Hello Phil, I've got a couple of questions for you. What did you use or do to keep your floating walls from moving? I mean, did you attatch the rubber to the walls or floor with adhesive or something? And what about cieling joists. Are they resting on these walls, or suspended from above? Thanks
fitZ
Piano room over slab
-
Aaberg
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:14 am
- Location: Montana, USA
Piano room over slab
fitZ,
Perhaps, "completely floating" is misleading, because we put in a few nails to hold the frames in place while we worked. . I don't think they'll conduct much sound. No problem with the chunks of EPDM moving, or the walls slipping off, probably because the framed wall segments were pretty small, being sides of a complex geometric structure, and we got scrap EPDM cheap, so made half-inch thick bricks , about 5" X 8" that were level and fit the boards. To give you some sense of it until I get pictures, one segment of wall had 4 smaller segments about 4 feet wide that angled away at about 6 degrees. We framed them one at a time and put them on top of the EPDM. It was pretty tediuos. There were 3 of us working, and there was a lot of temporary bracing until we got the "somewhat round" structure stabilized, then we took away the braces and the whole thing, including ceiling, stood by itself!! The other two guys could hang from the joists with little movement of the frame.
I then caulked all around the bottom with Silicone II. It was very solid, and since I'm thinking I only need one layer of sheet rock with all the insulation and the insulated bin, I'm not at all worried about the strength (even if I need more.) I'm pretty psyched. Most of the frame is built of 2X6's, so it wasn't cheap, but I couldn't think of a better way to do it.
Perhaps, "completely floating" is misleading, because we put in a few nails to hold the frames in place while we worked. . I don't think they'll conduct much sound. No problem with the chunks of EPDM moving, or the walls slipping off, probably because the framed wall segments were pretty small, being sides of a complex geometric structure, and we got scrap EPDM cheap, so made half-inch thick bricks , about 5" X 8" that were level and fit the boards. To give you some sense of it until I get pictures, one segment of wall had 4 smaller segments about 4 feet wide that angled away at about 6 degrees. We framed them one at a time and put them on top of the EPDM. It was pretty tediuos. There were 3 of us working, and there was a lot of temporary bracing until we got the "somewhat round" structure stabilized, then we took away the braces and the whole thing, including ceiling, stood by itself!! The other two guys could hang from the joists with little movement of the frame.
I then caulked all around the bottom with Silicone II. It was very solid, and since I'm thinking I only need one layer of sheet rock with all the insulation and the insulated bin, I'm not at all worried about the strength (even if I need more.) I'm pretty psyched. Most of the frame is built of 2X6's, so it wasn't cheap, but I couldn't think of a better way to do it.
-
Aaberg
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:14 am
- Location: Montana, USA
Recording Studio Design
fitZ,
Sorry, I got carried away answering the first part of your question.
The ceilling joists are attached to the walls, but still don't come into contact with the bin. Picture a completely framed room, resting on EPDM bricks, built inside a grain bin. The hard part to picture is that only a third of the bin reaches all the way to the slab, and the rest is cut in by SIPs, on which the rest of the frame rests (once again floating on EPDM bricks.)
Best wishes,
Phil
Sorry, I got carried away answering the first part of your question.
The ceilling joists are attached to the walls, but still don't come into contact with the bin. Picture a completely framed room, resting on EPDM bricks, built inside a grain bin. The hard part to picture is that only a third of the bin reaches all the way to the slab, and the rest is cut in by SIPs, on which the rest of the frame rests (once again floating on EPDM bricks.)
Best wishes,
Phil
-
Aaberg
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:14 am
- Location: Montana, USA
Piano room over slab
2 things today. I'd like to post some pictures, but I've got one of those old-fashioned "analog" cameras, so I send my film to ofoto and then post it on their site. I can't figure out how to get those pictures over here, since it takes an individual email address to access the site. ???
Second, Mr. Fly said, "703 doesn't need to be sealed at all, just inserted snugly between studs."
Just thinking...why not install the 703 as a solid wall, not between the studs, but on the inside (air space side) of the studs? Wouldn't that stop a lot of sound from hitting the studs and thus, reverberating?
Second, Mr. Fly said, "703 doesn't need to be sealed at all, just inserted snugly between studs."
