buildings
Article
Determination of the Sound Absorption Area Inside an
Elementary Classroom Using Three Acoustical Methods:
Computer Modeling, 1/10-Scale Model Experiment, and Field
Acoustic Measurement
Seung-Min Lee and Chan-Hoon Haan *
Citation: Lee, S.-M.; Haan, C.-H.
Determination of the Sound
Absorption Area Inside an Elementary
Classroom Using Three Acoustical
Methods: Computer Modeling,
1/10-Scale Model Experiment, and
Field Acoustic Measurement.
Buildings 2024, 14, 222. https://
doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010222
Academic Editors: Theodosiou
Theodoros, Hui Ma, Yuezhe Zhao
and Chao Wang
Received: 28 November 2023
Revised: 2 January 2024
Accepted: 11 January 2024
Published: 14 January 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Buildings 2024, 14, 222. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010222
Department of Architectural Engineering, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju 28644, Republic of Korea;
lsm0515@chungbuk.ac.kr
* Correspondence: chhaan@cbnu.ac.kr
Abstract: Acoustic standards for classrooms around the world are still being studied, but the place-
ment of sound-absorbing materials to meet these standards is still unclear. The present study
examined an appropriate location for applying sound-absorbing materials inside an elementary
classroom to ensure speech intelligibility while meeting the RT criterion using three scientific experi-
mental methods, namely, computer modeling, a 1/10-scale model, and field acoustic measurement.
A sound-absorbing material was applied to the rear wall or ceiling, and the ceiling was further
divided into front, center, and rear sections. The acoustic performance was predicted using a 3D
computer model of a standardized classroom based on the location of the sound-absorbing material.
Subsequently, a 1/10-scale model following the law of similarity was used to compare the acoustic
performances based on the location of the sound-absorbing material. Finally, field measurements
were performed in an actual classroom to verify the acoustic performance based on the location of
the sound-absorbing material. The findings revealed that the sound-absorbing material was most
effective when applied to the rear wall, followed by application at the center, front, and rear of
the ceiling.
Keywords: classroom; sound-absorption; computer modeling; 1/10-scale model experiment;
field acoustic measurement
1. Introduction
Elementary school children are less able to perceive speech than adults, owing to
their underdeveloped hearing. Nilsson et al. [1] used the hearing-in-noise test (HINT) to
demonstrate that hearing and speech-perception abilities change with age. Adolescents
(≥14 years in age) have the same hearing ability as adults, but children under 10 years old
have considerably lower speech perception in a noisy environment. Because elementary
school is the first stage of education, it considerably affects future learning. The hearing
abilities of lower elementary students must be considered when designing classrooms to
facilitate their education. The following acoustic standards for lower elementary students
have been proposed in Korea to ensure speech intelligibility [2,3]: a reverberation time (RT)
of <0.6 s (unoccupied) and background noise level of <35 A-weighted decibels (dB(A)) for a
classroom volume of <185 m3 . Ensuring that the acoustic environment of lower elementary
classrooms meets these standards will help to improve the learning efficiency of students.
Decades of research on classroom acoustics and the effects of poor classroom acoustics on
listening and learning have resulted in certain tenets concerning classroom acoustics [4]. RT
and background noise are very important factors in indoor spaces, including classrooms.
In particular, excessive background noise and reverberation have been found to exacerbate
listening and learning problems [5–7]. For this reason, RT and background noise are
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings
Buildings 2024, 14, 222 2 of 20

measured a scientific method. Therefore, many researchers worldwide have suggested RT

and background noise criteria specific to each country’s language.
However, merely applying RT and background noise criteria to classrooms is in-
sufficient. In fact, various parameters (e.g., clarity within 50 ms (C50 ) and the speech
transmission index (STI)) can be used to evaluate acoustic environments, some of which
have already been reflected in national classroom acoustic standards. However, unlike
the parameters that can be used to assess the clarity and quality of speech, discussions on
the Deutlichkeit (D50 ) index, which can be used to evaluate definition, have been held but
are not reflected in such standards. Classrooms, lecture halls, auditoriums, congress halls,
and theaters must provide good speech intelligibility, which necessitates sufficient speaker
loudness, unimpeded direct sound propagation, a high reflection energy within the first
50 ms (path difference of 17 m) after the arrival of direct sound, and a short RT [8]. Haas [9]
found that early reflections with a delay of up to ~50 ms can improve speech intelligibility
by reinforcing the direct sound energy. Accordingly, Thuele [10] proposed D50 , which is
defined as the ratio of direct sound (first 50 ms) to total energy:
R 0.05 s 2
p (t)dt
D50 = 0R s∞ 2 × 100 (%) (1)
0 s p ( t ) dt

D50
C50 = 10lg( )dB (2)
1 − D50
7 6
∑ ∑ βk ×
p
STI = α k × Mk − Mk × Mk + 1 (3)
K =1 K =1

