a n attempted of in the 1960 s. This design was trying to not only include acoustics but lines of sight, so each party involved in a court case could see e ach other. The concept of verbal and non verbal communication became part of the design goals. By the 1970 s the round type design was not popular and by the 1980 s a courtroom design with th e judge seated in a corner (F igure 2 9 ), (Osceola County Courtroom 5 D) had become popular (Hardenbergh, v ).

PAGE 37

37 Figure 2 9 Typical courtroom, corner seated judge From the 1960 s until the late 1980 s courthouse design was less than desirable. The buildings were not sustainable and inefficient in many ways. The courtroom design did not reflect on the exterior or interior the dignity and stature the court system represented (Hadenbergh et al, vii) There were many design changes that occurred which seemed logical, but somehow missed basic functionality needs. Fo r example it was discovered inefficient courthouse designs, which lead to additional walking, and hindrances to communication would, in effect, lead to inefficient court hearings. It was also revealed that new or future technology began to reveal themselv es during this time such as video recordings and computers. Acoustically, microphones were utilized during this time period as well. This technology required more thought during the design because the old designs had become obsolete (Handler v ). Moynihan Symposium on n 1962, while writing a report to President Kennedy on the subject of federal office space, a young Daniel Patrick Moynihan penned what has become known as the Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture, a forward thinking pronouncement on how the government should further

PAGE 38

38 the interests and aspirations of the American people in its public buildings. In 1976, US Senator Daniel Moynihan won his first election. Moynihan started the Design Excellence Program of the Ge neral Services Administration (GSA). This program was invaluable to the US federal court system. It inspired a new generation of architecture for courthouses, but more importantly stated very specific criteria which an Architect could follow. The progra m ensured that basic design needs were met, but allow artistic freedom to flow and in the end to have a courthouse worthy of the stature for which it was erected. The program s further refinement holds true with respect to obtaining optimal courtroom archit ectural acoustics. Acoustic Performance of Courtrooms Acoustical guidelines for federal buildings, which include federal courthouses, were published in the 1970 s. The guidelines are updated approximately every 10 years. There are two guidelines that were reviewed for this work; the 2010 Public Building Service ( PBS ) P 100 and the 2007 US Courts Design Guide (USCDG) These are the most recent editions, however no courtroom sampled for this research had been designed to or built according to these guidelin es. The guidelines were chosen to act as a basis by which all courtrooms in this research would be evaluated. Acoustic Guidelines State Courts Design Guide To date, there are four states: Kentucky, Virginia, Michigan and Utah that have a quantitative specifications and tend to list qualitative requirements. Court Facilities Design Guide lists the only quantifiable standard for speech transmission i ndex (ST C) requirement of 50 (4 2 ). However STC cannot be validated in

PAGE 39

39 the field. includes verbiage about including a sound amplification system when needed and where it is to be located (2 2 7 ). Courthous e Facility Guidelines (2 nd Ed.), speaks of the importance of privacy and desire for superior acoustics (51). Section II must be silent in the courtrooms which is impossible. Thus, there are no acoustic field performance standards available for state trial/district courtrooms. Federal P ublic B uilding S ervice P 100 The Facility Standards for the PBS P100 (known as the P 10 0) establishes design standards and criteria for new buildings, repairs and alterations, and modernizations for the PBS of the General Services Administration (GSA). The P 100 is a mandatory standard. It is not a guideline, textbook, handbook, training ma nual, nor substitute for technical competence ( 7). In addition to the P 100, GSA and its customer agencies use a number of specific guides and standards that address program requirements. Use of these additional guides is also mandatory. Section 8.1, of the P 100, identifies the US Courts Design Guide (USCDG) to provide comprehensive programming and design criteria for US Court facilities ( 267). Further, the P 100 in section 8.2 identifies chapter 14 of the USCDG having specific guidance and requirements for the acoustic performance of each courthouse facility space. The design must provide these acoustic requirements. The finished space performance will be tested against these specific requirements. Where detailed criteria are not provided in the USCDG t he requirements of P 100 will b e followed ( 269). Section 8.3, of the P 100, specifies a quantifiable acoustic standard of ideal reverberation time to be 0.6 to 0.7 seconds. In addition the maximum ceiling

PAGE 40

40 height is not called out specifically, b ut refere nces the USCDG ( 272). Further, section 8.5 of the P 100 states another quantifiable acoustic standard for Noise Criteria (NC) to range from 25 to 30 in courtrooms ( 280). US Courts Design Guide As stated previously in the P100, the ceiling height is clarif ied and restricted in 4 15). Further, the floor area is also restricted to 2400 NSF for a District Courtroom ( USCDG 4 15). Although not explicitly stated, t his means a c ourtroom volume should be less than 38,400 ft 3 For this research, the tested courtroom in this research had volumes ranging from 11,000 to 45,840 ft 3 Acoustic performance design r equirements (Table 2 2) is a n overview of the Acoustic Performance Require ments per the USCDG for a courtroom (USCDG 14 5) Table 2 2. Acoustic performance r equirements per the US Courts Design Guide Parameter Goal Room Reverberation Time (RT) in seconds 0.6 0.7 Room Background Noise Levels, Room Criterion (RC) curve 25 30 Internal Airborne Sound Insulation, Noise Isolation Class (NIC) 55 60 Speech Intelligibility, Speech Transmission Index (STI) 0.61 External Noise Ingress, Sound Transmission Index (STC) Not Listed Impact Sound Isolation, Impact Isolation Class (II C) >50 Vibration 1.4 Privacy Level Confidential Of the parameters listed, the scope of this study focuses on four select topics of : Speech Intelligibility Room Reverberation Times Room Background Noise Levels Internal Airborne Sound Insulation

PAGE 41

41 The aco ustic performance has ranges for the goals. The minimum values are 0.7 seconds for RT, RC 30 for Room Criteria, Noise Isolation Class of 55 and a STI of 0.61. The USCDG acoustic performance requirements have similar goals to that of the ideal acoustic cr iteria for classrooms of 0.7 sec RT and the classroom noise level of 35 dBA. Acoustic R esearch of Portuguese C ourtrooms As stated previously, there is limited available research in architectural acoustics of courtrooms. The recent research that is availab le was performed in Portugal. Antonio Carvalho and Carlos 1.69+/ 0.74 seconds with an associated RASTI of 0. 52 +/ 0.08 and 13 new courtrooms had an RT of 1.54+/ 0.54 seconds with an associated RASTI of 0.53 +/ 0.08. The article goes on to state an ideal acoustic performance for courtrooms (for averaged 500 Hz and 1000 Hz, except RASTI) to have an RT of 0.8 t o 1.2 seconds, and EDT of 0.7 to 1.1 seconds, C 80 > 1.0 dB, D 50 > 0.55, TS < 100 ms, and a RASTI > 0.55 (7). Carvalho and Diana by a Multi Criteria Method indicate a courtroom with ideal acous tical behavior for RT to be 0.8 to 1.0 second and RASTI to be 0.90 to 1.00 and a courtroom with good acoustical behavior for RT to be 1.4 to 1.8 seconds and RASTI to be 0.70 to 0.80 (8). arch is similar to the USCDG STI minimum requirement of > 0.60. Therefore the established field research in classrooms and the Portuguese courtrooms is in general agreement with the USCDG requirements with regards to STI. The next step in the process is to determine the field measurement standards by which the data can be collected.

PAGE 42

42 Cited Acoustic Standards per the P 100 and U nited S tates C ourts D esign G uide Privacy Level Privacy of T he degree of privacy offered by a closed room is an indication of how audible or intelligible conversations occurring within are in the adjoining spaces. This depends not only on the passive sound insulation provided by the buildin g, but also on the levels of speech and background noise. The sound insulation use a fixed physical quantity that can be measured, but the speech and noise levels fluctuate from moment to moment: they are statistical quantities. The degree of privacy can therefore be described in a with a certain probability of a privacy lapse, when speech levels are high and/or noise levels are low (2). T ech and Noise Levels Associated with : F or situations requiring normal security, a speech level of 54 dBA and an ambient noise level of 30 dBA can be assumed appropriate as this combination would occur no more than 1% of the t ime. Therefore, a room designed to provide adequate attenuation in combination with these speech and noise levels would be speech secure for 99% of the time. For situations requiring high security, a speech level of 70 dBA and an ambient noise level of 2 5 dBA is more appropriate. This combination of speech and noise levels would result in speech security for about 99.96% of the time for an adequately designed room (2). The privacy level is based on Table 14 1 Room Partition Requirements from the USCDG (1 4 4). It is a matrix of the NIC and RC levels ( Table 2 3 ) Table 2 3 USCDG r oom partition r equirements Privacy Levels ROOM CRITERIA 25 30 35 40 Inaudible NIC 75 70 65 60 Confidential 60 55 50 45 Normal 50 45 40 35 Minimal 40 35 30 25 Adapted : United Stated Courts Design Guide

PAGE 43

43 level is a secondary requirement using the NIC and RC values. For instance, the NIC minimum value for the courtrooms in this research was identified to be > 55. The minimum RC value for the courtrooms was identified to be < 30. Using the matrix in ( Table 2 4 ) requirements are met. This matrix creates a catch 22 situation. It is allowing for one of the NIC or RC parameters to receive relief, as long as the other parameter is more restrictive, but the parameter that got relief then fails to meet the minimum requirement for that specific acoustic parameter. Noise Isolation Class (NIC) In order to achieve the required privacy between spaces, it is important to ensure that all internal partitions, walls, floors, and ceiling s, as well as doors and windows achieve an adequate level of sound insolation. The guidelines presented here are expressed in terms of the Noise Isolation Class (NIC), a single number rating describing the combined performance of all building elements in isolating one room from another. The in field sound level difference between adjacent spaces s hould be measured in accordance with ASTM E336 05 Standard Test Method for Measurement of Airborne Sound Insulation in Buildings, and the NIC value should be determined in accordance with ASTM E413 04 Classification for Rating Sound Insulation ( USCDG 14 3) Room Criteria (RC) Room background noise levels are comprised of noise from building systems (HVAC, electrical, lighting, audiovisual systems, etc.) and noise ingress from external sources (road, rail, and air traffic; pedestrian activity: etc.) and inte rnal sources (such as the activity of people or the operation of equipment in adjacent spaces). All sources of

PAGE 44

44 Handbook of Fundamentals, all spaces should be rated using the room criterion (RC) curves, that is, background noise. Speech Transmission Index (STI) Speech intelligibility is commonly measured using the Speech Transmission Index (STI). The STI uses a rating system from 0 to 1 to subjectively rate intelligibility ( Table 2 4 ) Table 2 4 U SCDG Speech Transmission Index rating s ystem Value Subjective < 0.40 Poor 0.41 0.50 Fair 0.51 0.60 Good 0.61 0.75 Very Good 0.76 1.0 Excellent Adapted : United States Courts Design Guide The design target for all critical spaces is to achieve an STI rating of > 0.6 for both unamplified and amplified speech. A sound reinforcement system should be used to achieve an STI rating of very good to excellent. The STI should be measured when the audio system is completely installe d, in accordance with the method laid out in IEC 60268 16 or ANSI S3.2 1995 ( USCDG 14 2). In Architectural Acoustic by Marshall Long: The intelligibility of speech has traditionally been measured by conducting tests, using various word lists, in rooms with human listeners. Although this methodology is the basis of most of our systems for predicting the intelligibility, it is highly desirable to have an electronic method of directly measuring these quantities. Human speech patterns are complex, and simple sinusoidal signals do not accurately mimic their behavior. Two Dutch scientists, Houtgast and Steeneken (1973), developed a measurement system, called the modulation transfer function (MTF), which replicates many of the p roperties of human speech ( 149).

PAGE 45

45 A n attempt is made to relate a physical measurement of a quality to a perceptual quantity, in order to predict human response to a given acoustical phenomenon (Salter 42). The MTF analyzes 7 octave bands 125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000 and 8000 Hz (Long 15 1). With the MTF we have a quantity that mimics the behavior of speech, and can be physically measured with a properly constructed instrument. The missing link is the relationship between MTF and speech intelligibility. A speech transmission index (STI) which is similar to an articulation index or a percentage loss of consonants is a direct measure of speech intelligibility ( 151). The relationship between the modulation transfer function and the speech transmission index represents the theoretical relat ionships between STI and the S/N ratio, or STI and T60 ( STI = [ (S (2 1) to noise ratio (dB) and w i (S/N) i as (i=1 to 7) (2 2) where w i weighted octave band from 125 Hz to 8 kHz and (S/N) i is the apparent signal to noise ratio (dB) and S/N = 10 log [m(F) / (1 m(F) )] (2 3) where m(F) is the modulation reduction factor and m(F) = {1 + [2 F(T/13.8 )] 2 } 1/2 (1 + 10 ( S/N)/10 ) 1 (2 4) where S/N is the signal to noise level and F is the modulation frequency (Hz) and T is the room reverberation time (sec) where the RT portion of the formula is derived from

PAGE 46

46 {1 + [2 F(T/13.8)] 2 } 1/2 (2 5) and the Stea dy State Interfering Noise portion of the formula is derived from (1 + 10 ( S/N)/10 ) 1 (2 6) Speech transmission index for public a ddress (STIPa) Although the STIPa is not being used in this research, there are some fundamental issues that are similar to S descriptions of the STIPa to that of the STI and RaSTI measurements. Like the RaSTI, the STIPa does not test a full range of frequenc ies like the STI. STIPa (STI for PA systems) is rapidly becoming a popular method of assessing speech intelligibility. It was conceived in order to overcome the problems associated with RaSTI when measuring potential intelligibility performance of a soun d system (1). Bjor Ole available sound level meter Nor118 manufactured by Norsonic AS. The STIPa method requires a source playback loudspeaker to act as a human talker. The instrument option comes with an audio CD containing the excitation signal. The sound level meter is placed in a position in the room where the speech intelligibility is to be judged. N o cable is needed between the excitation loudspeaker and receiving instrument (11). Ideally, when testing a sound system, the complete audio chain from microphone through to listener location should be measured. This requires an accurate acoustic sound fi eld and stimulus for the microphone to pick up. In practice however, the STI test signal is often just directly injected into the system. This approach can miss out

PAGE 47

47 pe rformance (Mapp 6). As Mapp stated: Care needs to be taken as to where signals are electronically injected in the system under test. Most modern sound systems incorporate some form of Signal processing which these days is more and more likely to be dig ital. Typical processing includes AGC and compression, limiting, gating, equalization, delay and possibly phase or frequency shifting. Some forms of system may also incorporate codecs or other forms of data compression. Such signal processing may or may not affect the resulti ng measured STI value ( 7). Reverberation Time Critical spaces should be designed to achieve the reverberation times provided in 2). There is no selected method or standard identified for the fi eld verification of the preferred criteria by either the P 100 or USCDG.

PAGE 48

48 CHAPTER 3 METHOD Selected Acoustic Measurement Procedures Soundscape Theory approach was utilized when determining the appropriate measurement procedure. The objective is to ensure the best acoustic measurement techniques are se lected in order to represent each unique source path receiver location. For all measurements, the room testing conditions was an unoccupied room; completed construc tion with all furniture (ready for use) but devoid of occupants except acoustic testing personnel, and security personnel. Noise Isolation Class Noise Isolation Class (NIC) performance testing is listed in the USCDG to be completed in accordance with ASTM E336 05 and applied to ASTM E413 04 to obtain the NIC value ( USCDG 14 3). The Noise Isolation Class (NIC) was measured in accordance with ASTM E336 11 and applied to ASTM E413 10 to obtain the NIC value. Room Criteria The P 100 identifies a N oise C riteria (NC) range and refers to the United States Courts Design Guide, USCDG (P 100, 280). The USCDG does not specify a NC performance requirement or a testing procedure. However, the USCDG refers to the current ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals ( USCDG 14 3) for Room Criterion (RC) performance testing. The 2009 ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals refers to the RC method in the ANSI standard 12.2; Blazier 1981a, 1981b ( ASHRAE 8.17). The ANSI/ASA 12.2 2008, Criteria for Evaluating Room Noise, standard does provide a m ethod for evaluating room noise RC (ANSI 12.2, 1).

PAGE 49

49 Sections from the ANSI/ASA 12.2 will be utilized as necessary. Section 5.1.2 Measurements, states that sound measurements for rating room noise under this standard shall be made at locations that are ne ar the average normal standing or seated height of human ears in the s pace ( 6). In addition, Section 5.2.3 NC Tangency Method, is the simplest and most commonly used method for rating octave band noise level spectra in rooms using NC curves. With it, the NC rating of a spectrum is ctave band spectrum ( applied to the RC curves. In the ANSI 12.2, Table D.1 Mark II Ro om Criteria (RC) Curves, lists RC curves with the sound pressure level at each octave band (16, 31.5, 63, 125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, 8000 Hz) ( 31). In addition Figure D.1 Mark II Room Criteria Curves, is a diag ram of the RC curves ( 32). The RC wil l be determined using a tangency method from a set of curves with samples taken at the observed height of a listener. Where those locations exist is not identified. The ANSI/ASA 12.60 2010/Part 1, American National Standard Acoustical Performance Criter ia, Design Requirements, and Guidelines for Schools, Part 1: Permanent Schools I dentif ies source background noise. Annex A, Section 1.2, identifies the listening area within the classroom where direct teacher and stu dent speech communication generally takes place. With the HVAC and other noise sources operating in their respective design operational modes, perform an acoustical survey of the classroom within that listening area. This survey shall be done at what are potentially the noisiest locations within the room, including at the HVAC inlet or outlet air ducts, in the vicinity of the HVAC equipment, or at any other location that the observer identifies as a significant source of interior generated noise.