Just thinking...why not install the 703 as a solid wall, not between the studs, but on the inside (air space side) of the studs? Wouldn't that stop a lot of sound from hitting the studs and thus, reverberating?
-
knightfly
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6976
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 11:11 am
- Location: West Coast, USA
Phil, if you can access the pix you might be able to right-click on the pic, choose "save as" to your hard drive, then if necessary resize the jpg down to less than 800 pixels wide, rename and post them here using the Browse button below the text box when posting. For multiple pix, after doing the browse thing click "add attachment", and do the whole thing again. Not sure what the limit is, I think at least 4 pix per post.
Meantime, if you're on a PC could you do a basic sketch in Paint or something as to where you want to put the 703? This stuff isn't actually RIGID, so it needs support from SOMEWHERE... Steve
Meantime, if you're on a PC could you do a basic sketch in Paint or something as to where you want to put the 703? This stuff isn't actually RIGID, so it needs support from SOMEWHERE... Steve
-
Aaberg
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:14 am
- Location: Montana, USA
Recording Studio Design
Steve,
Thanks. I did a small paint drawing of a cross section of the proposed bin/piano room wall. Don't know if it's any clearer than words. Let me try again: Normally, batting or 703 is cut to shape and inserted BETWEEN studs, right? I wonder if better results might be achieved by just taking whole sheets of 703 and gluing them to the studs, leaving an air space between the 703 and the sheetrock ( yeah, I know, 3 leaf, bad...but 703 really isn't a leaf, is it?). That way, whatever sound is getting past the bin wall and the foam would hit a solid layer of 703 with no wood to resonate with. Clearer?
Thanks. I did a small paint drawing of a cross section of the proposed bin/piano room wall. Don't know if it's any clearer than words. Let me try again: Normally, batting or 703 is cut to shape and inserted BETWEEN studs, right? I wonder if better results might be achieved by just taking whole sheets of 703 and gluing them to the studs, leaving an air space between the 703 and the sheetrock ( yeah, I know, 3 leaf, bad...but 703 really isn't a leaf, is it?). That way, whatever sound is getting past the bin wall and the foam would hit a solid layer of 703 with no wood to resonate with. Clearer?
-
Aaberg
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:14 am
- Location: Montana, USA
Piano room over slab
Front view of bin. You can see how the SIPs are cut in. In the back, the bin goes all the way to the slab.
-
Aaberg
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:14 am
- Location: Montana, USA
Piano room over slab
Sorry to jam so many of these in without a reply, but I go on the road this weekend, and just wanted to get these pictures on while I sort of know what I'm doing!
This is a scan of a reduction of a blueprint, edited with Paint, so it's fairly pathetic, but maybe gives you an idea of what's in my back yard.
Best,
Phil
This is a scan of a reduction of a blueprint, edited with Paint, so it's fairly pathetic, but maybe gives you an idea of what's in my back yard.
Best,
Phil
-
knightfly
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6976
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 11:11 am
- Location: West Coast, USA
OK, finally got what you were asking - basically, the flaw in that thinking is that you WANT the 703 to at least slightly touch your inner wallboard, so that it dampens any vibes in the wallboard (which will be worse than any minor vibes in the frame, since it's a larger membrane and any vibes will radiate into the room... If you can, it wouldn't hurt to ALSO put some normal fiberglass house insulation in the cavity BETWEEN the 703 and the outer layers, it should improve TL by maybe 2-3 dB... Steve
-
Aaberg
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:14 am
- Location: Montana, USA
Piano room over slab
Steve...brilliant. F***in' brilliant. Let me see if I understand the air space concept...it sounds like you're saying I should fill the entire cavity with regular insulation if I can? Correct?
Every answer gives me another hour of sleep! Thanks a million for all your work.
Best,
Phil
Every answer gives me another hour of sleep! Thanks a million for all your work.
Best,
Phil
-
knightfly
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6976
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 11:11 am
- Location: West Coast, USA
Yup, that's what I'm saying - also, if you use kraft-faced insulation for this, acoustically it won't make any difference inside the wall which way the paper goes - moisture-wise, though, if you already have moisture barrier taken care of with your outer materials, you should get UN-faced fiberglass to avoid trapping moisture within the insulation cavity and the mold that will result... Steve
-
Aaberg
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:14 am
- Location: Montana, USA
Recording Studio Design
Steve,
Thanks again. It's actually easier to fill that space with blown-in cellulose, and about the same price, so we were wondering which one (fiberglass or cellulose) would be better. I haven't seen them compared in the forum, but I'll check again.