In Equation (1), p(t) means the instantaneous sound pressure of the impulse response
measured at the measurement point. The equation for C50 , which is frequently used in
classrooms to assess speech clarity, is shown in Equation (2). C50 can also be calculated
using D50 , as shown in ISO3382-1. If D50 is greater than 50%, a syllable intelligibility
of >90% can be expected. Thus, in a classroom where speech transmission is important,
D50 , RT and background noise are critical acoustic parameters. Ansay and Zannin [11]
conducted an experimental study on the relation between RT and D50 and concluded that
classrooms should have an evenly distributed D50 at every seat to ensure that all students
can hear properly. Even if the acoustic standards for RT and background noise are met,
applying sound-absorbing materials to the wrong locations in a classroom can disrupt the
even distribution of D50 . Therefore, the present study investigates the optimal placement
of sound-absorbing materials in classrooms based on the relation between RT and D50 ,
which can be used to create high-quality acoustic environments. The STI defined in IEC
60268-16 [12] can be calculated using Equation (3). STI is an acoustic factor that is so critical
that some countries have set it as a standard. αk denotes gender-specific weight factor
for octave band k, Mk denotes the modulation transfer index for octave band k, and βk
denotes the gender-specific redundancy factor between octave band k and octave band
k + 1. However, in the present study, D50 was used as a measurement factor to understand
the level at which the teacher’s direct voice is evenly transmitted to the students within
50 ms for clear speech transmission in a small space such as a classroom.
Many researchers have studied the effect of the placement and quantity of sound-
absorbing materials on classroom acoustics. For example, Sala and Viljanen [13] deter-
mined the most effective acoustic treatment for classrooms by varying the amount of
sound-absorbing material in different arrangements. Their results suggested that to real-
ize acceptable acoustic conditions for speech intelligibility, the sound-absorbing material
should be distributed across at least two surfaces (e.g., ceiling, and back wall) and cover
approximately 30% of the combined surface area of the walls and ceiling. They found
that increasing the quantity of the sound-absorbing material resulted in higher building
material costs, a marginal improvement in speech intelligibility, and excessive sound-level
attenuation. Bistafa and Bradley [14] comprehensively investigated various acoustic treat-
Buildings 2024, 14, 222 3 of 20

ments with varying amounts of a sound-absorbing material. They examined the efficacy of
these materials by testing the same quantity in various configurations. They compared the
predictability of the RT of a simulated rectangular classroom for different sound-absorbing
material configurations using seven analytical expressions and two-room acoustic software
(ODEON 2.6 and RAYNOISE 3.0). They found that none of the analytical expressions or
acoustic software consistently predicted the RT within an accuracy of 10%. The amount and
distribution of sound-absorbing material in the room affected the accuracy of the analytical
expressions. Among the tested expressions, the Arau–Puchades formula [15] was the
most accurate in predicting RTs, with the smallest average relative error. Notably, Bistafa
and Bradley’s measurements for different sound-absorbing material configurations found
variations in the average RT of up to 0.3 s. This observation was attributed to the increased
efficiency of the sound-absorbing material when uniformly distributed throughout the
room. Cucharero et al. [16] tested a sound-absorbing material placed on the walls and at the
ceiling boundaries in a reverberation room and mockup classroom. Their results showed
that sound-absorbing material was less effective for diffuse sound fields when mounted
on the corners or at the edges between the walls and ceiling. If the room mode dominates
the sound field, the most efficient location for the sound-absorbing material was one of
the surfaces that caused the modes. Furthermore, an excessively short RT, caused by the
overuse of sound-absorbing material, is undesirable because teachers are forced to speak
louder so that students in the back rows can hear [17]. Thus, determining the appropriate
location and amount of sound-absorbing material in a classroom to meet the RT standard
is considerably important.
Three scientific experimental methods—prediction, comparison, and verification—were
applied in the present study to more accurately determine the optimal placement of sound-
absorbing materials in Korean elementary school classrooms. First, a computer modeling
was used to predict where sound-absorbing materials should be placed in a classroom and
the effects of sound-absorbing treatments on speech metrics. A 1/10-scale model was used
to compare appropriate locations for the application of sound-absorbing materials in a
classroom. Finally, field measurements were performed to verify the appropriate locations
for applying sound-absorbing materials in a classroom. The goal was to find the best
location for applying sound-absorbing material in an elementary classroom to ensure an
even D50 distribution while meeting the Korean standard for the RT in a classroom.
The present study presents a scientific and robust method for determining the optimal
RT and highly uniform distribution of D50 in Korean elementary school classrooms. Fur-
thermore, it has two objectives: (1) to determine the location and area of sound-absorbing
materials with a uniform distribution of D50 and an RT of 0.6 s, and (2) to identify the
difference in RT and D50 when the same material area is applied to different locations.

2. Classroom Acoustic Standards by Country

2.1. Acoustic Standards in Classroom
Many countries have established acoustic standards to ensure their classroom envi-
ronments are appropriate for their respective languages and learning cultures. The United
States has established subject-specific and classroom-size-specific RT and background noise
standards [18]: an RT of <0.6 s for classrooms with a volume of ≤283 m3 and of <0.7 s for
classrooms with a volume of 283–566 m3 , as well as a background noise level of 35 dB(A) for
all classroom sizes. These standards were established by considering a minimum signal-to-
noise ratio (SNR) value of 15 dB(A) for speech recognition and a minimum sound pressure
level from the teacher of 50 dB(A) [19]. The United Kingdom established standards for the
RT and background noise based on the age and number of students and the size and type of
classroom [20]: an RT of <0.6 s and a background noise of 35 dB(A) for elementary students.
Germany established classroom-specific standards for the RT and background noise [21]:
an RT of 0.32 log V−0.17 s (where V represents the volume) and background noise of
35 dB(A) for A3 classrooms. Italy based their acoustic standards on DIN 18041 and set the
RT and background noise based on the classroom type [22]: an RT of 0.32 log V−0.17 s and a
Buildings 2024, 14, 222 4 of 20

background noise of 38 dB(A) for A3 classrooms of <250 m3 and 41 dB(A) for A3 classrooms
of >250 m3 . New Zealand has different RT and background noise standards depending
on whether the classroom is new or refurbished [23]: 0.4–0.5 s for elementary classrooms
and 40 dB(A) for newly built classrooms and 45 dB(A) for refurbished classrooms. Table 1
shows the acoustic standards for each country.