PAGE 50

50 The loc ation with the highest A weighted sound level shall be termed the scretion of the observer (12). Note that when possible, the HVAC system was requested to be turned on while the RC testing occurred. It is noted in the results when this was not possible. Speech Transmission Index The Speech Transmission Index (STI) performance testing is listed in the USCDG to be completed in accordance with IEC 60268 16 or ANSI S3.2 1995 ( USCDG 14 2). In addition, there is a ref Table 14.2 of the USCDG ( 14 5). ANSI S3.5 1997 (R2007), American National Standard Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index, defines a method for computing a physical measure that is highly correlated with the intelligibility of speech as evaluated by speech perception tests given by a group of talkers and listeners. The measurement is called the Speech Intelligibility Index, or (SII). This reference is assumed to be a typing error and will not be used. ANSI/ASA S3.2 2009, American National Standard Method for Measuring the Intelligibility of Speech over Communication Systems, standard provides three alternative sets of lists of English words to be spoken by a trained talker over the speech communication system to be evaluated. Trained listeners record the words they hear. This method will not be utilized. IEC 60268 16:2003: Sound System Equipment Part 16: Objective Rating of Speech Intelligibility by Speech Transmission Index, st andard defines objective methods for rating the transmission quality of speech with respect to intelligibility. The the intended for rating speech

PAGE 51

51 transmission with or without sound systems (IEC 60268 16). The IEC 60268 16:2003 standard for STI method will be used with and without the voice enhancement system. The measuring method will be carried out by maximum length se quence (MLS) analysis equipment. When testing the unamplified speech, the source loudspeaker, listed in the Equipment Section, has similar directivity to that of a human talker. There are three n to each tested locations (Attorney 1, Attorney 2, Judge, Jury 1, Jury 2, Jury 3, Podium, Public 1, Public 2, Public 3, Recorder and Witness). This yields a total of 36 uniqu microphone will similarly be placed at several common locations (Attorney 1, Attorney 2, J udge, Jury 1, Jury 2, Jury 3, Podium, Public 1, Public 2, Public 3, Recorder and Witness). This yields Note that STI data in Historic Courtrooms was not collected for amplified speech due to the possibility of permanent dama ge to the aged house amplification systems, thus resulting in downtime and monetary loss. The elevation for all source playback loudspeakers and receiver microphone positions will be adjusted to mimic the adult human mouth and ear height in either the seat ed or standing locus. The STI value will be listed for each source path receiver. Reverberation Time Reverberation Time (RT) has no performance testing standard listed per the P 100 or USCDG. There are f ive standards that will be referenced to measure RT, they are

PAGE 52

52 the: ISO 3382 2:2003, ISO 18233:2006, ASTM E2235 04, ASTM E336 11 and ANSI/ASA S12.60 2010/Part 1. All collected data was T 20 ISO 3382 2:2003, Acoustics Measurement of the Reverberation Time Part 2: Ordinary Rooms, standard allows for d ifferent methods for obtaining RT. Section 3.2 Interrupted Noise Method (INM) is a method to obtain decay curves by direct recording of the decay of sound pressure level after exciting a room with broadband or band limited noise and turning it off ( 2). S ection 3.3 Integrated Impulse Response Method (IIRM) is a method of obtaining decay curves by reverse time integration of squared impulse responses ( 2). There is a clarification with regards to the sound source type for the precision measurements, as indi cate d in Section 4.2.1 ( 2), that the source should be as close to omnidirectional as possible. The sound source should not be strongly directio nal for any level of accuracy. ISO 18233:2006, Acoustics Application of New Measurement Methods in Buildings an d Room Acoustics, specifies methods to be used as substitutes for methods specified in standards covering classical methods such as ISO 140 (all parts), ISO 3382 (all parts) and ISO 17497 1. and ISO supersedes portions of ISO 3382. ASTM E336 11, Standard Test Method for Measurements of Airborne Sound Attenuation between Rooms in Buildings, is not a direct method for RT measurements, but does include inf ormation about directional loudspeaker sources. Section 6.1 Sound Sources and Signals Sound sources shall be loudspeaker systems driven by power amplifiers ( 5). Note 5 Ideally, loudspeaker systems should be omnidirectional. In

PAGE 53

53 practice, using multipl e driver elements to cover different frequency ranges and placing and aiming sources into trihedral corners of the room will normally be adequate. ASTM does not have an explicit field measurement procedure for reverberation time. Although, ASTM E 2235 04 Standard Test Method for Determination of Decay Rates for Use in Sound Insulation Test Methods, implies a measurement method, the standard specifically states in its introduction: it is intended for use in conjunction with methods for measuring the tran smission of sound through a partition element in a laboratory or in a building ( 1). Section 4 Summary of Test Method, 4.1, indicates the INM is the only identif ied method for RT ( 2). In addition, Section 6 Sound Source Requirements, 6.1, Note 2 Loudspe aker system should be omnidirectional. In practice, using multiple driver elements to cover different frequency ranges and placing sources in trihedral corners of the room will be ade quate ( 2). Section 12 Number of Sound Decays to be Collected, part 12.1 Stationary Microphones The product of the number of microphone positions, the number of decays collected at each microphone position and the number of sound source positions sh all be at least 15 ( 3). The INM averages the RT with a sound level meter from a total of 15 samples = 5 decays at 3 microphone positions (height of 5 feet off the floor) with 1 directional loudspeaker (located on the floor aimed up at 45 degrees) toward one corner (1 ceiling, 2 walls) of the room. The IIRM R T is measured at each 36 source path receiver locations for the unamplified speech specified in the STI Performance Testing Procedure using the MLS analysis equipment. Note the directional loudspeaker is not situated, in such a manner, to characterize an omni directional source. For this test,

PAGE 54

54 source directionality was desired to represent the actual source path receiver RT observed. ANSI/ASA S12.60 2010/Part 1, American National Standard Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements, and Guidelines for Schools, Part 1: Permanent Schools includes a design requirement for RT. Table 1, Limits on A and C weighted sound levels of background noise and reverberation times in unoccupied furnished learning spaces, lists a Maximum permitted reverberation time for sound pres sure levels in octave bands with mid band frequencies of 500, 1000 and 2000 Hz(s). Both the INM and IIRM RT results will be listed at each octave band center frequency (63, 125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000 and 8000 Hz). For this research, the mid frequen cies (250, 500 and 1000Hz) will be averaged to yield a single RT such: RT mid freq = (RT 500 + RT 1000 + RT 2000 ) / 3 Privacy Level The matrix for Privacy Level will not be evaluated due to the RC requirement not being obtained with the air conditioning in op eration in all courtrooms Equipment For this research, four acoustic parameters were measured. Three types of measurements were taken with an IVIE PC 40: Room Criteria, Noise Isolation Class and Reverberation Time (Interrupted Noise Method). The IVIE PC 40 Audio Spectrum Analyzer, Model PC 40, SN 0789A254 is a Type 1 measurement system when using the Cetec Ivie preamp Model IE2P SN 2634 and microphone Model ACO 7013, SN 34876 A Norsonic type 1251 pistonphone was utilized to verify calibration of the IVI E PC 40 analyzer prior to and after a measurement session. For both the NIC and RT (INM)

PAGE 55

55 parameters, a pink noise generator Ivie IE 20B Pink Noise Generator, SN 741B608 and a directional source playback loudspeaker JBL EON15 G2 self amplified loudspea ker, were utilized. The fourth measurement type, Speech Transmission Index, was conducted with Win MLS software coupled with an Earthworks M30BX Type 1 microphone and the aforementioned JBL EON15 self amplified loudspeaker. In addition to the STI, Rever beration Time (Integrated Impulse Response Method) and Clarity (C 80 ), to be discussed later, was also measured with the MLS software.

PAGE 56

56 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Individual Courtrooms Clay County Courthouse Clay County Courthouse, ( Figure 4 2 ) was originally built in 1980. The most floor area of 1,255 ft 2 ( Figure 4 1 ) which are within the desired USGCD requirements of ft 2 Figure 4 1. Clay County C ourtroom 4, p lan v iew The ceiling is a lay in acoustic tile, the floor is fully carpeted, the wall behind the judge was finished with wood paneling, the side and rear walls were finished with painted gypsum. The furniture, located in the we ll, was all wood finished with seat cushion. The general public seating was wood benches with no seat cushion. The NIC measured values of 36 (Public Entry) and 44 (Jury Entry) were below the USCDG minimum requirement of NIC 55. Of the 8 RC measurements, 8 passed the USCDG requirement of RC 30, however, the AC was not in operation. The USCDG RT maximum value of 0.7 seconds was evaluated per the INM and IIRM. A value of 0.54

PAGE 57

57 seconds was obtained using the INM, and the RT value of a range from 0.57 second s to 0.72 seconds was also measured using the IIRM. The USCDG for minimum STI value of 0.61 was obtained in all 33 source path receiver locations without the voice enhancement system and in all 12 source path receiver locations with the voice enhancement system. All measured results can be reviewed in Appendix A. All testing locations can be reviewed in Appendix B. A B C D Figure 4 2 Series of Clay County c ourthouse p ictures A) outside of courthouse B) inside Courtroom 4 t aken from edge of Jury Box toward Judge seat, C) taken from the Judge position toward the back of courtroom, D) taken from the isle toward the Public Seating.

PAGE 58

58 Hernando County Courthouse Hernando County Courthouse, ( Figure 4 4 ) was originally built in 200 0. Courtroom 1,635 ft 2 ( Figure 4 3 ) maximum ceiling height and 2400 ft 2 Figure 4 3. Hernando County C ourtroom E, p lan v iew The ceiling is a majority of lay in acoustic tile except for the accented gypsum octagonal accent, the floor is fully carpeted, the wall behind the judge was finished with wood paneling, the side and rear walls were finished with pa inted gypsum and acoustic panels. The furniture, located in the well, was all wood with modern cushioned seat bottoms and back support. The general public seating was wood benches with seat cushion. The NIC measured value of 36 (Public Entry) was below the USCDG

PAGE 59

59 minimum requirement of NIC 55. Of the 8 RC measurements, 8 did not pass the USCDG requirement of RC 30 with the AC was in operation. The USCDG RT maximum value of 0.7 seconds was evaluated per the INM and IIRM. A value of 0.37 seconds was obta ined using the INM, and the RT value of a range from 0.41 seconds to 0.61 seconds was also measured using the IIRM. The USCDG for minimum STI value of 0.61 was obtained in all 33 source path receiver locations without the voice enhancement system and in a ll 12 source path receiver locations with the voice enhancement system. All measured results can be reviewed in Appendix A. All testing locations can be reviewed in Appendix B. A B C D Figure 4 4 Series of Hernando County c o urthouse p ictures A) outside of courthouse B) inside Courtroom E taken from Public Entry toward front of courtroom, C) taken from the Judge position toward the back of courtroom, D) taken from the well toward the Public Seating.

PAGE 60

60 Lake County Courthouse La ke County Courthouse, ( Figure 4 6 ) was originally shelled out in 1992. the public area with a floor area of 1,765 ft 2 ( Figure 4 5 ) which are within the desired ft 2 Figure 4 5. Lake County Courtroom 8, plan v iew The ceiling is a mixture of lay in acoustic tile in the well area and specific locations elsewhere and gypsum, the floor is fully carpeted, t he back wall behind the judge was finished with wood paneling, the side and rear walls were finished with wood and acoustic panels. The furniture, located in the well, was all wood with modern cushioned seat bottoms and back support. The general public s eating was wood benches with seat cushion. The NIC measured values of 38 (Public Entry) and 38 (Administrative Entry) was below the USCDG minimum requirement of NIC 55. Of the 8 RC measurements, 3 passed the USCDG requirement of RC 30 with the AC was in operation. The USCDG RT maximum value of 0.7 seconds was evaluated per the INM

PAGE 61

61 and IIRM. A value of 0.55 seconds was obtained using the INM, and the RT value of a range from 0.53 seconds to 0.58 seconds was also measured using the IIRM. The USCDG for mi nimum STI value of 0.61 was obtained in all 33 source path receiver locations without the voice enhancement system and in all 12 source path receiver locations with the voice enhancement system. All measured results can be reviewed in Appendix A. All testi ng locations can be reviewed in Appendix B. A B C D Figure 4 6 Series of Lake County courthouse p ictures A) outside of courthouse B) inside Courtroom 8 taken from Public Entry Box toward front of courtroom, C) taken from t he corner of the Jury Box toward the back of courtroom, D) taken from the isle toward the Public Seating.

PAGE 62

62 Osceola County Courthouse Osceola County Courthouse, ( Figure 4 8 ) was originally built in 2001. Courtroom 5 area of 1,560 ft 2 ( Figure 4 7 ) maximum ceiling height and 2400 ft 2 Figure 4 7. Osceola County Courtroom 5 D, p lan v iew The ceiling is gypsum in t he well area and lay in acoustic tile in public seating area, the floor is fully carpeted, the back wall behind the judge, the wall behind the jury and the wall behind the Court Administration was finished with wood paneling, the remaining side walls and rear wall was finished with acoustic panels. The furniture, located in the well, was all wood with modern cushioned seat bottoms and back support. The general public seating was wood benches without seat cushions. The NIC measured values of 67 (Public E ntry) was above (using a soundlock) and 45 (Jury Entry) was below the USCDG minimum requirement of NIC 55. Of the 8 RC measurements, 8 did not meet

PAGE 63

63 the USCDG requirement of RC 30 with the AC was in operation. The USCDG RT maximum value of 0.7 seconds was evaluated per the INM and IIRM. A value of 0.89 seconds did not meet the USCDG criteria using the INM, and the RT value of a range from 0.76 seconds to 0.88 seconds was also measured using the IIRM. The USCDG for minimum STI value of 0.61 was obtained i n all 33 source path receiver locations without the voice enhancement system and in all 12 source path receiver locations with the voice enhancement system. All measured results can be reviewed in Appendix A. All testing locations can be reviewed in Append ix B. A B C D Figure 4 8 Series of Osceola County c ourthouse p ictures A) outside of courthouse B) inside Courtroom 5 D taken from Bar toward front of courtroom, C) taken from the Court Administration toward the Jury Box, D ) taken from th e edge of the Jury Box toward the Public Seating.

PAGE 64

64 Gainesville Federal Courthouse Gain esville Federal Courthouse, ( Figure 4 10 ) was originally built in 1963. The most recent renovation occurred of Courtroom 1 in 2008. It had a ceiling height 2 ( Figure 4 9 ) which are within the desired USGCD ft 2 Figure 4 9. Gainesville Federal Courtroom 1, p lan v iew The outer or border ceiling is gypsum, the inner ceiling is lay in acoustic tile, the floor is carpeted in the well area and linoleum in the public seating area, and all the walls were finished with wood. The furniture, located in the well, was all wood with upholstered seat bottoms and back support. The general public seating was wood benches without seat cushions. The NIC measured values of 46 (Public Entry) was below (using soundlock) and 39 (Side Entry) was below the USCDG minimum requirement of NIC 55. Of the 8 RC measurements, 8 did not meet th e USCDG requirement of RC 30 with the AC was in operation. The USCDG RT maximum value of 0.7 seconds was

PAGE 65

65 evaluated per the INM and IIRM. A value of 1.02 seconds did not meet the USCDG criteria using the INM, and the RT value of a range from 0.86 seconds to 1.03 seconds was also measured using the IIRM. The USCDG for minimum STI value of 0.61 was obtained in all 33 source path receiver locations without the voice enhancement system and in all 12 source path receiver locations with the voice enhancement sy stem. All measured results can be reviewed in Appendix A. All testing locations can be reviewed in Appendix B. A B C D Figure 4 10 Series of Gainesville Federal courthouse p ictures A) outside of courthouse B) inside Courtr oom 1 taken from the Public Entry toward front of courtroom, C) taken from the Side Entry toward the Attorney 1, 2 and Podium locations, D) taken from the Attorney Podium toward the Public Seating.

PAGE 66

66 Ocala 3A Federal Courthouse O cala 3A Federal Courthouse, ( Figure 4 12 ) was originally built in 1959. It had a 2 ( Figure 4 11 ) which are within the ft 2 Figure 4 11 Ocala Federal Courtroo m 3A, plan v iew The ceiling was lay in acoustic tile, the floor was carpeted in the well area and linoleum in the public seating area, and all the walls were finished with wood paneling from the iture, located in the well, was all wood with upholstered seat bottoms and back support. The general public seating was wood benches without seat cushions. The NIC measured values of 33 (Public Entry) was below the USCDG minimum requirement of NIC 55. O f the 8 RC measurements, 8 did not meet the USCDG requirement of RC 30 with the AC was in operation. The USCDG RT maximum value of 0.7 seconds was evaluated per the INM and IIRM. A value of 0.89 seconds did not meet the USCDG criteria using the INM, and the RT value of a range from 0.82 seconds to 0.93 seconds was also measured using

PAGE 67

67 the IIRM. The USCDG for minimum STI value of 0.61 was obtained in all 33 source path receiver locations without the voice enhancement system and in all 12 source path receiv er locations with the voice enhancement system. All measured results can be reviewed in Appendix A. All testing locations can be reviewed in Appendix B. A B C D Figure 4 12 Series of Ocala 3A Federal c ourthouse p ictures A) outside of courthouse B) inside Courtroom 3A taken from the Public Entry toward the front of courtroom, C) taken from the beh ind the Witness position toward the back of the courtroom, D) taken from the corner of the public seating area toward the Jury Box

PAGE 68

68 Ocala 3B Federal Courthouse O cala 3B Federal Courthouse, ( Figure 4 14 ) was originally built in 1959. with a floor area of 1,100 ft 2 ( Figure 4 13 ) which are within th e desired USGCD ft 2 Figure 4 13. Ocala Federal Courtroom 3B, p lan v iew The ceiling was divided into three sections, a lay in acoustic tile was above the witness and judge area in the front of the co urtroom as well as the back of the courtroom above the public seating. Gypsum ceiling was in the middle of the courtroom above the attorneys and jury seating. The floor was fully carpeted, all the walls were finished with wood paneling in the front of the courtroom behind the judge, and the remaining walls were acoustic paneling. There were windows behind the Jury Box and part of the Public Seating area. The furniture, located in the well, was all wood with upholstered seat bottoms and back support. The general public seating was wood benches without seat cushions. The NIC measured values of 51 (Public Entry) was below and 34

PAGE 69

69 (Administrative Entry) was below the USCDG minimum requirement of NIC 55. Of the 8 RC measurements, 8 did not meet the USCDG req uirement of RC 30 with the AC was in operation. The USCDG RT maximum value of 0.7 seconds was evaluated per the INM and IIRM. A value of 0.39 seconds met the USCDG criteria using the INM, and the RT value of a range from 0.35 seconds to 0.41 seconds was also measured using the IIRM. The USCDG for minimum STI value of 0.61 was obtained in all 33 source path receiver locations without the voice enhancement system and in all 12 source path receiver locations with the voice enhancement system. All measured r esults can be reviewed in Appendix A. All testing locations can be reviewed in Appendix B. A B C D Figure 4 14 Series of Ocala 3B Federal c ourthouse p ictures A) outside of courthouse B) inside Courtroom 3B taken from the P ublic Entry toward the front of courtroom, C) taken from the Judge position toward the back of the courtroom, D) taken from the Bar in the Public seating area toward the Public Seating with exterior windows.

PAGE 70

70 Orlando Federal Courthouse Orlando Federal Court house, ( Figure 4 16 ) was originally built in 2007. Courtroom 5 of 2,090 ft 2 ( F igure 4 15 ) is within the desired USGCD requirements of a maximum floor area of 2400 ft 2 Figure 4 15. Orlando Federal Courtroom 5 A, p lan v iew The ceiling in the well was gypsum, the lower ceiling was, a lay in acoustic tile, The floor was fully carp eted. The walls were a mixture of stone and wood paneling of the front furniture located in the well, was all modern furniture with upholstered seat bottoms and back support. The general public seating was wood benches without seat cushions. The NIC measured values of 60 (Public Entry & Jury Entry) with use of soundlocks were above and 46 (Administrative Entry) was below the USCDG minimum requirement of

PAGE 71

71 NIC 55. Of the 8 RC measurements, 8 did not meet the USCDG requirement of RC 30 with the AC was in operation. The USCDG RT maximum value of 0.7 seconds was evaluated per the INM an d IIRM. A value of 1.03 seconds does not meet the USCDG criteria using the INM, and the RT value of a range from 0.90 seconds to 1.02 seconds was also measured using the IIRM. The USCDG for minimum STI value of 0.61 was obtained in all 33 source path rec eiver locations without the voice enhancement system and in all 12 source path receiver locations with the voice enhancement system. All measured results can be reviewed in Appendix A. All testing locations can be reviewed in Appendix B. A B C D Figure 4 16 Series of Orlando Federal c ourthouse p ictures A) outside of courthouse B) inside Courtroom 5 A taken from behind the D efense Attorney position toward the front of courtroom, C) taken from the Judge position toward the back of the courtroom, D) taken from the Attorney Podium position toward the Public Seating.