Thanks.
Phil
Thanks again. It's actually easier to fill that space with blown-in cellulose, and about the same price, so we were wondering which one (fiberglass or cellulose) would be better. I haven't seen them compared in the forum, but I'll check again.
Thanks.
Phil
-
knightfly
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6976
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 11:11 am
- Location: West Coast, USA
Depends on the method - the spray cellulose that gets hard works good for heat, but bridges inner and outer leaf too much for sound isolation. IF the blown in stuff will not settle too much and doesn't "set up", it's about the same performance as fiberglass for sound.
How would you blow the stuff in when you already had the 703 in place - over the top? seems kind of "iffy" for full coverage that way... Steve
How would you blow the stuff in when you already had the 703 in place - over the top? seems kind of "iffy" for full coverage that way... Steve
-
Aaberg
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:14 am
- Location: Montana, USA
Piano room over slab
Steve,
You must be from the big city, boy. It's a grain bin...we haven't sealed the opening in the top yet. Most grain bins, maybe all, have a hatch on top to put grain through. Since we're blowing in the cellulose, we can just do it either as we put the 703 and sheetrock on, or just blow it through the hatch.
I found a quote on insulation. Seems like if the cost is equivalent, and the low frequency blocking is equivalent, then blown in loose cellulose would be the way to go. Thanks for the answers!
Here it is:
Quote:
IRC 02-108
Adding a sound absorptive material inside the cavity of a single stud partition (wood with resilient furrings or steel) or a staggered wood stud partition increases the STC rating by 5 to 9 points depending on the type of sound absorptive material used. For double stud partitions, an increase of 10 to 13 points was obtained depending on the amount of glass fiber insulation added to the cavity.
Generally, at low frequencies, the increase in the transmission loss of a partition obtained by adding a sound absorptive material inside its cavity is equivalent regardless of the material used. Above 250 Hz, mineral fiber and blown cellulose give the best results; mineral fiber insulation provides slightly better transmission losses than glass fiber, especially around the critical frequency. Also, in the case of glass fiber, a greater transmission loss can be achieved by using denser batts.
With the exception of sprayed cellulose, the best transmission losses were obtained when the entire cavity of the partitions were filled with a sound absorptive material. When the entire cavity is filled, caution must be taken not to use a material that is too dense, otherwise a mechanical coupling could occur between the two sides of the partition which could result in a degradation of the sound isolating performance of the partition, as was observed in the case of a partition whose cavity was filled with sprayed-on cellulose.
You must be from the big city, boy. It's a grain bin...we haven't sealed the opening in the top yet. Most grain bins, maybe all, have a hatch on top to put grain through. Since we're blowing in the cellulose, we can just do it either as we put the 703 and sheetrock on, or just blow it through the hatch.
I found a quote on insulation. Seems like if the cost is equivalent, and the low frequency blocking is equivalent, then blown in loose cellulose would be the way to go. Thanks for the answers!
Here it is:
Quote:
IRC 02-108
Adding a sound absorptive material inside the cavity of a single stud partition (wood with resilient furrings or steel) or a staggered wood stud partition increases the STC rating by 5 to 9 points depending on the type of sound absorptive material used. For double stud partitions, an increase of 10 to 13 points was obtained depending on the amount of glass fiber insulation added to the cavity.
Generally, at low frequencies, the increase in the transmission loss of a partition obtained by adding a sound absorptive material inside its cavity is equivalent regardless of the material used. Above 250 Hz, mineral fiber and blown cellulose give the best results; mineral fiber insulation provides slightly better transmission losses than glass fiber, especially around the critical frequency. Also, in the case of glass fiber, a greater transmission loss can be achieved by using denser batts.
With the exception of sprayed cellulose, the best transmission losses were obtained when the entire cavity of the partitions were filled with a sound absorptive material. When the entire cavity is filled, caution must be taken not to use a material that is too dense, otherwise a mechanical coupling could occur between the two sides of the partition which could result in a degradation of the sound isolating performance of the partition, as was observed in the case of a partition whose cavity was filled with sprayed-on cellulose.