Table 1. Classroom acoustic standards by country.

Background Noise Level Reverberation Time

Country Standard Learning Space
(Unoccupied) (Unoccupied)
<0.6 s
<283 m3
USA ANSI/ASA S 12.60 [18] 35 dB(A) <0.7 s
283–566 m3
(500, 1k, 2k Hz)
≤0.6 s
35 dB(A)
(New build)
Building Bulletin (New build)
UK Primary school ≤0.8 s
93 [20] 40 dB(A)
(refurbishment)
(refurbishment)
(500, 1k, 2k Hz)
0.32 log V−0.17 s (125, 500,
Germany DIN 18041:2016 [21] A3 40 dB(A) 1k, 2k, 4k Hz)
(occupied)
≤38 dB(A)
0.32 log V−0.17 s (125, 500,
A3 (V < 250 m3 )
Italy UNI 11532-2 [22] 1k, 2k, 4k Hz)
30 m3 ≤ V < 5000 m3 ≤41 dB(A)
(occupied)
(V ≥ 250 m3 )
40 dB(A)
New Elementary school (New build) 0.4−0.5 s
AS/NZS 2107:2016 [23]
Zealand V < 300 m3 45 dB(A) (500, 1k Hz)
(refurbishment)

2.2. Review of the Acoustic Criteria in Korean Classrooms

Korea has also researched classroom acoustic performance standards. Furthermore,
acoustic performance standards have been suggested to create a listening environment
that is suitable for learning in Korean middle- and high-school classrooms. The proposed
standards are applicable to general classrooms of approximately ≤220 m3 when used by
Korean middle- and high-school students with normal hearing [24]. In addition, acoustic
standards for lower elementary school classrooms and learning spaces for the elderly have
been proposed [25]. Table 2 shows the standards for background noise and RT in Korean
middle- and high-school classrooms, lower elementary-school classrooms, and learning
spaces for the elderly.

Table 2. Acoustic standards for classrooms in Korea.

Background Noise Reverberation

Grade Volume Notes
Level Time
Elementary school
<185 m3 35 dB(A) 0.6 s Incomplete hearing
(lower grade) [2]
Elementary school
<185 m3 35 dB(A) ≤0.8 s -
(higher grade) [26]
Middle and high school [26] <220 m3 35 dB(A) ≤0.8 s -
Learning space for elderly people [27] <250 m3 30 dB(A) ≤0.8 s Incomplete hearing

The standards for middle- and high-school classrooms are established by assuming
a minimum sound pressure level of 50 dB(A) for teachers and a minimum SNR value
 Buildings 2024, 14, 222 5 of 20

of 15 dB(A) for adults to perceive speech. The standard RT is ≤0.8 s, the same as in
the UK. Although the RT standard in the UK is not limited by classroom volume, the
Korean standard is limited to general classrooms with a volume of approximately ≤220 m3 .
Moreover, the proposed RT standard for lower elementary classrooms is 0.6 s, which is
the same as the standard for elementary classrooms with a volume of ≤283 m3 in the UK
and US. Furthermore, the Korean standard for lower elementary classrooms is applied to
general classrooms with a volume of ≤185 m3 .

3. Methods and Materials

Many methods are used for predicting room acoustics. Computer modeling is widely
used to predict acoustics in various spaces, such as classrooms, offices, and performance
venues. Another traditional method for predicting acoustic performance is the 1/10-scale
model. Field measurements are the most reliable and necessary method of investigating
acoustic performance. All three of the aforementioned methods were used in the present
study to determine if the D50 performance varies depending on where the sound-absorbing
materials are placed in the classroom. The results of the three experimental methods
used in the present study are not intended to be compared. Based on a comparison of
the similarities between the three results from each method, the appropriateness of the
uildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 21
placement of sound-absorbing materials in the classroom can be determined. Figure 1
depicts the process of the present study.

Figure 1. Research flowchart.

Figure 1. Research flowchart.

3.1. Methods
Computer modeling was used in the present study to predict the appropriate location
for the application of a sound-absorbing material in an elementary classroom. In Auto-
CAD 2023, a 3D model of a standardized classroom was created and imported into the
Buildings 2024, 14, 222 6 of 20