PAGE 72

72 Brevard Historic Courthouse B revard Historic Courthouse, ( Figure 4 18 ) was originally built in 1912. The Brevard Historic Courtroom 3 had been recently renovated in 1988. It had not been historic, but the renovation of the architectural and interior finishes had been completed in order for Courtroom 3 to be utilized as a moder n county courtroom. Courtroom 3 had 2 ( Figure 4 17 ) and is within the 2400 ft 2 Figure 4 17. Brevard Historic Courtroom 3, p lan v iew The ceiling is a lay in acoustic tile, The floor was fully carpeted. The walls were wood paneling behind the Judge, Jury, and Public Seating area. The exterior wall was finished with glass windows and concrete. The furniture, loc ated in the well, was all wood with upholstered seat bottoms and back support. The general public seating was wood benches with seat cushions. The NIC measured values of 39 (Side Entry) and 33 (Jury Entry) were below the USCDG minimum requirement of NIC 55. Of the 8 RC

PAGE 73

73 measurements, 7 met the USCDG requirement of RC 30 with the AC not in operation. The USCDG RT maximum value of 0.7 seconds was evaluated per the INM and IIRM. A value of 0.65 seconds met the USCDG criteria using the INM, and the RT value of a range from 0.68 seconds to 0.83 seconds was also measured using the IIRM. The USCDG for minimum STI value of 0.61 was obtained in all 33 source path receiver locations without the voice enhancement system. All measured results can be reviewed in Ap pendix A. All testing locations can be reviewed in Appendix B. A B C D Figure 4 18 Series of Brevard Historic c ourthouse p ictures A) outside of courthouse B) inside Courtroom 3 taken from the right hand back corn er of the Public Seating toward the front of courtroom, C) taken in the wel l from the exterior wall toward Jury Box, D) taken from the isle toward the Public Seating.

PAGE 74

74 Hernando Historic Courthouse He rnando Historic Courthouse, ( Figure 4 20 ) was originally built in 1913. It was 2,455 ft 2 ( Figure 4 19 ) is not within the desired USGCD requirements of a maximum ft 2 Figure 4 19. Hernando Historic Courtroom A, p lan v iew The ceiling is plaster. The floor was carpeted in the well and around the public seating area. The public seating floor area is wood. The walls were all plaster except for the glass windows in the exterior wall. The furniture, located in the well, was all wood with upholstered seat bottoms and back support. The general public seating was upholstered individual wood fold up seats. Th e NIC measured values of 39 (Main Public Entry) and 49 (Side Public Entry) were below the USCDG minimum requirement of NIC 55. Of the 8 RC measurements, 8 did not meet the USCDG requirement of RC 30 with the AC not in operation. The USCDG RT maximum valu e of 0.7 seconds was

PAGE 75

75 evaluated per the INM and IIRM. A value of 1.52 seconds did not meet the USCDG criteria using the INM, and the RT value of a range from 1.33 seconds to 1.45 seconds was also measured using the IIRM. The USCDG for minimum STI value of 0.61 was obtained in 10 of 33 source path receiver locations without the voice enhancement system. All measured results can be reviewed in Appendix A. All testing locations can be reviewed in Appendix B. A B C D Figure 4 20 Series of Hernando Historic c ourthouse p ictures A) outside of courthouse B) inside Courtroom A taken from the right hand back corn er of the Public Seating toward the front of courtroom, C) taken in the Judge positi on toward the back of the courtroom, D) t aken from the Side Entry toward the Public Seating.

PAGE 76

76 Osceola Historic Courthouse O sceola Historic Courthouse, ( Figure 4 22 ) was originally built in 1890. It was is not within th e was 1,900 ft 2 ( Figure 4 21 ) and met the USCDG requirement floor area of 2400 ft 2 Figure 4 21. Hernando Historic Courtroom A, p lan v iew The ceiling is plaster. The fl Entry isle runner areas. The remaining floor area was all wood. The walls were all plaster except for the glass windows on both exterior walls. The furniture, located in the well, was all wood wi th upholstered seat bottoms and back support. The general public seating was upholstered individual wood benches. The NIC measured values of 35 (Public Entry) and 36 (Jury Entry) were below the USCDG minimum requirement of NIC 55. Of the 8 RC measuremen ts, 8 did not meet the USCDG requirement of RC 30 with the AC not in operation. The USCDG RT maximum value of 0.7 seconds was evaluated per the INM and IIRM. A value of 2.08 seconds did not meet the USCDG

PAGE 77

77 criteria using the INM, and the RT value of a ran ge from 2.07 seconds to 2.19 seconds was also measured using the IIRM. The USCDG for minimum STI value of 0.61 was obtained in 4 of 33 source path receiver locations without the voice enhancement system. All measured results can be reviewed in Appendix A All testing locations can be reviewed in Appendix B. A B C D Figure 4 22 Series of Osceola Historic c o urthouse pi ctures A) outside of courthouse B) inside The Historic Courtroom taken from t he Public Entry position towa rd the front of courtroom, C) taken in th e Attorney Desk position toward the Jury Box, D) taken fr om the Public Entry isle toward the Public Seating.

PAGE 78

78 Sumter Historic Courthouse Sumter Historic Courthouse, ( Figure 4 24 ) was originally built in 1913. It w as 2,475 ft 2 ( Figure 4 23 ) is not within the desired USGCD requirements of a m aximum ft 2 Figure 4 2 3. Sumter Historic Courtroom, p lan v iew The ceiling is plaster. The floor was carpeted in the well and around the public seating area. The public seating floor area is wood. The walls were all plaster except for the glass windows on both side walls. The furniture, located in the well, was all wood with upholstered seat bottoms and back support. The general public seating was upholstered individual wood fold up seats with cushio ned seat bottoms. The NIC measured values of 37 (Public Entry) and 38 (Side Entry) were below the USCDG minimum requirement of NIC 55. Of the 8 RC measurements, 3 did meet the USCDG requirement of RC 30 with the AC not in operation. The USCDG RT maximum value of

PAGE 79

79 0.7 seconds was evaluated per the INM and IIRM. A value of 1.69 seconds did not meet the USCDG criteria using the INM, and the RT value of a range from 1.40 seconds to 1.52 seconds was also measured using the IIRM. The USCDG for minimum STI val ue of 0.61 was obtained in 12 of 33 source path receiver locations without the voice enhancement system. All measured results can be reviewed in Appendix A. All testing locations can be reviewed in Appendix B. A B C D Figure 4 24 Series of Sumter Historic c ourthouse p ictures A) outside of courthouse B) inside Courtroom A taken from the Public Entry toward the front of courtroom, C) taken from a position left of the Judg the back of the courtroom, D) tak en from Bar toward the Public Seating.

PAGE 80

80 Courtrooms by Category County Courtrooms, include generally the smaller courtrooms of this study w ith regards to room volume ( Table 4 1 ) With the exception of Ocala 3 B Federal being the smallest courtroom of this study, the Federal Courtrooms were approximately twice as large in volume to tha t of the County Courtrooms ( Table 4 2 ). Table 4 1. Coun ty courtroom information Courthouse Ceiling Height (max) Floor Area Room Volume Clay County 1,255 ft 2 11,295 ft 3 Hernando County 1,635 ft 2 13,900 ft 3 Lake County 1,765 ft 2 19,415 ft 3 Osceola County 1,560 ft 2 16,400 ft 3 Table 4 2. Federal courtroom information Courthouse Ceiling Height (max) Floor Area Room Volume Gainesville Federal 2,250 ft 2 36,035 ft 3 Ocala 3A Federal 2,200 ft 2 26,425 ft 3 Ocala 3B Federal 1,100 ft 2 11,000 ft 3 Orlando Federal 2,090 ft 2 30,900 ft 3 Table 4 3. Historic courtroom information Courthouse Ceiling Height (max) Floor Area Room Volu me Brevard Historic 1,900 ft 2 21,215 ft 3 Hernando Historic 2,455 ft 2 45,725 ft 3 Osceola Historic 1,900 ft 2 31,825 ft 3 Sumter Historic 2,475 ft 2 45,840 ft 3 Historical Courtrooms were generally the largest courtrooms with regards to room volume of this study ( Table 4 3 ) The volumetric size of the Historic Courtrooms were slightly larger than the Federal Courthouses, but nearly three times the size of the County Courtrooms. There were no trends in the data by courtroom ca tegory for NIC ( Appendix C ) and RC ( Appendix D ) There is a relationship with regard to increasing room volume and increasing RT ( Appendix E ) Although it appears more County Courtrooms are within the RT criteria, it is due to smaller room volumes. Simil arly the STI values appear to be

PAGE 81

81 higher for County Courtrooms ( Appendix F ) but as noted earlier in part of the Houtgast and Steeneken STI equation, the STI utilizes RT values. This relationship is discussed in specific detail at the end of this chapter. All Courtrooms Noise Isolation Class The NIC measures the noise reduction of a partition, which also includes anything that is part of the partition, such as a window or door. It was discerned the weakest portion of the partitions, in the courtrooms, were the door(s). None of the tested doors were of a totally gasketed acoustic door type. Only 3 of the 23 NIC measurements exceeded the USCDG criterion level of 55. Appendix C, Noise Isolation Class, lists the 12 Courtrooms by ascending age with the associa ted NIC levels. The original hypothesis was that advancements in construction/technology should improve NIC levels over time. This was not found to be true; the only trend in the data indicates that the use of a soundlock (even though the doors are not o f special acoustic design) increases the NIC level. Not all soundlock entries passed the preferred NIC criteria. Osceola County a nd Orlando Federal ( Figure B 4 and Figure B 8) utilize a traditional soundlock for the Public Entry to the courtroom and were a ble to meet the preferred NIC level of > 55 per the USCDG. Gainesville Fed eral and Ocala Federal 3 B ( Figure B 5 and Figure B 7) also utilize a traditional soundlock for the Public Entry to the courtroom however although the NIC levels are increased, the preferred NIC level was not met. Orlando Federal ( Figure B 8) has a pseudo soundlock that separates the Jury Entry from the courtroom via a vestibule with restrooms. Therefore, the Jury deliberation room shared a partition that did not include a door and was able to meet the desired N IC level. Hernando County ( Figure B 2) also has a pseudo soundlock for the

PAGE 82

82 Public Entry to the courtroom; however, the soundlock door that opens to the atrium/lobby is not closed because the corridor serves both the public e ntry to the the partition to the courtroom was only a single door that did not meet the preferred the NIC level. Room Criteria As stated earlier and identified, when perfo rming this test, it was requested to have the HVAC operating when possible. For one of several reasons, turning on the HVAC be activated. In some cases the measurem ents occurred on moderately tempered days when the system did not call for cooling or heating and overriding the system was not possible. In other cases, the system control was not accessible by the building staff, it was controlled by at Data Acquisition System (DAS) at a remote location. Backgro und Noise or Room Criteria ( Figure D 1) lists all the courtrooms by that a dvancements in construction/technology should improv e RC levels over time; this was not evident. In order to better review the RC data, the RC Mean and Standard Deviation was plotted by ascending courtroom age (F igure 4 25 ) There appear s to be no trend in the data.

PAGE 83

83 Figure 4 25. RC (mean and standard de viation) by courtroom ascending a ge The RC Mean and Standard Deviation was then plotted by ascending courtroom volume (F igure 4 26 ) There appears to be no trend in the data. Figure 4 26. RC (mean and standard deviation) by courtroom v olume The RC Mean and Standard Deviation was then plotted by maximum ascending courtroom height (F igure 4 27 ) There appears to be no trend in the data.

PAGE 84

84 Figure 4 27. RC (mean and standard d eviation) by m aximum courtroom h eight The RC Mean and Standard Deviation was then plotted by Air Conditioning in operation and by category (F igure 4 28 ) Figure 4 28. RC (mean and standard d eviation) by Air Conditi oning o peration and courtroom c ategory

PAGE 85

85 The data indicates that of the (3) county courtrooms and (4) federal courtrooms that were evaluated for the RC criteria with the AC in operation, show as the mean increases, the Standard Deviation also increases. An unanticipated result for the RC measurements was that County courtrooms yielded lower RC results than Federal courtroom s. The only courtrooms to meet the desired RC level of < 30 were courtrooms that did not have the HVAC system in operation. All four historic courtrooms and Clay County did not have the HVAC system operating while the RC was evaluated. Of those courtroom s, Osceola Historic, Hernando Historic and Sumter Historic, even with the AC off, did not meet the RC desired level per USCDG. These historic courtrooms had large, single pane, thin glass windows, a typical design feature of the time prior to HVAC. It wa s observed that external noise ingress was the source of the high RC levels. The Brevard Historic and Clay County courtrooms did pass the RC level, but as noted, did not have the HVAC in operation Reverberation Time Reverberation Time ( Appendix E) list t he courtrooms by ascending volume with the corresponding RT. Only three courtrooms (Ocala Federal 3 B, Hernando County, and Lake County) achieved the desired RT < 0.7 seconds with the I nterrupted N oise M ethod and all I ntegrated I mpulse R esponse M ethod source path receiver locations. The remaining federal and county courtrooms had RT values of about 1 second or less. Hernando Historic, Osceola Historic and Sumter Historic courtrooms had a RT values ranging from 1. 33 to 2.08 seconds. Both the Inte rrupted Noise Method (INM) and Integrated Impulse Response

PAGE 86

86 specific to any source p ath receiver location. The INM is listed on all three graphs in different source locations ( Figure E 1 ) for Judge, ( Figure E 2 ) for Podium and ( Figure E 3 ) for Witness yields an o bserved RT by occupants. Figure 4 29 shows that there is almost no difference among the IIRM measurements. In addition, both the INM and averaged IIRM mean values indicate that as the room volume increases, the RT increases, irrelevant to the construction date or type. A linear regression line was found to be R 2 = 0.53. As can be seen there is a large RT for the Osceola Historic Courtroom with a volume of 31,825 ft 3 Figure 4 29. Reverberation Time m ean of the INM and av eraged IIRM (three sources) by ascending room v olume Calculations were done to correct the Large RT for Osceola Historic in order to investigate the improvement in the linear regression ( Figure H 1 ) Using the Sabine equation (Long 301) for Reverberation Time:

PAGE 87

87 T 60 = (0.49 V) / (S* ) The average alpha bar is approximately 0.22 for a reverberation time of 1 .0 second based on the data from courtroom s of the same volume in this study. By doubling alpha bar from 0.11 to 0.22, the R T reduces roughly by half from 2.08 to 1.04 seconds. Figure 4 30 shows the plot and improved linear regression of R 2 = 0.8 7 Figure 4 30. Reverberation Time m ean of the INM and av eraged IIRM (three sources) by ascending room volume with the c orrected RT for Osceola Historic This indicates that there is a strong correlation that as Room Volume increases, there is an increase in the Reverberation Time. This result is in agreement with the literature review. Referring back to the uncorrected Osceola Historic data, Figure 4 3 1 shows that as ro om volume increases, for the IIRM, there is an increase in standard deviation. However, this standard deviation is quite small. What this indicates is that although there is a standard methodology in theory to place the loudspeaker in the corner of the

PAGE 88

88 r oom facing up at the trihedral corner of the room (to ensure good dispersion ), there is little difference in the results. The difference in the RT mean values for the INM to that of the averaged IIRM does not have to do with the loudspeaker placement, but rather the inherent statistical sampling deviation in the method. Figure 4 3 1. Reverberation Time standard deviation for IIRM (t hree s ources ) listed by ascending room v olume Averaging the RT values from the IIRM data yields a general RT just as the INM does. The belief of using Soundscape Theory was to show there are differences between observed RTs for each source path receiver location. In reviewing the Orlando Federal IIRM Reverberation Time of each Source to Receiver shows that there are observabl e RT differences (F igure 4 3 2 )

PAGE 89

89 Figure 4 3 2 Orlando Federal IIRM RT for each source path receiver l ocation The average standard deviation of approximately 0.03 5 seconds or less for the Orlando Federal IIRM RT (F igure 4 3 3 ) The Recorder positions tha t yield a large standard deviation is a little misleading Referring back to F igure 4 32, t he Recorder receiver position has a RT that is almost identical f or the Witness and Podium source positions, but the Judge source position has a much lower RT, and thus yields a large standard deviation

PAGE 90

90 Figure 4 3 3 Orlando Fe deral IIRM Reverberation Time, standard deviation of all source mean v alues. Reviewing the Reverberation Time Mean and Standard Deviation by the Source Location for all Receiver Locations v ersus Octave Band Fre quency for Orlando Federal, (F igure 4 3 4 ) shows that the mid band frequencies (500Hz to 2000Hz) have similar mean and standard deviation values. These mid frequencies are typically averaged when stating the RT of a space. As noted ho wever, (F igure 4 32 ) R everberation Time values vary based on the source and receiver locations. By averaging RT values, there is a loss of information. There is another metric that breaks down RT that helps define what is acoustically occurring

PAGE 91

91 Figure 4 3 4 Reverberation Time mean and standard deviation by the source location for all receiver locations versus octave band f requency for Orlando Federal Clarity A nother metric of Clarity (C 80 ) is a measurement of early to late energy. This metric was pre viously discussed in is define d : C 80 = 10 log (E 0 80 ms / E 80 Q ms ) The early portion of energy from RT that helps reinforce inte lligibility is from 0 to 80 ms. The late energy, beyond 80 ms, is the portion of RT that interferes with intelligibility. For example, a C 80 value of (+)15 dB would indicate there is a large amount of early energy to that of late energy where excellent intelligibility is supported. Conversely, a C 80 value of ( )15 dB would indicate there is a large amount of late energy to that of early energy and therefore intelligibility is not supported.

PAGE 92

92 Figure 4 3 5 Clarity mean and s tandard d eviation by the s ource l ocation for all r eceiver l ocations versus o ctave b and f requency for Orlando Federal Fi gure 4 3 5 shows, at 1000Hz both the Judge and Witness source have similar C 80 mean values of approximately (+) 7 and a standard deviation value of +/ 3. The Clarity values for the Judge and Witness locations are all above +1dB which agrees with the prefe rred criteria as mentioned in Carvalho and research. The Podium source has a C 80 mean value of about (+) 2 and the standard deviation value of +/ 6. The difference in mean values has to do with directionality. The reason for the similar C 8 0 mean values for the Judge and Witness source is because they both face the receiver locations in the courtroom ( Figure A 8 ) The reduced C 80 mean value for the Podium Source is because the direct signal faces most of the receivers in the well, but there are receiver positions located behind the Podium Source position meaning the sound source signal has to reflect off the wall behind the judge location and again reflect off other surfaces before reaching the receiver locations behind the podium

PAGE 93

93 source loc ation. In this situation, there are more late energy signals than strong direct early signals Therefore, RT alone is not a good indicator of speech intelligibility. Speech Transmission Index Speech Transmission Index, Appendix F lists all the courtroo ms by ascending volume and the corresponding STI values for the Unassisted Source: Judge ( Figure F 1), the Unassisted Source: Podium ( Figure F 2) and the Unassisted Source: Witness (Appendix F 3). The minimum STI level for the Unassisted Speech is > 0.6 p er the USCDG. Similar STI values appear in ( Figure F 1 ) (Figure F 2 ) and (Figure F 3 ) for all three Unassisted Source locations (Judge, Podium and Witness). The STI values for the Assisted Source: House (Figure F 4) increase when using the house system. Again, the minimum desired STI level for the Unassisted Speech is > 0.6 per the USCDG. The reason the assisted speech system increases the STI is because the signal to noise ratio is increased by the signal source location being closer to a receiver wit h a loudspeaker typically located above the receiver, which in return increases Clarity, the early energy to the late arriving energy from the courtroom. Figure 4 3 6 indicates that as room volume increases, STI Mean values decrease. There is a high linear regression of R 2 = 0.70. This is reasonable because as reviewed earlier, as Room Volume increases, RT increases. Again, the Historic Courtrooms STI values were not evaluated due to th e possibility of damag ing the system by modifying the house system in order to perform the STI measurement.

PAGE 94

94 Figure 4 3 6 STI m ean v alues l isted by a scending r oom v olume In addition, the STI Standard Deviation Listed by Ascending Volume, ( Figure 4 3 7 ) was also reviewed and indicates that the Unassisted Speech sources all h ave increasing standard deviations with increasing room volume; The STI standard deviation for the Assisted Speech source shows that as the room volume increases, the standard deviation decreases. This data could be debatable due to the missing data from the historic courtrooms which coincidentally are the court rooms with the largest volume.

PAGE 95

95 Figure 4 3 7 STI s tandard d eviation l isted by a scending v olume In reviewing Appendix F there are courtrooms that have RT values slightly above 1 seco nd (which is beyond the preferred RT of 0.7 second s) that have all the receiver locations with passing STI values There are courtrooms with RT values beyond 2 seconds that have some receiver locations with passing STI values. As discussed previously, the STI formula by Houtgast and Steeneken showed how the RT and RC influence the STI v alue. The Reverberation Time portion of the formula is derived from equation 2 5. Steady State Interfering Noise portion of the formula is derived from equation 2 6. An excellent S/N ratio of 15 (which was recorded when performing the STI calculations) yields a Steady State Interference Noise portion of t he m(F) formula of about 1 ( Figure G 1 ) Comparing values for various T times of 0.1, 0.7, 1 .0 and 2 .0 seconds were also evaluated i n Figure G 1 Selecting a T value of 0.1 seconds, the RT portion of the m(F) formula yields a value of about 0.02. By increasing the T to 0.7

PAGE 96

96 (which is the preferred T) the RT portion of the m(F) formula yields a value of about 0.003. This is a decrease of the RT portion of the m(F) by one order of magnitude. By selecting a T of 1.0 (which was observed in several courtrooms with all passing STI values) the RT portion of the m(F) formula yields a value of about 0.002. Again by selecting a T of 2.0 the R T portion of the m(F) formula yields a value of about 0.001. For a T value of 0.7 to 1.0 there was a reduction in the RT portion of the m(F) formula by 0.001 and again another reduction in the RT portion of the m(F) formula by 0.001 for a T value from 1.0 to 2.0. Because the S/N ratio was excellent in all the courtrooms, the driving factor in the modulation reduction factor is the T value. The calcu lations performed in Figure G 1 show that there is very little change in this valu e between 0.7 and 1.0 seco nds.

PAGE 97

97 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS The primary conclusions of this study are that the USCDG should be the only reference guide listing acoustic criteria for courtrooms. The USCDG criteria for acoustics are the minimum required values for college age, first lang uage, normal hearing listeners. Field measureme nt standards should be selected and clearly identified in the USCDG. Using a soundscape theory based approach could better represent the acoustic actual performance of a courtroom at all locations of interes t C ited Criteria U nited S tates C ourt D esign G uide Preferred Criteria P art of this research was to investigate the acoustic metrics and their associated minimum requirements f or trial courtrooms contained in various criteria documents in the United States No state ha s quantifiable acoustic field measurement criteria for courtrooms The federal court system utilizes the PBS P 100 and USCDG d ocuments that include acoustic criteria for district (trial) courts. T here are several conflicts in the requirement s of the documents. While the P 100 identifies a RT and NC preferred criteria, t he USCDG identifies specific preferred acoustic criteria for RT RC, NIC, STI, STC, IIC V ibration and Privacy Level with a preferred criterion specified for all of the topics except STC (which has none) Although no courtroom surveyed in this research was designed to meet the 2010 P 100 and 2007 USCDG criteria the criteria are reasonable for normal hearing individuals based on research conducted in educational settings and re search for normal hearing individuals The RT minimum criteri on of 0.6 to 0.7 seconds for courtrooms is in agreement with the al Settings: Position

PAGE 98

98 Statement by ASHA of 0.6 seconds in smaller classrooms (<10,000 ft 3 ) or 0.7 seconds in larger rooms (>10,000 ft 3 and <20,000 ft 3 ) however the USCDG allows federal courtrooms to have a volume up to 38,400 ft 3 The RC 30 minimum criteri on is also in line with classroom acoustics to result in a SNR greater than +15 dB when the sound source is an unamplified human voice at a distance of 10 meters Although no courtroom met the RC 30 criterion with the air conditioning in operation, it is not unreasonable with current building materials and current design techniques to be able to achi eve the RC 30 requirement as defined in the ASHRAE Handbook, HVAC Applications The NIC criterion of > 55 is a reasonable requirement to ensure privacy or minimal interruption during court proceedings from externa l sources (traffic noise at 72 dB(A) at 17 meters), internal sources (typ ical conversation noise from a group of people at 83 dB(A) at 17 meters). H owever it is recommended that this requirement be based on the use of the adjacent spaces For instance, i f the adjacent space is a general public vestibule with many people talking in a reverberant space at levels of 83 dB(A) it should be treated differently than a private court administration corridor with only occasional use by individuals or sma ll groups of people speaking at 62 dB(A) The Privacy Level criterion c ould be eliminated; the requirement is redundant and opens the door to confusion In essence, the requirement allows for a lower performing NIC partition when there is an elevated RC level whic h then is in direct conflict with the minimum NIC requirement. T he STI criteri on of > 0.61 for the unassisted and assisted speech is a reasonable criteri on because it means that adult listeners with normal hearing abilities will hear

PAGE 99

99 approximately 91 % of c onsonants correctly indicating that the judge, jury members, attorneys, court reporter, witness and individuals located in the public seating area will be able to perceive and understand what is being spoken of normal vocal levels of 70 dB(A) at 1 meter (H outgast and Steeneken 1973) Howe ver as listed in Table 2 4 USCDG Speech Transmission Index Rating System the USCDG value ranking and associated subjective description should be adjusted to be in agreement with the IEC 60268 16 and ISO 9921:2002 standar d s which are based on the work by Houtgast and Steeneken (1984) STI qualification and subjective measures (IEC 60268 16 27) ( Table 5 1 ) because there is a difference in the ranges as well as the subjective qualification that leads to confusion Table 5 1. Comparison of USCDG and s tandard STI v alue to subjective m easures UGCDG STI Value Subjective Measure Standard STI Value Subjective Measure < 0.40 Poor < 0.30 Bad 0.41 0.50 Fair 0.31 0.45 Poor 0.51 0.60 Good 0.46 0.60 Fair 0.61 0.75 Very Good 0.61 0.75 Good 0.76 1.0 Excellent 0.76 1.0 Excellent USCDG Cited Standards O nly the RT, RC, NIC and STI metrics were field evaluated in this study because these metrics assess major architectural factors that affect the acoustical qualities of courtrooms including: room volume and finishes; building equipment noise levels; sound isolation systems; and speech intelligibility The P 100 document states the courtrooms are to be field tested for verif ication of attainment of criteria The NIC requirement is properly identified for the measurement to be conducted in accordance with ASTM standard E 336 and E 413. The IEC 60268 16 standard for STI mostly de scribes how the concept of the STI works but not specifically how field measurements are to be

PAGE 100

100 conducted For the RC requirement the USCDG calls out the ASHRAE Handbook which is not a testing procedure. The RT has no testing standard identified. This lack of standardization allows for interpretation of the measurement techniques by individu al designers or consultants which can produce a range of results in the same courtroom It is recommended that when the USCDG is preparing a revision, it incorporate recent field measurement standards for all the preferred criteria as shown in Table 5 2. Table 5 2 Preferred criteria current and proposed field testing s tandards Metric Current Standard Proposed Standard NIC ASTM E 336 and ASTM E 413 ASTM E 336 and ASTM E 413 RC ASHRAE Handbook ANSI 12.2 with ANSI 12.60 Annex A RT None IS O 3382 and ISO 18233 at Soundscape Theory Based Approach Locations STI IEC 60268 16 IEC 60268 16 at Soundscape Theory Based Approach Locations In addition the P 100 document should be revised to be in agreement with the USCDG or possibly remove any spe cific acoustic design criteria so there is only one document for preferred criteria and standards Lastly, incorrect verbiage should be removed from the USCDG Case in point is in T able 14.2 from the USCDG the term S peech I ntelligibility I ndex is calle d out but then the acronym (STI) is listed. S oundscape T heory A pproach By utilizing a soundscape theory base d approach, the observed acoustic performance in 12 courtrooms was evaluated for multiple source path receiver combinations to reflect the individua l communication paths among each of the primary user groups in the rooms. Since acoustic performance differs by location, it is logical to review those differences and attempt to measure them in accordance with a standard.

PAGE 101

101 All receiver locations, in a co urtroom should obtain the minimum acoustic performance for each of the sources locations that should be heard in the room ; there should be no preferential positions. (Table 5 3) lists the averaged results of the Soundscape Theory Approach r esults Table 5 3 Averaged soundscape theory approach acoustic r esults Key Locations IIRM Unassisted Assisted Courthouse NIC > 55 RC < 30 w/ AC on RT < 0.7 sec. STI >0.61 STI >0.61 Total % Passing 13% 0% 31% 81 % 100% Total # Passing 3/23 0/96 123/396 319 / 396 96/96 Clay County 0/2 7/8 w/o AC 23/33 33/33 12/12 Hernando County 0/2 0/8 33/33 33/33 12/12 Lake County 0/2 0/8 33/33 33/33 12/12 Osceola County 1/2 0/8 0/33 33/33 12/12 Gainesville Federal 0/2 0/8 0/33 33/33 12/12 Ocala 3A Federal 0/1 0/8 0/33 33/ 33 12/12 Ocala 3B Federal 0/2 0/8 33/33 33/33 12/12 Orlando Federal 2/3 0/8 0/33 29/33 12/12 Brevard Historic 0/2 6/8 w/o AC 1/33 33/33 NR Hernando Historic 0/2 0/8 w/o AC 0/33 10/33 NR Osceola Historic 0/2 0/8 w/o AC 0/33 4/33 NR Sumter Historic 0/2 2/8 w/o AC 0/33 12/33 NR ( Table 5 3 ) lists the total % and total # of measurements that meet the USCDG criteria for the four measured metric s The total values are based on the total number of measurements made in e ach courtroom for each metric The N IC requirement is only met by partitions that utilize a soundlock. The RC requirement was not met by any courtroom with the AC in operation. The RT was measured using the IIRM simultaneously when performing the STI measurements, which is why the number o f samples are equal. The assisted STI shows there is an increase in STI values to that of the unassisted STI results in 88 % of the measured rooms As can be seen, there are a large number of field measurements taken. The data col lection using soundscape theory based approach take s more time The term

PAGE 102

102 centralized means that a sing le or low number of samples are taken at a location close to the center of the room. Unfortunately due to time and ultimately financial constraints field testing is typically reduced to the centralized approach which potentially yields misleading data The total difference between the two approaches was a n additional 1 hour 15 minutes per courtroom using the soundscape theory based approach ; which i s not a colossal amount of additional time for field testing. ( Table 5 4 ) lists centralized, averaged results that could be inferred to indicate how the entire room behaves acoustically. Table 5 4 Averaged c entralized acoustic results Single Point, Ne ar Podium INM Unassisted, Judge to Podium Courthouse NIC > 55 RC < 30 w/ AC RT < 0.7 sec. STI >0.61 Total % Passing 13% 0 % 42 % 100% Total # Passing 3/23 0/ 12 5/ 12 12/12 Clay County 0/2 0/ 1 w/o AC 1/1 1/1 Hernando County 0/2 0/ 1 1/1 1/1 Lake Count y 0/2 0/ 1 1/1 1/1 Osceola County 1/2 0/ 1 0/1 1/1 Gainesville Federal 0/2 0/ 1 0/1 1/1 Ocala 3A Federal 0/1 0/ 1 0/1 1/1 Ocala 3B Federal 0/2 0/ 1 1/1 1/1 Orlando Federal 2/3 0/ 1 0/1 1/1 Brevard Historic 0/2 0/1 w/o AC 1/1 1/1 Hernando Historic 0/2 0/1 w/o AC 0/1 1/1 Osceola Historic 0/2 0/1 w/o AC 0/1 1/1 Sumter Historic 0/2 0/1 w/o AC 0/1 1/1 Comparing the results in ( Ta ble 5 3 ) and ( Table 5 4 ) supports using a s oundscape t heory based a pproach in order to more fully represent the acoustic behavior of a courtroom. There is no difference in the tables with regards to NIC. There was also no difference between the centralized RC measur ement and the soundscape theory based approach RC measur e ments. The centralized INM was an average for the entire

PAGE 103

103 cou rtroom, which indicates that 42% of the measurements met the criteria com pared to that of the soundscape based approach using the IIRM method where only 33% of the locations met the criteria The centralized STI show that 100% of the locations for the una ssisted speech signal meet the criterion whe reas the soundscape based approach show s only 81% of the locations meet the criterion Recommended Standards The following is a list of the aforementioned USCDG acou stic performance parameter ( Table 2 2 ) but als o include recommended field measurement standards. Noise i solation c lass For t he NIC acoustic parameter, measurements should remain to be completed in accordance with the AST M E 413 and ASTM E 336 standards. Room c riteria The RC acoustic parameter should b e measured in accordance with ANSI 12.2 discretion of the surveyor as stated in ANSI/ASA 12.60 Annex A. All measurements should be taken with the HVAC (compressor/chiller, air handling unit and VAV boxes if equipped) o perating at maximum design conditions Speech t ransmission i ndex Speech Transmission Index should be measured in accordance with the retained IEC 60268 16 standards for unassisted speech with standard source locations (attorney podium, judge, and witness) and receiver locations (attorneys, judge, jury, public, recorder and witness) at the height o f a seated or standing source and receiver depending on the height of the person during typical proceedings The ANSI S3.2 standard should be eliminated for testi ng communication systems because the STI for assisted speech can either be evaluated by playing the signal through the house audio

PAGE 104

104 system and measuring the STI in accordance with IEC 60268 16, or the possibility of us ing the STIPa. Future studies comparin g the STI to STIPa method in courtrooms are r ecommended. Reverberation t ime Reverberation Time measurements should be conducted for each source path receiver location in accordance with ISO 3382 an d ISO 18233 with the use of a directional loudspeaker with directional characteristics similar to those of a human speaking voice ; s pecifically that the loudspeaker be placed at the same source locations as the STI parameter and the microphone at the receiver locations as specified per the STI parameter. In additi on, the RT should be measured in an empty courtroom, ready for use but void of occupants because it was observed during this research that court proceedings do not completely fill the public area, so the absorption coefficient is based es without any additional absorption from people. The measurements should not be scaled for occupancy. It was observed by the author of this research that a typical courtroom is not fully occupied during proceedings, so basing the RT value on full occup ancy or scaled full occupancy to obtain a minimum RT does not represent how the room is being utilized It is recommended that the RT be measured using the Integrat ed Impulse Response Method because of the inherent low standard deviation achieved among mea surement samples using this m easurement method (Siebein, et al) There is an ASTM standard that is currently under revision that may specifically allow for directional measurement of observed RT using impulse response techniques It is recommended that t he USCDG incorporate this reference standard once it has been released.

PAGE 105

105 Faade o utside inside noise r eduction ( OINR ) As stated in the USCDG, there is a requirement to specify the STC of the exterior building shell The requirement does not list any field measurement standard. In future studies, it woul d be recommended to explore the use of ASTM E 966 for field verification of building faades because this metric requires a standard field measurement technique as well. Impact isolation c lass (IIC) The Impa ct Isolation Class should also be tested in future studies of courtrooms. The preferred criteria should be evaluated to ensure it is adequate. The testing procedure described in ASTM E 1007 for field tests and ASTM E 492 for laboratory tests should be c onsidered for reference M inimal Hearing Standards Normal Hearing Individuals The Preferred Criteria as stated per the USCDG are general ly applicable to average young adult listeners with normal hearing and cognitive abilities These young adult listener s are first language, normal hearing college a ge listeners. The term ormal hearing means the listener does not have any hearing impairment according to ANSI S3.21 native t ongue they grew up speaking and the context of the language is understood (Takata 663). The age of the listeners plays two roles. Older listeners typically have some sort of hearing degradation ( Nabelek 476 ) but understand their first language. Younger listeners (children) typically do not have any hearing degradation but are still learning the context of their first language. By deduction, College age listeners have the potential to have the greatest listening ability; they understand their first lang uage very

PAGE 106

106 well and typically do not h ave hearing degradation (Helfer 1786) F or these individuals the minimum USCDG preferred criteria is adequate for good intelligibility Hearing Impaired, Second Language, Older/Younger Listeners This is a serious issue, because in the US there are many second languages older, younger and hearing impaired individuals that the USCDG is not taking into consideration New Census Bureau Linguistic Diversity shows that approximate ly 20% of the US population speaks a lang uage other than English at home O f that 20%, 50% speak English very well (1). This means there is approximately 10% of the US population that has difficulty understanding the spoken English language. According to the National Institutes of Health; National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders, there is a strong relationship between age and reported hearing loss: 18% of American adults 45 64 years old, 30% of adults 65 74 years old, and 47% of a dults 75 years old or older have a hearing loss and only 1 out of 5 people who could benefit from a hearing aid actually wears one. This means that at a minimum, almost 20% of the adult population in the US has some sort of hearing loss (1) As stated, th is research was performed in trial courtrooms. Civil and criminal cases can be held in trial courts. In criminal court cases, the defendant is entitled to a trial jury. According to the US Census Bureau, in 1995 there were approximately 10 million crimi nal crimes. Approximately 1 million criminal cases include child abuse and neglect ( Census, Law 200 ). This means about 10% of the criminal court cases include children. There is a wide range of individuals that require higher acoustic criteria in these g eneral public courtrooms.