3.1. Methods
Computer modeling was used in the present study to predict the appropriate location
for the application of a sound-absorbing material in an elementary classroom. In Auto-
CAD 2023, a 3D model of a standardized classroom was created and imported into the
architectural acoustics software ODEON 12.10. Acoustic parameters were then calculated
by varying acoustic parameters such as finishing material and location. The 3D model
needed to be closed on all sides to prevent rays from escaping, and the modeling precision
affects modeling results. Increasing the number of surfaces and rays increases the modeling
precision [28]. In a scaled model, depending on the temperature and relative humidity, the
air can absorb most of the high-frequency sound [29]. To account for this, the temperature
and humidity in the present study were measured in real-time using a thermo-hygrometer
(TESTO 605-H1, Testo SE & Co. KGaA, Titisee-Neustadt, Germany). To maintain the
relative humidity at 15% and the temperature at 15 ◦ C–20 ◦ C, a moisture-removal filter
(SMC IDG30V, SMC Corporation, Chiyoda, Japan) and an air-compressor (SWC S30-40-3,
SEOWON COMPRESSOR CO., LTD., Yongin, Republic of Korea) were used to inject dry
air into the scaled model. Acoustic performance was measured in one-third octave bands
ranging from 800 to 40k Hz using acoustics measurement equipment and Dirac 5.0 analysis
software. The average relative humidity was maintained at 50%, while the temperature
was maintained at 26 ◦ C, during the field acoustic measurement. In the unoccupied and
off states of the HVAC systems, the background noise in the lower-grade classroom of
Elementary School K was 29.6 dB(A). Furthermore, the room acoustics measurement equip-
ment and Dirac 5.0 analysis software were used to measure the acoustic performance in the
frequency range of 125–4k Hz. Figure 2 depicts the acoustic performance measurement
method used for each experiment.
One sound source and four receiving points were assigned to the computer model. The
sound source was placed at the front of the classroom, 1.5 m from the floor, to correspond
to the height of the teacher’s mouth. According to ISO 3382-1 Annex A.3.1, the source
should be omnidirectional, but tests related to human conditions may use a source with
a similar directivity to that of a human [30,31]. A directional speaker was used as the
sound source to mimic the characteristics of human speech transmission. At 1 m, the sound
pressure level was set to 72 dB. The value of the noise criterion (NC) was set to 30. The
receiving points were evenly spaced throughout the classroom to capture the acoustic
performance at a height of 1.0 m, corresponding to the ear height of seated elementary
students. One sound source and four receiving points were included in the 1/10-scale
model. A directional speaker was installed at the front of the classroom, 0.15 m above
the floor. The sound source was a 1.26 s swept sine signal played through a directional
speaker at a sound pressure level of 72 dB(A). At the four receiving points at a height of
0.10 m, the swept sine signal was picked up by 1/8-in microphones (B&K Type 4165, Brüel
& Kjær, Nærum, Denmark), and the arithmetic mean of 15 measurements was taken to
improve the accuracy. The locations and types of sound sources and receiving points were
the same in each experiment. The sound source for the measurements was a directional
speaker (HERCULES 2000W, APL Technology Corp., Atlanta, GA, USA) playing an ISO
3382-2 [31] maximum length sequence (MLS) signal with the sound pressure level set to
72 dB(A). The signals were measured using a sound-level meter (NTi XL2, Nti Audio,
Schaan, Liechtenstein, B&K Type 2270, Brüel & Kjær, Nærum, Denmark) at four receiving
points, and three measurements of 10 s each were arithmetically averaged for accuracy.
Figure 3 shows the locations of the sound sources and receiving points in the experiments.

Buildings 2024, 14, 222
Elementary School K was 29.6 dB(A). Furthermore, the room acoustics measurement
equipment and Dirac 5.0 analysis software were used to measure the acoustic perfor-
mance in the frequency range of 125–4k Hz. Figure 2 depicts the acoustic performance
7 of 20
measurement method used for each experiment.

(a)

Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21

pressure level was set to 72 dB. The value (b) of the noise criterion (NC) was set to 30. The
receiving points were evenly spaced throughout the classroom to capture the acoustic per-
formance at a height of 1.0 m, corresponding to the ear height of seated elementary stu-
dents. One sound source and four receiving points were included in the 1/10-scale model.
A directional speaker was installed at the front of the classroom, 0.15 m above the floor.
The sound source was a 1.26 s swept sine signal played through a directional speaker at a
sound pressure level of 72 dB(A). At the four receiving points at a height of 0.10 m, the
swept sine signal was picked up by 1/8-in microphones (B&K Type 4165, Brüel & Kjær,
Nærum, Denmark), and the arithmetic mean of 15 measurements was taken to improve
the accuracy. The locations and types of sound sources and receiving points were the same
in each experiment. The sound source for the measurements was a directional speaker
(HERCULES 2000W, APL Technology Corp, Atlanta, USA) playing an ISO 3382-2 [31] max-
imum length sequence (MLS) signal with the sound pressure level set to 72 dB(A). The
signals were measured using a sound-level (c) meter (NTi XL2, Nti Audio, Schaan, Liechten-
stein, B&K Type 2270, Brüel & Kjær, Nærum, Denmark) at four receiving points, and three
Figure
Figure2.2.Measurement
measurements of 10 sconfiguration:
Measurement (a)
configuration:
each (a)computer
computermodeling,
were arithmetically modeling,(b)
averaged (b)1/10-scale
for 1/10-scale
accuracy. model
modelexperiment,
Figure 3 showsand
experiment, and
the
(c)(c)field acoustic
field acousticmeasurement.
measurement.
locations of the sound sources and receiving points in the experiments.
One sound source and four receiving points were assigned to the computer model.
The sound source was placed at the front of the classroom, 1.5 m from the floor, to corre-
spond to the height of the teacher’s mouth. According to ISO 3382-1 Annex A.3.1, the
source should be omnidirectional, but tests related to human conditions may use a source
with a similar directivity to that of a human [30,31]. A directional speaker was used as the
sound source to mimic the characteristics of human speech transmission. At 1 m, the sound

(a) (b) (c)

Figure
Figure3.3.Locations
Locationsof
ofsound
soundsources
sources and
and receiving points
points in
in the
the experiments:
experiments:(a)
(a)computer
computermodeling,
model-
ing, (b) 1/10-scale model experiment, and (c) field acoustic measurement.
(b) 1/10-scale model experiment, and (c) field acoustic measurement.

3.2. Materials
3.2.1. Classification of Classrooms
The geometry of the classroom considerably affects the reflection and diffusion of
sound waves. Accordingly, the present study establishes a standard classroom, and spe-
 Buildings 2024, 14, 222 8 of 20

3.2. Materials
3.2.1. Classification of Classrooms
The geometry of the classroom considerably affects the reflection and diffusion of
sound waves. Accordingly, the present study establishes a standard classroom, and special
types of classrooms, such as creative convergence classrooms, are excluded from the
study’s scope. Although changes in teacher and student arrangements can improve speech
intelligibility, changes in classroom layout (e.g., seating arrangement, furniture placement)
do not directly affect the location of the sound-absorbing material.
Standardized classroom dimensions representing the architectural characteristics of
elementary classrooms in Korea were calculated by averaging the architectural specifica-
tions of 10 classrooms in elementary schools in Cheongju [24]. The standardized classroom
for computer modeling had dimensions of 7.3 (width) × 8.5 (length) × 2.6 m (height),
corresponding to a width/length ratio of 1:1.16. This ratio created a 1/10-scale model
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21
measuring 0.73 (width) × 0.85 (length) × 0.26 m. Field measurements were performed in
a classroom with dimensions of 7.3 (width) × 8.5 (length) × 2.6 m (height), resulting in a
width/length ratio of 1:1.16. Figure 4 shows the dimensions of the classroom used in each
experimental method.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure
Figure4.4.Dimensions
Dimensionsofofthe
thestandardized
standardized classroom for (a)
classroom used for (a) computer
computermodeling,
modeling,(b)
(b)the
the1/10-
1/10-
scale
scalemodel
modelexperiment,
experiment,(c)
(c)and
andfield
field acoustic
acoustic measurements.
measurements.

3.2.2. Sound-Absorbing Coefficient of Materials

3.2.2. Sound-Absorbing Coefficient of Materials
Because sound-absorbing materials are used as finishing materials in the classroom,
Because sound-absorbing materials are used as finishing materials in the classroom,
there are only acoustic influences, and no psychological influences of students’ or teach-
there are only acoustic influences, and no psychological influences of students’ or teach-
ers’ communication, concentration, and overall learning experience. The walls in a real
ers’ communication, concentration, and overall learning experience. The walls in a real
classroom have different finishes on all four sides. The front wall is finished with painted
classroom
concrete and havehasdifferent finishesfurther,
a blackboard; on all four sides. The
the exterior sidefront wall
walls haveis finished
windows, with painted
while the
concrete and has a blackboard; further, the exterior side walls have
side walls facing the corridor have windows and doors. Moreover, the rear wall (RW) has windows, while the
side walls facing the corridor have windows and doors. Moreover,
lockers. Therefore, the sound-absorbing material on the back wall was placed 1 m from the rear wall (RW) has
lockers.
the floorTherefore, the sound-absorbing
in the computer materialfinishing
model. Furthermore, on the back wall similar
materials was placed
to those1 mused
from
the
in floor
a realinclassroom
the computer weremodel.
used. Furthermore,
Scaled model finishing
experiments materials
shouldsimilar
adheretoto those usedofin
the law
a similarity
real classroom
[32]. Inwere used. Scaled
the present study, model experiments should
the sound-absorbing adhere
coefficients to the materials
of several law of simi-
in
larity [32]. In the
the 1/10-scale present
model werestudy, themeasured
directly sound-absorbing
in a scaledcoefficients
reverberation of several
chambermaterials
[33] usingin
the
the1/10-scale model were
interrupted-noise directly
method and measured in a scaledmethod
a type A installation reverberation chamber
in one-third octave[33]bands
using
from
the 800 to 40k Hz, as
interrupted-noise shownand
method in Figure
a type5.AThe arithmetic
installation mean in
method of one-third
15 measurements was
octave bands
from 800 to 40k Hz, as shown in Figure 5. The arithmetic mean of 15 measurementsand
taken to improve measurement accuracy. High-voltage spark sources limit control, was
impulse
taken responsemeasurement
to improve sources are not properlyHigh-voltage
accuracy. represented in the scale
spark sourcesmodel.
limitTherefore,
control, and a
12-sided omnidirectional speaker, reduced to 1/10 size, was used to
impulse response sources are not properly represented in the scale model. Therefore, a conduct an ISO 354 [33]
experiment
12-sided in the scaled reverberation
omnidirectional speaker, reducedchamber.
to 1/10The scaled
size, wasomnidirectional
used to conduct speaker
an ISOthat354
was used was built by us, and methods for producing scaled omnidirectional
[33] experiment in the scaled reverberation chamber. The scaled omnidirectional speaker speakers are
detailed
that in B. Chojnacki’s
was used was built byresearch
us, andresults
methods [34,35]. Furthermore,
for producing based
scaled on a study conducted
omnidirectional speak-
by Baruch et al. [36], humidity was maintained at 10% because humidity absorption is high
ers are detailed in B. Chojnacki’s research results [34,35]. Furthermore, based on a study
at high frequencies. The sound-absorbing coefficients of the finishing materials were deter-
conducted by Baruch et al. [36], humidity was maintained at 10% because humidity ab-
mined for the field measurements based on the literature and empirical results provided by
sorption is high at high frequencies. The sound-absorbing coefficients of the finishing ma-
the manufacturers. The types of finishing materials and sound-absorbing coefficients used
terials were determined for the field measurements based on the literature and empirical
in the experiments are listed in Table 3. Using an appropriate sound-absorbing material
results provided
is critical becauseby itsthe manufacturers.characteristics
frequency-specific The types of affectfinishing materials
the indoor and Moreover,
sound. sound-ab-
sorbing coefficients used in the experiments are listed in Table 3. Using an appropriate
sound-absorbing material is critical because its frequency-specific characteristics affect the
indoor sound. Moreover, different types of sound-absorbing materials have different
sound-absorbing coefficients; hence, a considerable difference in what kind of sound-ab-
sorbing materials are used in a classroom is likely to exist. The present study, however,
 Buildings 2024, 14, 222 9 of 20