PAGE 107

107 indicates that a RT of 0.7 seconds and a S/N ratio of + 15 is the threshold of where hear aids start to become effe ctive (222) Discrimination Ability for Normal and Hearing Impaired Children by Finitzo H erber and Tillman states that a higher S/N ratio, above +15 is beneficial to both normal hearing and hearin g impaired. By maintaining the noise floor of RC 30, the target signal will need to be increased and t his can be achieved by either a personal hearing aid device or an amplified loudspeaker In Finitzo he amplified loudspe aker system showed a greater impact on intelligibility ( 448) In addition, that reverberation time of 0.4 seconds increases intelligibility slightly for normal hearing individuals, but increases intelligibility greatly for the hearing impaired (448). The se studies indicate that the RT design requirement of 0.7 seconds is minimal and should be decreased to 0.4 seconds. By increasing the SNR and decreasing RT, the STI will be increased. It is recommended that the minimum requirement of the USCDG for STI p Summary In summary, it is recommended the USCDG should be the only reference guide listing acoustic criteria for courtrooms. It is also recommended t he next revision of t he USCDG criteria for acoustics should include clear acoustic parameters, goals and soundscape theory based field measurement standards Future studies should consider t he impact of lowering the RT criteria (from 0.7 to 0.4 seconds) as the minimum re quired values in order to accommodate younger and older, second

PAGE 108

108 language and hearing impaired listeners. The STI criteria should be raised (from 0.61 to 0.75) as the minimum value for a speech enhancement system.

PAGE 109

109 APPENDIX A M EASURED COURTROOM DA TA Table A 1. Clay County Noise Isolation Class Public Entry 36 Jury Entry 44 Table A 2. Clay County Room Criteria AC: OFF RC 1 30 RC 2 27 RC 3 27 RC 4 29 RC 5 28 RC 6 28 RC 7 28 RC 8 28 Table A 3. Clay County Speech Transmission Index SOURCE House Judge Podium Witness RECEIVER Attorney 1 0.81 0.74 0.71 0.79 Attorney 2 0.82 0.79 0.7 0.76 Judge 0.87 0.74 0.67 Jury 1 0.84 0.66 0.83 0.7 Jury 2 0.85 0.67 0.75 0.71 Jury 3 0.83 0.73 0.74 0.75 Podium 0.81 0.77 0.8 Public 1 0.78 0. 75 0.7 0.76 Public 2 0.79 0.75 0.73 0.76 Public 3 0.78 0.76 0.73 0.79 Recorder 0.86 0.77 0.9 0.92 Witness 0.88 0.7 0.82 Table A 4 Clay County Reverberation Time (INM) (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 AVG T 20 0.59 0.62 0.58 0.41 0.41 0 .8 0.93 0.5 0.54

PAGE 110

110 Table A 5. Clay County Reverberation Time (IIRM) Source/Receiver (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 AVG Judge / Attorney 1 T 20 0.57 0.54 0.54 0.42 0.64 0.93 0.98 0.7 0.66 Judge / Attorney 2 T 20 0.66 0.62 0.53 0.43 0.59 0.93 1 0.6 7 0.65 Judge / Jury 1 T 20 0.62 0.69 0.54 0.48 0.69 1 1.01 0.76 0.72 Judge / Jury 2 T 20 0.59 0.49 0.5 0.45 0.72 1 1.09 0.81 0.72 Judge / Jury 3 T 20 0.65 0.6 0.46 0.46 0.63 0.94 0.96 0.73 0.68 Judge / Podium T 20 0.48 0.49 0.48 0.41 0.61 0.95 1.06 0.84 0. 66 Judge / Public 1 T 20 0.63 0.58 0.5 0.45 0.68 0.95 1.02 0.75 0.69 Judge / Public 2 T 20 0.54 0.74 0.62 0.47 0.67 0.94 0.99 0.68 0.69 Judge / Public 3 T 20 0.6 0.66 0.5 0.42 0.73 0.99 1.04 0.74 0.71 Judge / Recorder T 20 0.62 0.52 0.46 0.36 0.65 0.89 0.8 9 0.7 0.63 Judge / Witness T 20 0.57 0.62 0.48 0.4 0.68 0.96 1.05 0.82 0.68 Podium / Attorney 1 T 20 0.54 0.52 0.53 0.45 0.71 0.99 1.08 0.81 0.72 Podium / Attorney 2 T 20 0.59 0.55 0.55 0.39 0.64 0.99 1.09 0.82 0.67 Podium / Judge T 20 0.38 0.4 4 0.47 0.37 0.71 1.02 1.17 0.88 0.70 Podium / Jury 1 T 20 0.5 0.48 0.56 0.41 0.59 0.93 0.95 0.62 0.64 Podium / Jury 2 T 20 0.54 0.56 0.38 0.36 0.73 0.98 1.06 0.78 0.69 Podium / Jury 3 T 20 0.54 0.46 0.51 0.37 0.69 1.01 1.06 0.83 0.69 Podium / Public 1 T 20 0.67 0.67 0.64 0.4 0.69 0.97 1.08 0.85 0.69 Podium / Public 2 T 20 0.32 0.65 0.53 0.45 0.74 0.95 1.09 0.86 0.71 Podium / Public 3 T 20 0.74 0.74 0.46 0.44 0.67 1 1.1 0.83 0.70 Podium / Recorder T 20 0.57 0.57 0.48 0.39 0.44 0.89 0.88 0.56 0.57 Podium / W itness T 20 0.54 0.49 0.37 0.37 0.52 0.95 1.05 0.7 0.61 Witness / Attorney 1 T 20 0.64 0.6 0.48 0.42 0.61 1 1.07 0.71 0.68 Witness / Attorney 2 T 20 0.41 0.53 0.45 0.44 0.64 1 1.14 0.75 0.69 Witness / Judge T 20 0.45 0.48 0.47 0.42 0.71 1.03 1.1 7 0.93 0.72 Witness / Jury 1 T 20 0.57 0.7 0.6 0.42 0.63 1.02 1.13 0.88 0.69 Witness / Jury 2 T 20 0.64 0.54 0.44 0.42 0.66 1.05 1.1 0.84 0.71 Witness / Jury 3 T 20 0.57 0.58 0.56 0.36 0.64 0.97 1.03 0.73 0.66 Witness / Podium T 20 0.58 0.59 0.54 0.42 0.67 1.03 1.11 0.79 0.71 Witness / Public 1 T 20 0.61 0.6 0.55 0.42 0.62 0.99 1.12 0.75 0.68 Witness / Public 2 T 20 0.46 0.58 0.66 0.49 0.61 0.96 1.07 0.87 0.69 Witness / Public 3 T 20 0.58 0.62 0.53 0.42 0.62 1.01 1.07 0.79 0.68 Witness / Recorder T 20 0.4 0 .45 0.39 0.36 0.5 0.92 0.92 0.61 0.59

PAGE 111

111 Table A 6. Hernando County Noise Isolation Class Location NIC Public Entry 36 Table A 7. Hernando County Room Criteria AC: ON RC 1 33 RC 2 35 RC 3 33 RC 4 36 RC 5 31 RC 6 38 RC 7 32 RC 8 35 Table A 8. Hernando County Speech Transmission Index SOURCE House Judge Podium Witness RECEIVER Attorney 1 0.77 0.79 0.77 0.79 Attorney 2 0.81 0.76 0.74 0.79 Judge 0.92 0.84 0.74 Jury 1 0.85 0.76 0.76 0.72 Jury 2 0.83 0.77 0.76 0.73 Jury 3 0.77 0. 82 0.76 0.77 Podium 0.82 0.81 0.83 Public 1 0.79 0.72 0.71 0.77 Public 2 0.78 0.77 0.74 0.77 Public 3 0.8 0.72 0.74 0.77 Recorder 0.83 0.73 0.78 0.77 Witness 0.89 0.74 0.84 Table A 9. Hernando County Reverberation Time (INM) (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 AVG T 20 2.33 0.62 0.30 0.32 0.49 0.58 0.50 0.37

PAGE 112

112 Table A 10. Hernando County Reverberation Time (IIRM) Source/Receiver (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 AVG Judge / Attorney 1 T 20 0.68 0.61 0.47 0.43 0.4 0.51 0.62 0 .59 0.45 Judge / Attorney 2 T 20 0.92 0.7 0.56 0.4 0.39 0.47 0.59 0.59 0.42 Judge / Jury 1 T 20 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.4 0.39 0.55 0.6 0.58 0.45 Judge / Jury 2 T 20 0.82 0.54 0.57 0.45 0.43 0.52 0.61 0.58 0.47 Judge / Jury 3 T 20 0.8 0.58 0.55 0.44 0.4 0.49 0.6 0.6 0.44 Judge / Podium T 20 0.93 0.53 0.53 0.39 0.39 0.54 0.65 0.59 0.44 Judge / Public 1 T 20 0.85 0.67 0.52 0.47 0.43 0.59 0.6 0.59 0.50 Judge / Public 2 T 20 0.69 0.74 0.63 0.42 0.46 0.54 0.62 0.6 0.47 Judge / Public 3 T 20 0.95 0.57 0.51 0.47 0.41 0.5 1 0.6 0.58 0.46 Judge / Recorder T 20 0.82 0.61 0.55 0.45 0.38 0.52 0.62 0.53 0.45 Judge / Witness T 20 0.5 0.57 0.58 0.45 0.41 0.5 0.61 0.58 0.45 Podium / Attorney 1 T 20 0.74 0.64 0.6 0.42 0.36 0.51 0.6 0.58 0.43 Podium / Attorney 2 T 20 0.8 0.68 0.64 0.44 0.38 0.48 0.61 0.57 0.43 Podium / Judge T 20 0.99 0.55 0.56 0.44 0.36 0.47 0.6 0.68 0.42 Podium / Jury 1 T 20 0.68 0.48 0.59 0.48 0.39 0.49 0.57 0.56 0.45 Podium / Jury 2 T 20 0.71 0.5 0.48 0.38 0.35 0.51 0.59 0.57 0.41 Podium / Jury 3 T 20 0.73 0.62 0.53 0.48 0.4 0.56 0.89 0.59 0.48 Podium / Public 1 T 20 0.57 0.69 0.63 0.46 0.37 0.53 0.6 0.54 0.45 Podium / Public 2 T 20 0.72 0.56 0.65 0.46 0.47 0.56 0.59 0.55 0.50 Podium / Public 3 T 20 0.8 0.66 0.57 0.44 0.4 0.52 0.62 0.57 0.45 Podium / R ecorder T 20 0.57 0.57 0.48 0.39 0.44 0.89 0.88 0.56 0.57 Podium / Witness T 20 0.54 0.49 0.37 0.37 0.52 0.95 1.05 0.7 0.61 Witness / Attorney 1 T 20 0.67 0.51 0.59 0.44 0.41 0.5 0.55 0.53 0.45 Witness / Attorney 2 T 20 0.7 0.55 0.49 0.44 0.39 0 .5 0.6 0.53 0.44 Witness / Judge T 20 0.61 0.76 0.62 0.41 0.41 0.49 0.57 0.56 0.44 Witness / Jury 1 T 20 0.77 0.5 0.55 0.42 0.36 0.53 0.64 0.61 0.44 Witness / Jury 2 T 20 0.68 0.72 0.45 0.39 0.42 0.51 0.62 0.6 0.44 Witness / Jury 3 T 20 0.72 0.58 0.5 0.39 0.42 0.51 0.6 0.57 0.44 Witness / Podium T 20 1.01 0.48 0.5 0.44 0.38 0.5 0.62 0.59 0.44 Witness / Public 1 T 20 0.66 0.71 0.55 0.39 0.42 0.52 0.62 0.58 0.44 Witness / Public 2 T 20 0.58 0.51 0.64 0.41 0.46 0.58 0.69 0.62 0.48 Witness / Public 3 T 20 0.62 0.65 0.62 0.43 0.44 0.52 0.6 0.56 0.46 Witness / Recorder T 20 0.56 0.65 0.62 0.4 0.42 0.51 0.6 0.57 0.44

PAGE 113

113 Table A 11 Lake County Noise Isolation Class Public Entry 38 Administrative Entry 38 Table A 12 Lake County Room Criteria AC: ON RC 1 33 R C 2 34 RC 3 30 RC 4 30 RC 5 30 RC 6 34 RC 7 33 RC 8 31 Table A 13 Lake County Speech Transmission Index SOURCE House Judge Podium Witness RECEIVER Attorney 1 0.73 0.73 0.69 0.73 Attorney 2 0.74 0.72 0.69 0.75 Judge 0.69 0.75 0.78 Ju ry 1 0.81 0.77 0.69 0.7 Jury 2 0.78 0.69 0.72 Jury 3 0.8 0.77 0.72 0.73 Podium 0.72 0.73 0.73 Public 1 0.74 0.72 0.68 0.75 Public 2 0.8 0.74 0.68 0.73 Public 3 0.77 0.73 0.68 0.76 Recorder 0.72 0.8 0.76 0.85 Witness 0.71 0.74 0.77 T able A 14 Lake County Reverberation Time (INM) (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 AVG T 20 1 0.84 0.89 0.55 0.59 0.52 0.51 0.48 0.55

PAGE 114

114 Table A 1 5 Lake County Reverberation Time (IIRM) Source/Receiver (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 AVG J udge / Attorney 1 T 20 1.45 0.79 0.74 0.53 0.54 0.51 0.52 0.52 0.53 Judge / Attorney 2 T 20 1.29 0.74 0.67 0.61 0.54 0.49 0.52 0.49 0.55 Judge / Jury 1 T 20 0.63 0.65 0.72 0.56 0.56 0.5 0.54 0.53 0.54 Judge / Jury 2 T 20 0.88 0.76 0.66 0.56 0.53 0.52 0.53 0 .56 0.54 Judge / Jury 3 T 20 0.77 0.77 0.66 0.6 0.52 0.49 0.51 0.53 0.54 Judge / Podium T 20 0.85 0.88 0.69 0.63 0.54 0.5 0.55 0.54 0.56 Judge / Public 1 T 20 1.14 0.68 0.66 0.62 0.58 0.49 0.52 0.53 0.56 Judge / Public 2 T 20 0.91 0.76 0.76 0.59 0.56 0.52 0.56 0.56 0.56 Judge / Public 3 T 20 0.99 0.83 0.82 0.58 0.53 0.51 0.55 0.53 0.54 Judge / Recorder T 20 0.89 0.68 0.77 0.53 0.57 0.49 0.54 0.53 0.53 Judge / Witness T 20 0.79 0.75 0.74 0.58 0.57 0.49 0.53 0.49 0.55 Podium / Attorney 1 T 20 1.07 0.86 0.67 0.59 0.53 0.5 0.56 0.58 0.54 Podium / Attorney 2 T 20 0.74 0.86 0.62 0.58 0.53 0.53 0.54 0.55 0.55 Podium / Judge T 20 0.84 0.81 0.79 0.53 0.57 0.58 0.61 0.66 0.56 Podium / Jury 1 T 20 0.94 0.75 0.73 0.62 0.55 0.52 0.55 0.64 0.56 Podium / Jury 2 T 20 0.82 0.71 0.67 0.6 0.59 0.53 0.55 0.62 0.57 Podium / Jury 3 T 20 0.89 0.76 0.72 0.62 0.49 0.5 0.55 0.62 0.54 Podium / Public 1 T 20 1.09 0.81 0.76 0.58 0.56 0.5 0.54 0.59 0.55 Podium / Public 2 T 20 0.88 0.84 0.76 0.63 0.55 0.5 0.58 0.68 0.56 Podium / Public 3 T 20 0.83 0.91 0.69 0.55 0.59 0.52 0.54 0.57 0.55 Podium / Recorder T 20 1.05 0.61 0.63 0.56 0.54 0.53 0.56 0.56 0.54 Podium / Witness T 20 1.18 0.65 0.73 0.62 0.54 0.53 0.55 0.62 0.56 Witness / Attorney 1 T 20 1.3 0.76 0.76 0.57 0.5 5 0.55 0.57 0.6 0.56 Witness / Attorney 2 T 20 1.24 0.84 0.72 0.6 0.56 0.53 0.56 0.53 0.56 Witness / Judge T 20 0.84 0.78 0.68 0.54 0.58 0.55 0.6 0.54 0.56 Witness / Jury 1 T 20 1.02 0.72 0.78 0.54 0.56 0.53 0.56 0.65 0.54 Witness / Jury 2 T 20 0.86 0.86 0 .74 0.59 0.57 0.58 0.59 0.56 0.58 Witness / Jury 3 T 20 0.94 0.79 0.7 0.52 0.55 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.54 Witness / Podium T 20 0.89 0.75 0.77 0.59 0.56 0.52 0.57 0.62 0.56 Witness / Public 1 T 20 0.74 0.74 0.72 0.6 0.54 0.52 0.55 0.56 0.55 Witness / Public 2 T 20 0.84 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.54 0.53 0.57 0.58 0.56 Witness / Public 3 T 20 0.99 0.72 0.73 0.55 0.54 0.51 0.55 0.61 0.53 Witness / Recorder T 20 0.76 0.77 0.59 0.56 0.55 0.48 0.58 0.63 0.53

PAGE 115

115 Table A 1 6. Osceola County Noise Isolation Class Public Entry 67 Jur y Entry 45 Table A 1 7. Osceola County Room Criteria AC: ON RC 1 36 RC 2 45 RC 3 35 RC 4 31 RC 5 34 RC 6 33 RC 7 35 RC 8 33 Table A 1 8. Osceola County Speech Transmission Index SOURCE House Judge Podium Witness RECEIVER Attorney 1 0.71 0 .71 0.66 0.71 Attorney 2 0.68 0.69 0.64 0.68 Judge 0.65 0.78 0.65 Jury 1 0.63 0.71 0.69 0.68 Jury 2 0.72 0.7 0.68 0.71 Jury 3 0.64 0.7 0.69 0.68 Podium 0.65 0.76 0.78 Public 1 0.75 0.64 0.62 0.68 Public 2 0.79 0.66 0.63 0.69 Public 3 0.76 0.69 0.63 0.7 Recorder 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.68 Witness 0.64 0.72 0.73 Table A 1 9. Osceola County Reverberation Time (INM) (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 AVG T 20 1.02 1.13 1.02 1.01 0.9 0.77 0.7 0.53 0.89