different types of sound-absorbing materials have different sound-absorbing coefficients;

hence, a considerable difference in what kind of sound-absorbing materials are used in a
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 21
classroom is likely to exist. The present study, however, did not compare different types of
sound-absorbing materials.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 5.
5. Scaled reverberationchamber
Scaled reverberation chamber forfor measuring
measuring the sound-absorbing
the sound-absorbing coefficient
coefficient of materials:
of materials:
(a)
(a)appearance ofaascaled
appearance of scaledreverberation
reverberation chamber;
chamber; (b) experimental
(b) experimental conditions.
conditions.

Table
Table 3.
3. Finishing materialsand
Finishing materials and noise
noise reduction
reduction coefficients
coefficients used used in experiments.
in experiments.

Computer Modeling 1/10-Scale Model Experiment

Part Computer Modeling 1/10-Scale Model Experiment FieldField
Acoustic Measurement
Acoustic Measurement
Part Material NRC * Material 10 × NRC ** Material NRC *
Material NRC * Material 10 × NRC ** Material
paint on NRC *
Front wall concrete 0.015 MDF panel 0.040 0.015
concrete
Front wall concrete 0.015 MDF panel 0.040 paint
paint onon concrete 0.015
Side wall concrete 0.015 MDF panel 0.040 0.015
concrete
Side wall
Rear wall concrete 0.015 MDF panel 0.040 paint on+concrete
10T polyester 0.015
polyester 0.480 polyester 0.490 0.480
(absorptive) 821 fabric
Rear wall
Ceiling sound- 10T polyester
10T polyester + + 821
polyester 0.480
0.518 polyester
polyester 0.490
0.490 0.480 0.480
(absorptive)
(absorptive) absorbing tex 821 fabricfabric
Floor linoleum tile 0.015 MDF panel 15 0.040 linoleum tile 0.015
Ceiling sound-absorbing
Glass 0.038 acrylic 0.070 10T
glasspolyester + 821
0.038
Window 0.518 polyester 0.490 0.480
(absorptive) tex fabric
metal frame 0.075 acrylic 0.070 metal frame 0.075
Door, blackboard, locker,
Floor linoleum tilepanel 0.015 extruded PVC15
MDF panel 0.040
wood 0.085 0.070 wood linoleum
panel tile 0.085 0.015
desk, and chair foam sheet
* Noise reduction coefficient: average of the sound-absorbing coefficients at 250 Hz, 500 Hz, 1k Hz, and 2k Hz;
Glass 0.038
** Noise reduction coefficient: average ofacrylic 0.070 at 2.5k Hz, 5k Hz,
the sound-absorbing coefficients glass
10k Hz, and 20k Hz.0.038
Window
metal 3.3.
frameApplication 0.075 acrylic
of Sound-Absorbing 0.070
Material in Classrooms metal frame 0.075
When sound-absorbing materials are used in a classroom, the sound-absorbing power
Door, blackboard, of the space increases, resulting in a decrease in the RT and an increase in speech intelligi-
extruded PVC
locker, desk, and wood bility.
panel To maintain
0.085the durability of the sound-absorbing
0.070 materials,wood panel
the sound-absorbing 0.085
foam sheet
chair materials that are placed in a classroom should be semi-permanent and their long-term
usability should be considered; for example, they should not be installed on the floor. Many
* Noise reduction coefficient: average of the sound-absorbing coefficients at 250 Hz, 500 Hz, 1k Hz,
studies have investigated the effect of the placement of sound-absorbing materials on
and 2k Hz; ** Noise reduction coefficient: average of the sound-absorbing coefficients at 2.5k Hz, 5k
classroom sound. Some fixed factors in the classroom can affect how the sound-absorbing
Hz, 10k Hz, and 20k Hz.
material is arranged. Accordingly, the location of the blackboard and storage unit was
considered in the present study.
3.3. Application of Sound-Absorbing Material in Classrooms
When sound-absorbing materials are used in a classroom, the sound-absorbing
power of the space increases, resulting in a decrease in the RT and an increase in speech
intelligibility. To maintain the durability of the sound-absorbing materials, the sound-ab-
sorbing materials that are placed in a classroom should be semi-permanent and their long-
Buildings 2024, 14, 222 10 of 20