PAGE 116

116 Table A 2 0. Osceola County R everberation Time (IIRM) Source/Receiver (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 AVG Judge / Attorney 1 T 20 0.68 0.96 0.95 0.93 0.8 0.7 0.64 0.56 0.81 Judge / Attorney 2 T 20 0.64 0.9 0.97 0.91 0.76 0.73 0.66 0.53 0.80 Judge / Jury 1 T 20 1.04 1.21 0.87 0 .81 0.86 0.69 0.66 0.56 0.79 Judge / Jury 2 T 20 0.84 0.83 1.08 0.93 0.79 0.7 0.64 0.53 0.81 Judge / Jury 3 T 20 0.77 0.96 0.89 0.85 0.74 0.69 0.65 0.54 0.76 Judge / Podium T 20 0.66 0.79 0.92 0.9 0.77 0.7 0.61 0.5 0.79 Judge / Public 1 T 20 0.78 0.76 0.93 0.92 0.84 0.72 0.67 0.53 0.83 Judge / Public 2 T 20 0.71 0.88 0.98 0.96 0.86 0.76 0.68 0.53 0.86 Judge / Public 3 T 20 0.59 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.84 0.75 0.65 0.52 0.82 Judge / Recorder T 20 0.47 0.92 0.93 0.92 0.83 0.7 0.65 0.54 0.82 Judge / Witness T 20 0.42 0.92 1.01 0.93 0.85 0.72 0.64 0.54 0.83 Podium / Attorney 1 T 20 0.79 0.64 0.77 0.9 0.82 0.77 0.7 0.55 0.83 Podium / Attorney 2 T 20 0.71 0.84 0.98 1.04 0.86 0.74 0.7 0.57 0.88 Podium / Judge T 20 0.7 0.99 0.95 0.87 0.83 0.68 0.54 0.53 0.79 P odium / Jury 1 T 20 0.88 0.96 0.86 0.92 0.8 0.73 0.69 0.59 0.82 Podium / Jury 2 T 20 0.7 0.9 0.75 0.96 0.82 0.7 0.69 0.57 0.83 Podium / Jury 3 T 20 0.77 0.72 0.97 0.93 0.84 0.72 0.68 0.58 0.83 Podium / Public 1 T 20 0.85 0.67 0.85 0.83 0.82 0.76 0.68 0.54 0 .80 Podium / Public 2 T 20 0.5 0.84 0.93 0.9 0.81 0.73 0.69 0.56 0.81 Podium / Public 3 T 20 0.88 1.41 0.93 0.8 0.8 0.68 0.74 0.59 0.76 Podium / Recorder T 20 0.86 0.78 0.77 0.81 0.88 0.69 0.65 0.56 0.79 Podium / Witness T 20 0.96 0.74 0.87 0.81 0.82 0.74 0.67 0.54 0.79 Witness / Attorney 1 T 20 0.89 0.85 0.77 1 0.78 0.72 0.65 0.51 0.83 Witness / Attorney 2 T 20 0.76 0.91 0.73 0.89 0.74 0.74 0.7 0.55 0.79 Witness / Judge T 20 0.43 0.88 0.86 0.91 0.82 0.72 0.69 0.53 0.82 Witness / Jury 1 T 20 0.9 1 0.76 0.81 0.95 0.81 0.71 0.67 0.55 0.82 Witness / Jury 2 T 20 0.67 1.13 0.94 0.86 0.82 0.73 0.68 0.56 0.80 Witness / Jury 3 T 20 0.66 0.84 1.03 0.99 0.87 0.71 0.65 0.56 0.86 Witness / Podium T 20 0.57 0.98 0.95 1.03 0.73 0.67 0.6 0.47 0.81 Witness / Pub lic 1 T 20 0.95 1.27 1.1 0.92 0.87 0.71 0.72 0.56 0.83 Witness / Public 2 T 20 0.67 1.12 0.91 0.86 0.78 0.72 0.67 0.55 0.79 Witness / Public 3 T 20 1.07 1.3 0.89 0.89 0.79 0.73 0.65 0.55 0.80 Witness / Recorder T 20 0.81 1.08 0.77 0.92 0.82 0.69 0.69 0.56 0 .81

PAGE 117

117 Table A 21 Gainesville Federal Noise Isolation Class Public Entry 46 Side Entry 39 Table A 22 Gainesville Federal Room Criteria AC: ON RC 1 31 RC 2 42 RC 3 39 RC 4 35 RC 5 36 RC 6 37 RC 7 47 RC 8 42 Table A 23 Gainesville Federal Speech Transmission Index SOURCE House Judge Podium Witness RECEIVER Attorney 1 0.77 0.71 0.64 0.7 Attorney 2 0.75 0.65 0.62 0.65 Judge 0.68 0.74 0.61 Jury 1 0.68 0.65 0.66 0.67 Jury 2 0.71 0.63 0.62 0.62 Jury 3 0.74 0.65 0.63 0.64 Pod ium 0.73 0.73 0.71 Public 1 0.77 0.67 0.63 0.63 Public 2 0.77 0.67 0.66 0.63 Public 3 0.73 0.67 0.64 0.66 Recorder 0.73 0.88 0.77 0.75 Witness 0.69 0.63 0.75 Table A 24 Gainesville Federal Reverberation Time (INM) (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 AVG T 20 1.21 0.89 0.73 0.95 1.06 1.05 0.76 0.83 1.02

PAGE 118

118 Table A 25 Gainesville Federal Reverberation Time (IIRM) Source/Receiver (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 AVG Judge / Attorney 1 T 20 0.88 0.75 0.66 0.74 0.86 0.97 1.01 0.78 0.86 Judge / Attorney 2 T 20 0.85 0.79 0.64 0.85 0.95 1.01 1 0.85 0.94 Judge / Jury 1 T 20 0.89 0.66 0.63 0.96 0.9 1.04 1 0.83 0.97 Judge / Jury 2 T 20 0.94 0.74 0.71 0.96 1 1.1 1.06 0.77 1.02 Judge / Jury 3 T 20 0.93 0.94 0.69 0.86 0.85 1.02 1.06 0.8 0.91 Judge / Podium T 20 1.07 0.66 0.75 0.91 1.04 0.99 0.98 0.84 0.98 Judge / Public 1 T 20 1.45 0.89 0.67 0.94 0.9 0.99 1.08 0.83 0.94 Judge / Public 2 T 20 1.1 0.55 0.68 0.94 1.07 1.08 1.05 0.84 1.03 Judge / Public 3 T 20 1.12 0.8 0.78 0.78 0.91 1.07 1.04 0. 81 0.92 Judge / Recorder T 20 0.85 0.62 0.46 0.84 1.06 0.98 1.05 0.98 0.96 Judge / Witness T 20 0.78 0.64 0.71 0.93 0.96 1.12 0.98 0.82 1.00 Podium / Attorney 1 T 20 0.72 0.81 0.71 0.84 0.86 0.95 0.99 0.81 0.88 Podium / Attorney 2 T 20 0.85 0.8 1 0.67 0.8 0.9 0.99 0.99 0.83 0.90 Podium / Judge T 20 1.11 0.63 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.02 1.03 0.89 0.91 Podium / Jury 1 T 20 0.99 0.62 0.66 0.89 0.91 1.04 1.05 0.85 0.95 Podium / Jury 2 T 20 1.27 0.86 0.68 0.79 0.9 1.03 1.02 0.82 0.91 Podium / Jury 3 T 20 0.89 0.76 0.76 0.85 0.91 1.07 1.05 0.86 0.94 Podium / Public 1 T 20 1.38 0.77 0.74 0.89 0.91 0.99 0.98 0.87 0.93 Podium / Public 2 T 20 1.02 0.88 0.75 0.87 0.89 1.04 1.01 0.9 0.93 Podium / Public 3 T 20 1.12 1.13 0.8 0.83 0.95 1.02 0.97 0.88 0.93 Podium / Rec order T 20 1 0.71 0.69 0.9 0.88 1 1.02 0.85 0.93 Podium / Witness T 20 1.08 0.62 0.72 0.82 0.89 1.02 1.04 0.9 0.91 Witness / Attorney 1 T 20 1.12 0.37 0.63 0.83 0.92 1.02 1.02 0.79 0.92 Witness / Attorney 2 T 20 0.6 0.72 0.75 0.86 0.96 0.99 1 0. 74 0.94 Witness / Judge T 20 1.11 0.73 0.79 0.85 0.96 1.01 0.96 0.84 0.94 Witness / Jury 1 T 20 1.15 0.69 0.65 0.81 0.89 1.03 0.99 0.75 0.91 Witness / Jury 2 T 20 0.98 0.71 0.67 0.87 0.9 1.04 1 0.81 0.94 Witness / Jury 3 T 20 0.87 0.89 0.64 0.96 0.95 1.02 0.98 0.83 0.98 Witness / Podium T 20 0.66 0.77 0.68 0.82 0.93 1.01 1 0.84 0.92 Witness / Public 1 T 20 0.84 0.59 0.7 0.78 0.95 1.01 1.02 0.77 0.91 Witness / Public 2 T 20 1.03 0.55 0.75 0.83 1.07 1.13 1.04 0.78 1.01 Witness / Public 3 T 20 1.05 1.19 0.63 0 .96 0.93 1.01 1.03 0.85 0.97 Witness / Recorder T 20 0.55 0.8 0.74 0.92 0.93 1.03 1.05 0.87 0.96

PAGE 119

119 Table A 2 6. Ocala 3A Federal Noise Isolation Class Location NIC Public Entry 33 Table A 2 7 Ocala 3A Federal Room Criteria AC: ON RC 1 39 RC 2 42 RC 3 39 RC 4 38 RC 5 39 RC 6 40 RC 7 39 RC 8 40 Table A 2 8. Ocala 3A Federal Speech Transmission Index SOURCE House Judge Podium Witness RECEIVER Attorney 1 0.7 0.68 0.64 0.7 Attorney 2 0.74 0.7 0.66 0.69 Judge 0.66 0.78 0.66 Jury 1 0.7 0.65 0.67 0.64 Jury 2 0.72 0.65 0.68 0.66 Jury 3 0.74 0.68 0.68 0.67 Podium 0.67 0.73 0.73 Public 1 0.72 0.67 0.65 0.67 Public 2 0.73 0.7 0.67 0.65 Public 3 0.68 0.69 0.63 0.72 Recorder 0.68 0.86 0.8 0.87 Witness 0.67 0.68 0.72 Table A 2 9 Ocala 3A Federal Reverberation Time (INM) (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 AVG T 20 2.27 0.74 0.78 0.79 0.87 1.01 0.88 0.68 0.89

PAGE 120

120 Table A 3 0. Ocala 3A Federal Reverberation Time (IIRM) Source/Receiver (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 80 00 AVG Judge / Attorney 1 T 20 0.79 0.7 0.7 0.76 0.89 1.01 1.03 0.79 0.89 Judge / Attorney 2 T 20 0.69 0.74 0.65 0.84 0.91 0.94 1 0.75 0.90 Judge / Jury 1 T 20 0.63 0.6 0.78 0.77 0.88 0.98 1.03 0.83 0.88 Judge / Jury 2 T 20 0.94 0.71 0.78 0.81 0.9 0.99 1.0 4 0.82 0.90 Judge / Jury 3 T 20 0.77 0.61 0.64 0.7 0.93 0.97 0.97 0.77 0.87 Judge / Podium T 20 0.69 0.63 0.76 0.76 0.91 0.96 0.96 0.7 0.88 Judge / Public 1 T 20 0.98 0.83 0.73 0.78 0.88 0.98 0.98 0.79 0.88 Judge / Public 2 T 20 1.03 0.92 0.91 0.82 0.89 0. 96 1 0.81 0.89 Judge / Public 3 T 20 1.17 0.86 0.75 0.85 0.88 0.96 1 0.78 0.90 Judge / Recorder T 20 0.83 0.49 0.49 0.72 0.82 0.94 0.91 0.76 0.83 Judge / Witness T 20 0.96 0.81 0.7 0.75 0.86 0.99 1.04 0.87 0.87 Podium / Attorney 1 T 20 0.73 0.6 5 0.64 0.71 0.9 1.02 1.06 1 0.88 Podium / Attorney 2 T 20 0.85 0.58 0.6 0.8 0.86 0.96 1.01 0.88 0.87 Podium / Judge T 20 0.64 0.73 0.68 0.77 0.86 1.01 0.92 0.86 0.88 Podium / Jury 1 T 20 0.78 0.67 0.67 0.8 0.88 0.98 0.94 0.82 0.89 Podium / Jury 2 T 20 1.04 0.67 0.77 0.77 0.85 1 1 0.87 0.87 Podium / Jury 3 T 20 0.77 0.86 0.76 0.81 0.85 0.93 0.99 0.89 0.86 Podium / Public 1 T 20 0.83 0.74 0.68 0.85 0.85 0.98 1.03 0.94 0.89 Podium / Public 2 T 20 0.87 0.76 0.76 0.77 0.86 0.98 1 0.88 0.87 Podium / Public 3 T 20 0.83 0.79 0.78 0.88 0.9 0.96 1 0.96 0.91 Podium / Recorder T 20 0.94 0.72 0.7 0.71 0.79 0.96 0.91 0.77 0.82 Podium / Witness T 20 0.8 0.66 0.69 0.7 0.87 0.94 0.98 0.91 0.84 Witness / Attorney 1 T 20 0.95 0.58 0.73 0.75 0.9 1.03 1.01 0.73 0.89 Witness / Attorney 2 T 20 0.88 0.65 0.75 0.81 0.91 1 1.03 0.73 0.91 Witness / Judge T 20 0.77 0.72 0.68 0.73 0.88 0.98 1.01 0.86 0.86 Witness / Jury 1 T 20 0.91 0.7 0.74 0.78 0.96 1.02 1 0.83 0.92 Witness / Jury 2 T 20 0.66 0.59 0.72 0.82 0.92 1.04 1.01 0. 82 0.93 Witness / Jury 3 T 20 1.06 0.69 0.64 0.81 0.92 1.05 1.01 0.76 0.93 Witness / Podium T 20 0.89 0.74 0.67 0.77 0.93 0.97 1.01 0.8 0.89 Witness / Public 1 T 20 0.8 0.63 0.72 0.82 0.88 1.02 1.01 0.78 0.91 Witness / Public 2 T 20 1.01 0.9 0.76 0.82 0.86 0.97 1.02 0.81 0.88 Witness / Public 3 T 20 0.87 0.73 0.76 0.83 0.93 0.97 1.04 0.85 0.91 Witness / Recorder T 20 0.91 0.51 0.67 0.74 0.78 0.95 0.88 0.73 0.82

PAGE 121

121 Table A 31 Ocala 3B Federal Noise Isolation Class Public Entry 51 Administrative Entry 34 Table A 32 Ocala 3B Federal Room Criteria AC: ON RC 1 45 RC 2 41 RC 3 42 RC 4 46 RC 5 46 RC 6 42 RC 7 41 RC 8 39 Table A 33 Ocala 3B Federal Speech Transmission Index SOURCE House Judge Podium Witness RECEIVER Attorney 1 0.8 0. 84 0.78 0.82 Attorney 2 0.8 0.84 0.78 0.79 Judge 0.77 0.84 0.78 Jury 1 0.78 0.77 0.81 0.86 Jury 2 0.8 0.77 0.77 0.82 Jury 3 0.83 0.78 0.75 0.82 Podium 0.81 0.81 0.83 Public 1 0.89 0.8 0.77 0.8 Public 2 0.88 0.78 0.77 0.78 Public 3 0.8 4 0.79 0.75 0.81 Recorder 0.78 0.8 0.86 0.77 Witness 0.77 0.86 0.81 Table A 34 Ocala 3B Federal Reverberation Time (INM) (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 AVG T 20 0.62 0.61 0.6 0.42 0.36 0.39 0.38 0.32 0.39

PAGE 122

122 T able A 35 Ocala 3B Federal Reverberation Time (IIRM) Source/Receiver (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 AVG Judge / Attorney 1 T 20 0.45 0.49 0.44 0.32 0.35 0.37 0.38 0.35 0.35 Judge / Attorney 2 T 20 0.56 0.49 0.48 0.4 0.31 0.37 0.39 0.35 0.36 Judge / Jury 1 T 20 0.82 0.62 0. 46 0.43 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.36 0.39 Judge / Jury 2 T 20 0.99 0.48 0.42 0.42 0.35 0.4 0.39 0.37 0.39 Judge / Jury 3 T 20 0.91 0.7 0.49 0.43 0.33 0.38 0.41 0.36 0.38 Judge / Podium T 20 0.72 0.53 0.51 0.41 0.36 0.42 0.44 0.39 0.40 Judge / Public 1 T 20 0.61 0.5 4 0.48 0.43 0.35 0.35 0.38 0.37 0.38 Judge / Public 2 T 20 0.6 0.6 0.51 0.41 0.31 0.4 0.46 0.4 0.37 Judge / Public 3 T 20 0.92 0.5 0.52 0.39 0.32 0.4 0.46 0.41 0.37 Judge / Recorder T 20 0.57 0.73 0.45 0.39 0.33 0.41 0.45 0.39 0.38 Judge / Witness T 20 0.8 1 0.58 0.56 0.36 0.33 0.4 0.39 0.36 0.36 Podium / Attorney 1 T 20 0.54 0.54 0.52 0.37 0.31 0.41 0.44 0.42 0.36 Podium / Attorney 2 T 20 0.73 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.35 0.44 0.43 0.4 0.40 Podium / Judge T 20 0.7 0.51 0.52 0.42 0.39 0.42 0.49 0.42 0.41 Po dium / Jury 1 T 20 0.74 0.61 0.44 0.36 0.33 0.41 0.47 0.46 0.37 Podium / Jury 2 T 20 0.81 0.52 0.62 0.43 0.34 0.44 0.48 0.47 0.40 Podium / Jury 3 T 20 0.77 0.61 0.55 0.38 0.34 0.41 0.46 0.43 0.38 Podium / Public 1 T 20 0.61 0.53 0.52 0.4 0.34 0.44 0.44 0.41 0.39 Podium / Public 2 T 20 0.71 0.51 0.59 0.37 0.37 0.47 0.5 0.46 0.40 Podium / Public 3 T 20 0.88 0.55 0.56 0.4 0.35 0.49 0.56 0.5 0.41 Podium / Recorder T 20 1.06 0.55 0.5 0.38 0.36 0.38 0.45 0.39 0.37 Podium / Witness T 20 0.74 0.54 0.53 0.38 0.35 0.4 0.43 0.4 0.38 Witness / Attorney 1 T 20 0.52 0.61 0.45 0.41 0.33 0.39 0.4 0.34 0.38 Witness / Attorney 2 T 20 0.75 0.5 0.48 0.42 0.35 0.36 0.42 0.38 0.38 Witness / Judge T 20 0.77 0.64 0.48 0.38 0.35 0.47 0.45 0.39 0.40 Witness / Jury 1 T 20 0 .68 0.62 0.48 0.38 0.34 0.36 0.42 0.36 0.36 Witness / Jury 2 T 20 0.79 0.65 0.54 0.38 0.32 0.38 0.39 0.34 0.36 Witness / Jury 3 T 20 0.67 0.5 0.51 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.42 0.35 0.37 Witness / Podium T 20 0.72 0.49 0.55 0.44 0.32 0.39 0.41 0.36 0.38 Witness / Publ ic 1 T 20 0.55 0.61 0.54 0.39 0.34 0.41 0.43 0.39 0.38 Witness / Public 2 T 20 0.67 0.66 0.52 0.42 0.33 0.44 0.43 0.4 0.40 Witness / Public 3 T 20 0.7 0.61 0.64 0.37 0.33 0.41 0.42 0.4 0.37 Witness / Recorder T 20 0.82 0.61 0.52 0.4 0.35 0.45 0.45 0.39 0.40

PAGE 123

123 Table A 3 6. Orlando Federal Noise Isolation Class Public Entry 60 Administrative Entry 46 Jury Entry 60 Table A 3 7 Orlando Federal Room Criteria AC: ON RC 1 40 RC 2 43 RC 3 40 RC 4 37 RC 5 33 RC 6 34 RC 7 32 RC 8 34 Table A 3 8. Orlando Federal Speech Transmission Index SOURCE House Judge Podium Witness RECEIVER Attorney 1 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.72 Attorney 2 0.77 0.71 0.65 0.76 Judge 0.67 0.69 0.59 Jury 1 0.72 0.66 0.64 0.71 Jury 2 0.75 0.62 0.57 0.69 Jury 3 0.76 0.6 7 0.58 0.7 Podium 0.67 0.71 Public 1 0.7 0.69 0.6 0.72 Public 2 0.71 0.69 0.67 0.62 Public 3 0.8 0.7 0.62 0.69 Recorder 0.69 0.86 0.74 0.67 Witness 0.73 0.62 0.72 Table A 3 9 Orlando Federal Reverberation Time (INM) (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 AVG T 20 1.31 0.94 0.97 1.09 1.03 0.89 0.59 1.03

PAGE 124

124 Table A 4 0. Orlando Federal Reverberation Time (IIRM) Source/Receiver (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 AVG Judge / Attorney 1 T 20 0.88 0.75 0.82 0.77 0.94 1.26 1.23 1.06 0. 99 Judge / Attorney 2 T 20 0.92 0.67 0.68 0.74 0.92 1.21 1.2 1.08 0.96 Judge / Jury 1 T 20 0.84 0.88 0.77 0.75 0.95 1.3 1.24 1.05 1.00 Judge / Jury 2 T 20 0.71 0.73 0.78 0.74 0.99 1.32 1.31 1.08 1.02 Judge / Jury 3 T 20 0.66 0.77 0.73 0.68 1.01 1.34 1.27 1 .06 1.01 Judge / Podium T 20 0.88 0.73 0.75 0.74 0.92 1.25 1.28 1.04 0.97 Judge / Public 1 T 20 0.83 0.68 0.72 0.75 0.94 1.35 1.25 1.07 1.01 Judge / Public 2 T 20 0.89 0.8 0.68 0.8 1 1.34 1.26 1.1 1.05 Judge / Public 3 T 20 0.86 0.8 0.74 0.69 0.96 1.27 1.2 9 1.12 0.97 Judge / Recorder T 20 0.6 0.73 0.71 0.63 0.82 1.12 1.11 0.9 0.86 Judge / Witness T 20 0.92 0.8 0.66 0.66 1.02 1.31 1.26 1.09 1.00 Podium / Attorney 1 T 20 0.99 0.7 0.7 0.66 0.88 1.28 1.33 1.15 0.94 Podium / Attorney 2 T 20 0.71 0.72 0.86 0.7 0.83 1.18 1.28 1.09 0.90 Podium / Judge T 20 0.82 0.67 0.76 0.75 0.91 1.26 1.3 1.15 0.97 Podium / Jury 1 T 20 0.86 0.71 0.78 0.77 0.91 1.26 1.31 1.13 0.98 Podium / Jury 2 T 20 1.04 0.67 0.7 0.75 0.91 1.34 1.38 1.22 1.00 Podium / Jury 3 T 20 1.11 0.84 0.75 0.78 0.92 1.26 1.32 1.14 0.99 Podium / Public 1 T 20 1.07 0.73 0.75 0.7 0.93 1.31 1.3 1.11 0.98 Podium / Public 2 T 20 1.08 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.97 1.3 1.33 1.16 1.04 Podium / Public 3 T 20 1 0.84 0.75 0.8 0.94 1.31 1.3 1.11 1.02 Podium / Recorder T 20 0.77 0.73 0.93 0.75 0.87 1.24 1.28 0.97 0.95 Podium / Witness T 20 0.93 0.64 0.76 0.69 0.98 1.39 1.4 1.14 1.02 Witness / Attorney 1 T 20 0.75 0.9 0.73 0.68 0.94 1.28 1.34 1.04 0.97 Witness / Attorney 2 T 20 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.75 0.87 1.25 1.4 1.01 0.96 Witness / Judge T 20 0.95 0.78 0.78 0.75 0.99 1.31 1.31 1.03 1.02 Witness / Jury 1 T 20 0.89 0.86 0.69 0.69 0.86 1.28 1.3 1.12 0.94 Witness / Jury 2 T 20 0.91 0.93 0.72 0.79 0.89 1.31 1.33 1.13 1.00 Witness / Jury 3 T 20 0.97 0.95 0.88 0.71 0.94 1.31 1.36 1.12 0.99 Witness / Podium T 20 0.89 0.69 0.73 0.74 0.95 1.28 1.38 1.09 0.99 Witness / Public 1 T 20 0.63 0.88 0.76 0.73 0.97 1.36 1.42 1.23 1.02 Witness / Public 2 T 20 1.09 0.8 0.8 0.73 0.98 1.34 1.38 1.16 1.02 Witness / Public 3 T 20 1.18 0.74 0.7 0.8 0.95 1.37 1.38 1.16 1.04 Witness / Recorder T 20 0.83 0.73 0.75 0.67 0.91 1.3 1.29 0.98 0.96

PAGE 125

125 Table A 41 Brevard Historic Noise Isolation Class Public Side Entry 39 Jury Entry 33 Table A 42 Brevard Historic Room Criteria AC: OFF RC 1 29 RC 2 29 RC 3 30 RC 4 29 RC 5 34 RC 6 29 RC 7 28 RC 8 29 Table A 43 Brevard Historic Speech Transmission Index SOURCE House Judge Podium Witness RECEIVER Attorney 1 0.76 0.7 0.84 Attorney 2 0.77 0.7 0.67 Judge 0.83 0.69 Jury 1 0.67 0.71 0.7 Jury 2 0.65 0.72 0.74 Jury 3 0.7 0.72 0.77 Podium 0.81 0.72 Public 1 0.73 0.68 0.69 Public 2 0.7 0.66 0.75 Public 3 0.75 0.68 0.72 Recorder 0.68 0.83 0.69 Witness 0.67 0.8 Table A 44 Brevard Historic Reverberation Time (INM) (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 AVG T 20 1.13 0.75 0.64 0.58 0.6 0.76 0.73 0.38 0.65

PAGE 126

126 Table A 45 Brevard Historic Reverberation Time (IIRM) Source/Receiver (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 AVG Judge / A ttorney 1 T 20 0.97 0.85 0.57 0.56 0.65 1 0.98 0.64 0.74 Judge / Attorney 2 T 20 0.73 0.65 0.55 0.59 0.6 0.95 0.99 0.61 0.71 Judge / Jury 1 T 20 0.7 0.58 0.62 0.58 0.68 1.11 1.12 0.88 0.79 Judge / Jury 2 T 20 0.92 0.78 0.68 0.64 0.74 1.11 1.14 0.91 0.83 Ju dge / Jury 3 T 20 0.87 0.62 0.58 0.58 0.76 1.12 1.15 0.89 0.82 Judge / Podium T 20 0.9 0.58 0.52 0.62 0.66 0.96 1.01 0.75 0.75 Judge / Public 1 T 20 1.03 0.84 0.61 0.6 0.66 1.05 1.06 0.69 0.77 Judge / Public 2 T 20 0.7 0.64 0.69 0.63 0.68 0.95 1.02 0.62 0.7 5 Judge / Public 3 T 20 0.84 0.8 0.69 0.58 0.66 1.1 1.1 0.72 0.78 Judge / Recorder T 20 0.91 0.64 0.58 0.59 0.67 1.03 1.06 0.74 0.76 Judge / Witness T 20 0.9 0.77 0.71 0.64 0.66 1 1.03 0.77 0.77 Podium / Attorney 1 T 20 0.84 0.7 0.64 0.55 0.61 1.01 1.01 0.79 0.72 Podium / Attorney 2 T 20 1.03 0.74 0.6 0.56 0.62 1.12 1.08 0.82 0.77 Podium / Judge T 20 0.78 0.64 0.5 0.61 0.57 0.99 0.99 0.67 0.72 Podium / Jury 1 T 20 0.84 0.68 0.64 0.57 0.65 1.07 1.13 0.86 0.76 Podium / Jury 2 T 20 0.72 0.64 0.53 0 .67 0.66 1.16 1.2 0.88 0.83 Podium / Jury 3 T 20 0.85 0.8 0.71 0.62 0.66 1.1 1.16 0.89 0.79 Podium / Public 1 T 20 0.81 0.56 0.67 0.62 0.6 1.11 1.14 0.93 0.78 Podium / Public 2 T 20 0.85 0.65 0.6 0.56 0.65 1.09 1.14 0.82 0.77 Podium / Public 3 T 20 0.95 0. 79 0.58 0.61 0.66 1.16 1.14 0.92 0.81 Podium / Recorder T 20 0.92 0.76 0.63 0.56 0.59 0.96 0.97 0.74 0.70 Podium / Witness T 20 0.74 0.6 0.63 0.55 0.56 0.94 0.97 0.72 0.68 Witness / Attorney 1 T 20 0.75 0.63 0.62 0.6 0.58 0.96 0.91 0.58 0.71 W itness / Attorney 2 T 20 0.82 0.83 0.66 0.6 0.65 1.08 1.08 0.83 0.78 Witness / Judge T 20 0.97 0.79 0.61 0.64 0.67 1.07 1.07 0.76 0.79 Witness / Jury 1 T 20 0.78 0.63 0.7 0.65 0.73 1.08 1.07 0.76 0.82 Witness / Jury 2 T 20 0.72 0.68 0.56 0.58 0.71 1.15 1.08 0.78 0.81 Witness / Jury 3 T 20 0.65 0.64 0.61 0.63 0.63 1.08 1.09 0.88 0.78 Witness / Podium T 20 0.78 0.61 0.53 0.58 0.67 1 1.06 0.71 0.75 Witness / Public 1 T 20 0.89 0.73 0.67 0.59 0.65 1.09 1.09 0.74 0.78 Witness / Public 2 T 20 0.67 0.6 0.65 0.59 0. 66 1.13 1.13 0.71 0.79 Witness / Public 3 T 20 0.9 0.78 0.69 0.58 0.63 1.06 1.07 0.76 0.76 Witness / Recorder T 20 0.89 0.56 0.47 0.53 0.66 1.06 1.08 0.82 0.75

PAGE 127

127 Table A 4 6. Hernando Historic Noise Isolation Class Main Public Entry 39 Side Public Entry 49 Table A 4 7 Hernando Historic Room Criteria AC: OFF RC 1 34 RC 2 35 RC 3 45 RC 4 33 RC 5 32 RC 6 35 RC 7 33 RC 8 32 Table A 4 8. Hernando Historic Speech Transmission Index SOURCE House Judge Podium Witness RECEIVER Attorney 1 0.5 5 0.66 Attorney 2 0.61 0.56 0.55 Judge 0.68 0.59 Jury 1 0.52 0.63 0.52 Jury 2 0.54 0.58 0.51 Jury 3 0.57 0.54 0.54 Podium 0.63 0.6 Public 1 0.55 0.51 0.56 Public 2 0.56 0.54 0.57 Public 3 0.59 0.56 0.61 Recorder 0.81 0.71 0.74 Witness 0.59 0.65 Table A 4 9 Hernando Historic Reverberation Time (INM) (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 AVG T 20 1.47 1.67 1.73 1.56 1.28 1.15 0.82 1.52

PAGE 128

128 Table A 5 0. Hernando Historic Reverberation Time (IIRM) Source/R eceiver (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 AVG Judge / Attorney 1 T 20 1.19 1.6 1.57 1.58 1.43 1.17 1.04 0.85 1.39 Judge / Attorney 2 T 20 1.31 1.37 1.64 1.59 1.45 1.16 1.06 0.84 1.40 Judge / Jury 1 T 20 1.3 1.33 1.52 1.64 1.39 1.16 1.02 0.81 1.40 Ju dge / Jury 2 T 20 1.26 1.21 1.6 1.73 1.39 1.14 1 0.81 1.42 Judge / Jury 3 T 20 1.12 1.19 1.5 1.62 1.38 1.13 1.06 0.84 1.38 Judge / Podium T 20 1.09 1.26 1.58 1.5 1.34 1.14 1.02 0.87 1.33 Judge / Public 1 T 20 1.11 1.38 1.66 1.59 1.36 1.12 1.05 0.84 1.36 Ju dge / Public 2 T 20 1.48 1.53 1.55 1.62 1.37 1.17 1.03 0.82 1.39 Judge / Public 3 T 20 1.24 1.32 1.61 1.64 1.38 1.17 1.04 0.85 1.40 Judge / Recorder T 20 1.04 1.31 1.54 1.62 1.4 1.24 1.07 0.85 1.42 Judge / Witness T 20 0.93 1.18 1.53 1.6 1.36 1.15 1 0.81 1. 37 Podium / Attorney 1 T 20 1.22 1.32 1.59 1.54 1.41 1.16 1.03 0.86 1.37 Podium / Attorney 2 T 20 1.44 1.32 1.48 1.59 1.44 1.16 1.03 0.87 1.40 Podium / Judge T 20 1.23 1.37 1.54 1.58 1.32 1.1 1.03 0.85 1.33 Podium / Jury 1 T 20 1.27 1.6 1.52 1. 64 1.39 1.12 1.05 0.89 1.38 Podium / Jury 2 T 20 1.3 1.53 1.59 1.63 1.4 1.18 1.02 0.84 1.40 Podium / Jury 3 T 20 1.58 1.49 1.66 1.73 1.38 1.17 1.01 0.86 1.43 Podium / Public 1 T 20 1.32 1.42 1.68 1.63 1.42 1.14 1.04 0.86 1.40 Podium / Public 2 T 20 1.07 1. 42 1.51 1.58 1.36 1.16 1.01 0.85 1.37 Podium / Public 3 T 20 1.22 1.58 1.5 1.53 1.35 1.17 1.01 0.84 1.35 Podium / Recorder T 20 1.31 1.3 1.61 1.62 1.39 1.18 1.03 0.84 1.40 Podium / Witness T 20 1.33 1.26 1.51 1.6 1.4 1.17 1.06 0.85 1.39 Witnes s / Attorney 1 T 20 1.29 1.47 1.5 1.67 1.46 1.19 1.08 0.87 1.44 Witness / Attorney 2 T 20 1.25 1.32 1.58 1.63 1.37 1.17 1.04 0.84 1.39 Witness / Judge T 20 0.83 1.01 1.57 1.62 1.33 1.17 1.01 0.82 1.37 Witness / Jury 1 T 20 1.27 1.37 1.52 1.69 1.38 1.15 1.06 0.88 1.41 Witness / Jury 2 T 20 1.2 1.37 1.57 1.57 1.46 1.17 1.03 0.85 1.40 Witness / Jury 3 T 20 1.12 1.22 1.6 1.66 1.35 1.15 1.07 0.85 1.39 Witness / Podium T 20 1.23 1.44 1.58 1.64 1.37 1.12 1.02 0.86 1.38 Witness / Public 1 T 20 1.24 1.53 1.52 1.58 1. 37 1.18 1.07 0.85 1.38 Witness / Public 2 T 20 1.4 1.57 1.57 1.68 1.4 1.14 1.01 0.86 1.41 Witness / Public 3 T 20 1.55 1.41 1.58 1.73 1.39 1.17 1.01 0.85 1.43 Witness / Recorder T 20 1.15 1.31 1.52 1.68 1.44 1.24 1.09 0.86 1.45

PAGE 129

129 Table A 51 Osceola Hist oric Noise Isolation Class Public Entry 35 Jury Entry 36 Table A 52 Osceola Historic Room Criteria AC: OFF RC 1 31 RC 2 35 RC 3 32 RC 4 35 RC 5 36 RC 6 34 RC 7 36 RC 8 34 Table A 53 Osceola Historic Speech Transmission Index SOURCE Ho use Judge Podium Witness RECEIVER Attorney 1 0.47 0.47 0.44 Attorney 2 0.49 0.46 0.48 Judge 0.59 0.47 Jury 1 0.49 0.62 0.48 Jury 2 0.49 0.54 0.53 Jury 3 0.49 0.56 0.47 Podium 0.62 0.69 Public 1 0.52 0.50 0.55 Public 2 0.51 0.48 0.51 Public 3 0.51 0.49 0.53 Recorder 0.49 0.45 0.45 Witness 0.56 0.72 Table A 54 Osceola Historic Reverberation Time (INM) (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 AVG T 20 1.24 1.14 1.29 1.85 2.27 2.13 1.78 1.10 2.08

PAGE 130

130 Table A 55 Osceola Historic Reverberation Time (IIRM) Source/Receiver (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 AVG Judge / Attorney 1 T 20 1.15 1.14 1.51 1.99 2.32 2.12 1.87 1.44 2.14 Judge / Attorney 2 T 20 1.03 1.27 1.55 1.82 2.25 2.2 1.87 1.43 2.09 Judge / Jury 1 T 20 1.21 1.28 1.43 1.92 2.25 2.15 1.81 1.45 2.11 Judge / Jury 2 T 20 1.36 1.43 1.5 1.94 2.32 2.23 1.92 1.44 2.16 Judge / Jury 3 T 20 1.31 1.27 1.34 1.99 2.31 2.13 1.88 1.47 2.14 Judge / Podium T 20 1.55 1.24 1.41 1.92 2.29 2.19 1.86 1.49 2.13 Judge / Public 1 T 20 0.96 1.3 1.59 1.89 2.23 2.2 1.85 1.41 2.11 Judge / Public 2 T 20 1.23 1.3 1.45 2.04 2.33 2.13 1.87 1.43 2.17 Judge / Public 3 T 20 0.98 1.43 1.53 1.97 2.28 2.19 1.85 1.42 2.15 Judge / Recorder T 20 1.1 1.01 1.48 1.84 2.29 2.21 1.92 1.44 2.1 1 Judge / Witness T 20 1.09 1.31 1.41 1.94 2.16 2.24 1.88 1.44 2.11 Podium / Attorney 1 T 20 1.05 1.24 1.53 2.01 2.17 2.24 1.86 1.45 2.14 Podium / Attorney 2 T 20 1.05 1.18 1.55 1.9 2.25 2.21 1.87 1.43 2.12 Podium / Judge T 20 1.14 1.13 1.51 1. 99 2.32 2.13 1.86 1.44 2.15 Podium / Jury 1 T 20 1.2 1.01 1.43 1.91 2.32 2.13 1.85 1.48 2.12 Podium / Jury 2 T 20 1.17 1.02 1.36 1.99 2.41 2.15 1.84 1.41 2.18 Podium / Jury 3 T 20 1.17 1.49 1.51 2.01 2.21 2.14 1.87 1.45 2.12 Podium / Public 1 T 20 1.19 1.1 5 1.49 2.11 2.23 2.12 1.84 1.43 2.15 Podium / Public 2 T 20 1.22 1.3 1.44 1.94 2.38 2.19 1.86 1.46 2.17 Podium / Public 3 T 20 1.43 1.27 1.39 1.91 2.31 2.16 1.83 1.43 2.13 Podium / Recorder T 20 1.08 1.04 1.58 1.93 2.27 2.17 1.9 1.43 2.12 Podium / Witness T 20 1.24 1.2 1.43 1.9 2.18 2.17 1.81 1.57 2.08 Witness / Attorney 1 T 20 1.13 1.12 1.42 2.05 2.29 2.16 1.87 1.47 2.17 Witness / Attorney 2 T 20 1.24 1.31 1.51 2.07 2.29 2.21 1.91 1.47 2.19 Witness / Judge T 20 1.17 1.22 1.48 1.91 2.41 2.17 1.8 6 1.47 2.16 Witness / Jury 1 T 20 1.15 1.07 1.36 1.9 2.29 2.14 1.85 1.47 2.11 Witness / Jury 2 T 20 1.33 0.92 1.47 1.85 2.22 2.15 1.89 1.44 2.07 Witness / Jury 3 T 20 1.58 0.96 1.32 1.99 2.31 2.17 1.9 1.48 2.16 Witness / Podium T 20 1.2 1.19 1.47 1.9 2.35 2.22 1.87 1.57 2.16 Witness / Public 1 T 20 1.22 1.1 1.59 1.94 2.27 2.16 1.88 1.45 2.12 Witness / Public 2 T 20 1.29 1.21 1.47 1.94 2.25 2.19 1.88 1.44 2.13 Witness / Public 3 T 20 1.61 1.41 1.35 1.94 2.33 2.21 1.83 1.43 2.16 Witness / Recorder T 20 1.12 1 .16 1.45 1.92 2.3 2.2 1.9 1.45 2.14