Bradley [37] reported that the surfaces surrounding a speaker should reflect sound,
and that the amount and location of a sound-absorbing material are important for effective
speech transmission. T. Lokki and A. Kuusinen [38] reported that a sound-absorbing
material should be placed close to the sound source to maximize clarity. Jeong et al. [39]
addressed the requirement for a suitable reflective surface on the ceiling to enhance direct
sound. Sala and Viljanen [13] suggested applying sound-absorbing material to the back
wall and ceiling to improve acoustic performance. Ryu et al. [40] demonstrated that an
appropriate RT could be achieved by sound-absorbing material covering only a portion of
the ceiling. To avoid damage, Russo and Ruggiero [41] suggested that sound-absorbing
material be evenly distributed over the surfaces of a classroom at an appropriate height
from the floor. Park [42] found that adding a sound-absorbing material to the side walls
can result in inter-aural-level differences, reducing speech intelligibility. According to Berg
et al. [43], adding a sound-absorbing material or carpeting to classroom floors generally
improves the acoustic performance by reducing distracting noises (e.g., books/pencils
dropping and chair scraping). However, Seep et al. [44] and Knecht et al. [26] found that
carpeting marginally affects sound absorption in classrooms, and is not used owing to its
potential risks, such as difficulties maintaining its sound-absorbing performance and risks
to student health.
Based on the previous studies, the sound-absorbing material was not applied to the
floor, front wall, or side walls of the classroom in the present study. Instead, only the RW
and ceiling were considered as areas for the sound-absorbing material. Furthermore, the
RW had a considerably smaller surface area than the ceiling. Therefore, the ceiling was
divided into front, center, and back sections. Because of the reflection from the sidewalls,
an even D50 distribution could not be obtained if the ceiling was divided lengthwise.

0.161V
RT 60 = (s) (4)
A
Based on the Sabine RT calculation formula shown in Equation (4), the required
absorption area for the experimental space was determined to be 43.2 m2 . Although
this absorption area was not met, the primary goal was to demonstrate the difference in
the acoustic performance when the sound-absorbing materials was applied to different
placements with the same total area (see steps 1 and 2). The proposed placement method
may be considerably simple for application in classrooms. Installing sound-absorbing
materials in the front or center of a classroom ceiling can be challenging owing to practical
issues, such as voice fatigue among teachers, and heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning
(HVAC) systems. These cases, however, were critical for determining the difference in
acoustic performance caused by the placement of sound-absorbing materials on the ceiling.
The sound-absorbing material was placed in a three-step procedure for all experiments,
as shown in Table 4:
• The sound-absorbing material covering an area of 12.4 m2 was applied individually to
the rear wall (RW), front ceiling (FC), center ceiling (CC), and rear ceiling (RC), and
the acoustic performances were compared.
• Based on the results of step 1, the sound-absorbing material was applied to the RW,
and sound-absorbing material covering 20.7 m2 was individually applied to the FC,
CC, and RC for a total area of 33.1 m2 . RW + FC, RW + CC, and RW + RC’s acoustic
performances were compared.
• The sound-absorbing material was applied to the RW and CC based on the results of
step 2. Then, for a total area of 53.8 m2 , sound-absorbing material covering an area of
20.7 m2 was applied individually to the FC and RC. The acoustic performances of the
RW + CC + FC, RW + CC + RC, and all parts of the ceiling (AC) were compared, with
a total area of 62.1 m2 .
 step 2. step
Then,2.for
Then, for area
a total a total
ofarea
53.8 of
m2253.8 m22, sound-absorbing
, sound-absorbing materialmaterial covering
covering an areaan ofarea
step 2. 2step
Then,2.for
Then,
a for aarea
total total
ofarea
53.8 of
m 53.8
, m , sound-absorbing
sound-absorbing materialmaterial covering
covering an areaan ofarea
20.7 m220.7
wasmapplied
2 was applied individually
individually to the FCto the
andFC and
RC. The RC. The acoustic
acoustic performances
performances of the of t
20.7 m 20.7
wasmapplied
2 was applied individually
individually to the FCto the
andFC and
RC. TheRC. The acoustic
acoustic performances
performances of the of t
RW + CC RW+ +FC,
CCRW + FC,+ CCRW+ +RC,
CCand
+ RC,alland allofparts
parts of the ceiling
the ceiling (AC)compared,
(AC) were were compared,
with w
RW + CC RW+ +FC,
CCRW + FC,+2CCRW+ +RC,
CCand
+ RC,alland allofparts
parts of the ceiling
the ceiling (AC)compared,
(AC) were were compared,
with w
a total aarea
total
ofarea
62.1 of
m262.1
. m2.
2
Buildings 2024, 14, 222 a total area
a total area of 62.1 m .of 62.1 m . 11 of 20

Table 4.Table 4. Experimental

Experimental procedure
procedure for the
for testing testing the acoustic
acoustic performance
performance of different
of different sound-absorbi
sound-absorbing
Table 4.Table 4. Experimental
Experimental procedure
procedure for the
for testing testing the acoustic
acoustic performance
performance of different
of different sound-absorbi
sound-absorbing
materialmaterial configurations.
configurations.
materialmaterial
Table 4. configurations.
configurations.
Experimental procedure for testing the acoustic performance of different sound-absorbing
material configurations.
Step 1 Step 1 (sound-absorbing
(sound-absorbing area:
area: 12.4 m2212.4
) m22)
Step 1 Step 1 (sound-absorbing
(sound-absorbing area: area:
12.4 m 12.4
) m)
2
Step 1 (Sound-Absorbing Area: 12.4 m )

RW RW FC FC
RW RW
RW FC
FC FC
ngs Buildings
2024,
Buildings14, 2024,
x FOR
2024, 14,
14, xPEER
FOR x FOR
PEERPEER
REVIEW REVIEW
REVIEW 21 of122
12 of 12
Buildings
ngs 2024, 2024,
Buildings
14, 14, xPEER
2024,
x FOR FOR
14, PEERPEER
x FOR REVIEW
REVIEW REVIEW 12 of 12
21 of122