PAGE 131

131 Table A 5 6. Sumter Historic Noise Isolation Class Public Entry 37 Side Entry 38 Table A 5 7 Sumter Historic Room Criteria AC: OFF RC 1 34 RC 2 33 RC 3 33 RC 4 32 RC 5 29 RC 6 32 RC 7 29 RC 8 30 Table A 5 8. Sumter Historic Speech Transmission Index SOURCE House Judge Podium Witness RECEIVER Attorney 1 0.58 0.55 0.55 Attorney 2 0.6 0.58 0.69 Judge 0.63 0.49 Jury 1 0.52 0.66 0.52 Jury 2 0.50 0.62 0.57 Jury 3 0.55 0.54 0.63 P odium 0.63 0.56 Public 1 0.57 0.52 0.64 Public 2 0.57 0.53 0.56 Public 3 0.59 0.55 0.62 Recorder 0.74 0.75 0.55 Witness 0.64 0.71 Table A 5 9 Sumter Historic Reverberation Time (INM) (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 AVG T 20 1.64 1.21 1.57 1.94 1.64 1.48 1.23 0.92 1.69

PAGE 132

132 Table A 6 0. Sumter Historic Reverberation Time (IIRM) Source/Receiver (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 AVG Judge / Attorney 1 T 20 1.19 1.41 1.49 1.56 1.44 1.29 1.1 0.85 1.43 Judge / Attorney 2 T 20 1.23 1.11 1.46 1.48 1.44 1.28 1.1 0.92 1.40 Judge / Jury 1 T 20 1.52 1.36 1.56 1.63 1.48 1.29 1.14 0.93 1.47 Judge / Jury 2 T 20 1.49 1.44 1.65 1.59 1.41 1.26 1.14 0.94 1.42 Judge / Jury 3 T 20 1.29 1.36 1.38 1.53 1.42 1.36 1.17 0.9 1.44 Judge / Podiu m T 20 1.59 1.31 1.59 1.63 1.4 1.28 1.12 0.94 1.44 Judge / Public 1 T 20 1.61 1.45 1.54 1.52 1.41 1.35 1.15 0.95 1.43 Judge / Public 2 T 20 1.2 1.09 1.63 1.65 1.51 1.3 1.14 0.96 1.49 Judge / Public 3 T 20 1.04 1.32 1.52 1.56 1.48 1.29 1.18 0.93 1.44 Judge / Recorder T 20 1.47 1.21 1.57 1.61 1.45 1.29 1.14 0.85 1.45 Judge / Witness T 20 1.38 1.34 1.56 1.62 1.45 1.32 1.15 0.92 1.46 Podium / Attorney 1 T 20 1.26 1.36 1.54 1.53 1.46 1.35 1.18 0.93 1.45 Podium / Attorney 2 T 20 1.34 1.58 1.68 1.59 1.4 2 1.32 1.14 0.9 1.44 Podium / Judge T 20 1.49 1.24 1.6 1.63 1.42 1.31 1.17 0.93 1.45 Podium / Jury 1 T 20 1.58 1.41 1.62 1.57 1.51 1.31 1.15 0.94 1.46 Podium / Jury 2 T 20 1 1.42 1.51 1.72 1.45 1.32 1.16 0.91 1.50 Podium / Jury 3 T 20 1.05 1.47 1.52 1.59 1 .52 1.3 1.15 0.96 1.47 Podium / Public 1 T 20 1.28 1.48 1.63 1.64 1.49 1.29 1.14 0.97 1.47 Podium / Public 2 T 20 1.27 1.32 1.61 1.7 1.49 1.32 1.14 0.94 1.50 Podium / Public 3 T 20 1.25 1.39 1.43 1.61 1.36 1.28 1.14 0.97 1.42 Podium / Recorder T 20 1.2 1.4 2 1.64 1.64 1.42 1.26 1.09 0.85 1.44 Podium / Witness T 20 1.45 1.37 1.63 1.65 1.43 1.29 1.11 0.82 1.46 Witness / Attorney 1 T 20 1.51 1.25 1.49 1.65 1.5 1.33 1.2 0.99 1.49 Witness / Attorney 2 T 20 1.47 1.33 1.56 1.71 1.49 1.35 1.23 0.97 1.52 Witness / Judge T 20 1.27 1.34 1.52 1.69 1.49 1.36 1.21 0.99 1.51 Witness / Jury 1 T 20 1.41 1.44 1.43 1.5 1.46 1.34 1.21 0.99 1.43 Witness / Jury 2 T 20 1.14 1.45 1.41 1.55 1.46 1.31 1.21 1 1.44 Witness / Jury 3 T 20 1.63 1.33 1.48 1.6 1.51 1.33 1.19 0.96 1.48 Witness / Podium T 20 1.24 1.26 1.54 1.5 1.45 1.3 1.17 0.97 1.42 Witness / Public 1 T 20 1.38 1.53 1.7 1.58 1.42 1.29 1.18 0.97 1.43 Witness / Public 2 T 20 0.87 1.43 1.66 1.62 1.48 1.34 1.16 0.94 1.48 Witness / Public 3 T 20 1.84 1.31 1.58 1.64 1.47 1.32 1.22 1 1.48 Witness / Recorder T 20 1.43 1.36 1.52 1.6 1.51 1.35 1.19 1.01 1.49

PAGE 133

133 APPENDIX B MEASURMENT LOCATIONS Figure B 1. Clay County

PAGE 134

134 Figure B 2. Hernando County

PAGE 135

135 Figure B 3. Lake County

PAGE 136

136 Figure B 4. Osceola County

PAGE 137

137 Figure B 5. Gainesville Federal

PAGE 138

138 Figure B 6. Ocala 3A Federal

PAGE 139

139 Figure B 7. Ocala 3B Federal

PAGE 140

140 Figure B 8. Orlando Federal

PAGE 141

141 Figure B 9. Brevard Historic

PAGE 142

142 Figure B 10. Hernando Historic

PAGE 143

143 Figure B 11. Osceola Historic

PAGE 144

144 Figure B 12. Sumter Historic

PAGE 145

145 APPENDIX C NOISE ISOLATION CLAS S Figu re C 1. Noise Isolation Class data for all c ourtrooms

PAGE 146

146 APPENDIX D ROOM CRITERIA DATA Figu re D 1. Room Criteria data for all c ourtrooms

PAGE 147

147 APPENDIX E R EVERBERATION TIME DATA F igur e E 1. Reverberation Time data for all courtrooms with source of j udge

PAGE 148

148 F igure E 2. Reverberation Time data for all courtrooms with source of p odium

PAGE 149

149 Figure E 3 Reverberation Time data for all courtrooms with source of w itness

PAGE 150

150 APPENDIX F SPEECH TRANSMISSION I NDEX D ATA Figure F 1. Speech Transmission Index data for all courtrooms for unassisted source of j udge

PAGE 151

151 Figure F 2. Speech Transmission Index data for all courtrooms for unassisted source of p odium

PAGE 152

152 Figure F 3. Speech Transmissio n Index data for all courtrooms for unassisted source of w itness

PAGE 153

153 Figure F 4. Speech Transmission Index data for all courtrooms for assisted source of h ouse

PAGE 154

154 APPENDIX G S PEECH T RANSMISSION I NDEX CALCULATION SHE ET Figure G 1. Speech Transmission Ind ex f ormula c alculation

PAGE 155

155 APPENDIX H ALPHA BAR CALCULATIO NS Table H 1. Alpha bar c alculations

PAGE 156

156 LIST OF REFERENCES Alfini, James J., and Glenn R. Winters. Courthouses and Courtrooms; Selected Readings Chicago: American Judicature Society, 1972. Print. Classroom Acoustics ASA, Melville, NY, 2000 Web. 26 June 2012. < http://acousticalsociety.org > ANSI Standard S3.21, 2004 (R2009), Methods for Manual Pure ANSI, Melville, NY, 2004, http://www.ansi.org./ ASA/ANSI Standard S12.2, 2008, Criteria for Evaluating Room Noise, ASA, Melville, NY, 2008, http://www.ansi.org/ ASA/ANSI Standard S12.60 /Part 1 20 10 American National Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements, and Guidelines for Schools Part 1:Permanent Schools http://www.ansi.org/ ASHA Working Gro up on Classroom Acoustics Acoustics in Educational Settings: Position Statement. American Speech Language Hearing Association Rockville, MD, 2005, DOI:10.1044/policy.PS2005 00028, http://www.asha.org/ ASHRAE Handbook, Fundamentals Atlanta. GA: Americ an Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 2009. Print. ASHRAE Handbook, HVAC Applications Atlanta. GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 2011. Print. ASTM Standard E336, 2011, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Airborne Sound Attenuation between Rooms in Buildings, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2011, DOI: 10.1520/ E336 11 http://www.astm.org/ ASTM Standard E413, 2010, Classification for Rating Sound Insulation, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2010, DOI: 10.1520/E413 10, http://www.astm.org/ ASTM Standard E2235, 2004, Standard Test Method for Determination of Decay Rat es for Use in Sound Insulation Test Methods, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2004, DOI: 10.1520/E2235 04, http://www.astm.org/ and Henry Torgue Sonic Experience: A Guide to Ever yday Sounds Queen's Univ., 2008. Print. Noise Control (1957): 1. Print. ASHRAE Transaction s 87(1), Pt 1, ( 1981 ): 1 Print.

PAGE 157

157 Blesser, Barry, and Linda Ruth Salter. Spaces Speak, Are You Listening ? Experiencing Aural Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2007. Print. Boston Old City Hall N.d. Photograph. Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gridley_James_Fox_Bryant Web. Bowers, Brian Lengthening the Day: A History of Lighting Technology Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998. Print Bradley, J.S Does the Classroom assist or Impede the Learning Process NRC C 47710 Vol. 13 No. 1, (2005): 32 34 Print. Bradley, J.S. Acoustical Design of Rooms for Speech NR CC Construction Technology Update No.51 (2002): 2 6. Print. Journal Acoustics Society of America 80 (3) (1986): 846 854 Print. Brad ley, J.S. and B.N. Grover Speech and Noise Levels Associated with Meeting Rooms. NRCC IRC RR 170 (2004): 1 3. Print. Bradley, J.S. and H. Sato Speech Recognition by Grades 1, 3 and 6 Children in Classrooms NRCC 44731 Vol. 32 No. 3, (2004) 2 6 27. Print. Brink, Robert J. Courthouses of the Commonwealth Boston, Mass: Boston Bar Association, 1982. Print Brooks, Christopher N. Architectural Acoustics Jefferson, NC: McFarland &, 2003. Print Burns, Rober t Paschal. 100 Courthouses: A Report on North Carolina Judicial Facilities. Raleigh, NC: Administrative Office of the Courts, 1978. Print http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/97statab/law.pdf PDF files July 2012. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/american_community_survey _acs/cb10 cn58.html Carvalho, Antonio P.O. and Carlos A. Monteiro Proceedings of Noise Con: Acoustics of Courtrooms in Portugal 23 25 June 2 003: Cleveland OH. Print

PAGE 158

158 Carvalho, Antonio P.O. and Diana A. Vidal Proceedings of Noise Con: Acoustic Characterization of Courtrooms by Multi Criteria Method 28 30 July 2008: Dearborn MI. Print. Crandell, Carl C. and Joseph J. Smaldino Classroom Aco ustics for Children with Normal Hearing and with Hearing Impairment Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools Vol. 31, (2000): 362 370. Print. Egan, David M. Architectural Acoustics New York: McGraw Hill, 1988. Print Finitzo Herber, Teresa a Word Discrimination Ability for Normal and Hearing American Speech Language Hearing Association 21 Rockville, MD, 1978; 440 458, http://www .asha.org/ Flanders, Steven, and Stephen G. Breyer. Celebrating the Courthouse: A Guide for Architects, Their Clients, and the Public New York: W.W. Norton, 2006. Print Ford, Barbara. Keeping Things Cool: The Story of Refrigeration and Air Conditioni ng New York, NY: Walker, 1986. Print Grover, B.N. and J.S. Bradley Statistical Basis for Rating Speech Privacy of Closed Rooms NRCC 50089 (2007): 1 2. Print. Handler, A. Benjamin. Twenty Years of Courthouse Design Revisited : Supplement to The Amer ican Courthouse Chicago, IL: American Bar Association, 1993. Print Hardenbergh, Don. Retrospective of Courthouse Design, 1980 1991 Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1992. Print Hardenbergh, Don, Robert Tobin, and Chang Ming Yeh. The Courthouse: A Planning and Design Guide for Court Facilities Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1991. Print Harris, Cyril M. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control New York: McGraw Hill, 1991. Print Helfer, K.S. and L. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 33 (19 90 ): 149 155 Print. Houtgast, T. and H. Steeneken. "A Fast Method for the Determination of the Intelligibility of Running Speech ." Audio Engineering Society Convention 44 (19 73 ) : Print. Houtgast, T. and H. Steeneken. "A Multi lingual Evaluation of the RASTI Method for Estimating Speech Intelligibility an Auditoria ." Acoustica 54 (19 84 ) : 185 199. Print.

PAGE 159

159 Houtgast, T. and H. S teeneken. "A Review of the MTF Concept in Room Acoustics and Its Use for Estimating Speech Intelligibility in Auditoria." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 77.3 (1985): 1069. Print. IEC Standard 60268 16 2005, Objective Rating of Speech I ntelligibility by Speech Transmission Index, IEC, Geneva, Switzerland, 2005, http://www.iec.ch/ ISO Standard 3382 2, 2008, Acoustics Measurement of the Reverberation Time Part 2: Ordinary Rooms, ISO, Geneva, Swit zerland, 2008, www.iso.org ISO Standard 18233 2006, Acoustics Application of New Measurement Methods in Building and Room Acoustics, ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006, http://www.iso.org/iso/home.html Kentucky 2007 Court Facilities Design Guide N.p., 2007 Web. 26 June 2012. http://www.protectingcourt.com/court security/design guide PDF File Physical Review 2nd ser., ( 1925 ): Print Knudsen, Vern Oliver, and Cyril M. Harris. Acoustical Designing in Architecture New York: Wiley, 1950. Print Logan County Courth ouse N.d. Photograph. http://findinglincolnillinois.com/logancocourthousehistoricarea.html Web. Long, Marshall. Architectural Acoustics Amsterdam: Elsevier/Academic, 2006. Print Mapp, Peter Is STIPa a Robust Measure of Speech Intelligibility Performance Audio Engineering Society Convention Paper 6399 (2005): 1 9. Print. McNamara, Martha J. From Tavern to Courthouse: Architecture & Ritual in American Law, 1658 1 860 Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2004. Print Mehta, Madan, James Johnson, and Jorge Rocafort. Architectural Acoustics: Principles and Design Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999. Print. Michigan 2000 General Court Design Issues N.p, 2000 Web. 26 June 2012. http://www.protectingcourt.com/court security/design guide/ PDF File. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 June 2012 http://moynihansymposium.us/ Journal Acoustics Society of America 84 (2 ) (198 8 ): 476 484 Print.

PAGE 160

160 National Instit utes of Health; National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders N.p, 2010 Web. 19 July 2012. < http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/Pages/quick.aspx >. Nelson Acoustics Today Vol 1, Issue 1 ( 2005 ) : 28 32. Print. Ole Herman, Bjor Measure Speech Intelligibility with a Sound level Mete S ound and Vibration 2004 : 10 13. Print. Orlando Federal Courthouse N.d. Photograph. Courtesy Heery design, Orlando FL. Osceola County Court room 5 D N.d. Drawing. Courtesy (HLM Architects) Heery design, Orlando FL. P 100 2010 Facilities Standards Overview N.p., 2010 Web. 26 June 2012. < http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/222281 >. Peoria County Courthouse N.d. Photograph. Http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/Building/3720/Peori a County Courthouse.php Web. Pittsylvania County Courthouse N.d. Photograph. Http://www.victorianvilla.com/sims mitchell/local/court/recent/index.htm Web. Robins on, Willard Bethurem. The People's Architecture: Texas Courthouses, Jails, and Municipal Buildings [Austin]: Texas State Historical Association, 1983. Print Salter, Charles M. Acoustics: Architecture, Engineering, the Environment San Francisco [Calif.: William Stout, 1998. Print Schafer, R. Murray. The Soundscape: Our Sonic Environment and the Tuning of the World Rochester, VT: Destiny, 1993. Print Siebein, Gary, Adam Bettcher, Cory Nickchen, Sangbong Shin, Keely Siebein, and Lucky Tsaih. Classroom Reverberation Time Comparisons 14 Oct. 2010. Unpublished paper. University of Florida, Gainesville. Soli, S.D. and J.A. Sullivan Journal Acoustics Society of America 101 (1997): 3070. P rint. Journal Acoustics Society of America 88 (1990 ): 663 666 Print.

PAGE 161

161 Templeton, Duncan. Acoustics in the Built Environment: Ad vice for the Design Team Oxford [England: Butterworth Architecture, 1993. Print. Terrell County Courthouse N.d. Photograph. Http://www.georgiacourts.org/coun cils/state/index_test.asp?county=1379&Submit =GO Web. Thompson, Emily Ann. The Soundscape of Modernity: Architectural Acoustics and the Culture of Listening in America, 1900 1933 Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2002. Print Thrane, Susan W., Tom Patterson, and Bil l Patterson. County Courthouses of Ohio Bloomington: Indiana UP, 2000. Print Truax, Barry. Acoustic Communication Westport, CT: Ablex, 2001. Print U.S. Courts Design Guide 2007. N.p., 2007 Web. 26 June 2012. http://www .gsa.gov/portal/content/103732 PDF File. Utah Judicial System Mast er Plan for Capital Facilities 2012. https://www.utcourts.gov/admin/facilities/Section II Virginia Courthouse Facility Guidelines, 2 nd Ed N.p., 2001 Web. 26 June 2012. < http://www.protectingcourt.com/court security/ design guide/ > PDF File

PAGE 162

162 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Cory Nickchen von Crawford was born in Dunedin, F L. He received an Associate of Arts degree from St. Petersburg Junior College Clearwater FL in 1996 and with a Bachelor of Science in m echanical e ng ineering from Auburn University Auburn AL in 1999. In 2000 he joined the U S Army Reserves and was an Ordinance Corps Honor Graduate in Maintenance from Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD. He was a Project Engineer with Guardian Fabrication in Reedley CA from 2000 until 2002 when he became an Environmental Engineer with Guardian Industries in Kingsburg CA. In 2005 he completed the U S Lewis WA. From 2006 to 2011 he was Mechanical Designer with Heery Des ign in Orlando, FL. Upon being honorably d ischarged from the U S Army in 2008, he started the Master of Science in Architectural Studies (Acoustics) at the University of Florida Gainesville FL. Currently, Cory is an Environmental Engineer at Siemens Ene rgy, Orlando FL.