Step StepStep 2 (sound-absorbing

2 (sound-absorbing 33.1area:
area: area:
2 (sound-absorbing m 2) 33.1
33.1 m2) m2)
CC RC
CCStep
Step 2 (sound-absorbing
Step
2 (sound-absorbing
CC area: area:
2 (sound-absorbing 33.1
33.1area:
m m2) m2)RC
2) 33.1
RC
FCRW
RW +RW + FC+ FC CC Step CC2 (sound-absorbing
RW +RWCCRW
+ CC+area:
CC 33.1 m2 ) RWRC +RC
RCRW
+RW RC+ RC
RW +RW +RW
FC RWFC++ FC
FC RW +RWCC + CC+ CC
RW
RW + CC
RW +RW + RC+ RC
RCRW
RW + RC

Step Step Step 3 (sound-absorbing

3 (sound-absorbing
3 (sound-absorbing area: area: area:
53.8/62.1 53.8/62.1
m 2) m 2) m 2)
53.8/62.1
Step 3 (sound-absorbing area: 53.8/62.1 m2
Step Step 3 (sound-absorbing
Step 3 (sound-absorbing
3 (sound-absorbing area: area:area:
53.8/62.1 m2)) m2) m2)
53.8/62.1
53.8/62.1
CCRW
RW +RW FC++ +CC
++RW
CC FC + FC
CC + FC
RW + CC
RW RW
++ RC
CC+ +CC
RW + CC + RC
RC+ RC AC
AC
AC AC
RW +RW ++ CC
CCRW FC+ +CCFC+ FC RW +RW ++ CC
CCRW RC+ +CCRC+ RC AC AC AC

4. Results
4.1. Computer Modeling
4. Results 4. Results
4. Results
The RT and D50 for various configurations were calculated by averaging the values
4. 4. Results
Results 4. Results
4.1. Computer
4.1. Computer
4.1. Computer
measured theModeling
Modeling
atModeling
four receiving points (R1–R4). In step 1, the shortest RT of 1.18 s and
4.1.highest
4.1. Computer
The Computer
4.1.
TheComputer
RT Modeling
and D50D
The
RT Modeling
of
RT
and50 51%Modeling
and
for
D were
D50obtained
various
50 for atconfigurations
forconfigurations
various various theconfigurations
RW. Inwere step 2, thewere
shortest
calculated
were RT averaging
ofby
calculated
calculatedby 0.75averaging
s and
by highest
averaging
the the the
values valueva
Dmeasured
50 of 62% were atfor obtained
the four at the
receiving RW + CC.
points In step 3,
(R1–R4). the shortest
Incalculated
step RT of 0.55
1, averaging
the s and
shortest highest
RT of 1.18 s
measured
measured
The at and
The
RT the
RT
Theatfour
the
and
DRT50 receiving
four
and Dreceiving
for
D50various points
50 various
for various (R1–R4).
points (R1–R4).
configurations
configurations configurations In step
were In 1,
were step
werethe
calculated shortest
1,calculated
the
by byRT
shortest byofaveraging
RT
averaging 1.18
theof s1.18
the
values and s and
value
the va
D50 of 0.71 were obtained at the RW + CC + FC. In addition, for each step, values within the
highest D highest
highest
measured
measured ofof
D
measured
50at
JND
51%
50at
the Dhighest
of were
51%
the
thefour
50 ofthe
at 51%
were
four
receiving
D50
were
obtained
receiving
fourwere
obtained
obtainedat the
receiving
points atRW.
pointsthe
checked.(R1–R4).
atIn
points
The
the
RW.
(R1–R4).
standard
RW.
step In2,
(R1–R4).
In InInstep
the
step step
1,
deviationIn 2,step
shortest
2, the
the the
1, theshortest
RT
shortest
1,
forshortest
each
ofRT0.75
shortest
the RT
of
shortest
RT
receiving of of
s0.75
and
RT 0.75
1.18
point
highest
sRT
ofand sand
s1.18
was ofand hig
highes
s and
1.18 s
D50 ofhighest
highestD62%
50D D
of of
were
62%
D51%
highest
of
5050
calculated 62%
50 were
of were
obtained
51%
Dusing
were
50 ofobtained
were
51% obtained
atwere
obtained
these the atRW
obtained
values at
the
obtained
at the
[27,45].the
+RW CC.
at
RW. RW
+at
the
The In
CC. +step
step
RW.
the
In CC.
smallest InIn3,
RW. In
stepthe
step
2, In step
the3,
standard 2,
step 3,
shortest
the
the
shortestthe
theRT
2,shortestshortest
shortest
deviations of RT
shortest
RT of 0.55
RT
(1%)0.75RT
of
of
RT
were of
s0.55
and
0.75
of 0.55
0.75
obtained ss and
sshighest
and hig
highes
0.71
D50 ofD62% D50were
of
50 for 0.71
62% 0.71
of RW
the were
62% inwere
obtained obtained
step theat
obtained
atRW
1, the RW
+RWthe
CC at++in
RW
RW
theCC
CC. RW
+++In
RW
step CC
CC.
2, ++and
FC.
step CC
CC.InFC.
+In 3,
RW +In
step FC.
addition,
In
the 3,
+step In
the+addition,
3,
shortest
CC for
addition, each
shortest
thein
FC RT for
step for
step,
ofeach
RT
shortest each
3. of
0.55RT
Thevalues
step,
s0.55
ofstep,
and values
within
values
shighest
0.55
standardand withi
highes
s and w
hig
the
D 50 JND
ofD 0.71the
of JND
the
50 deviation
the JND 0.71
D50were of highest
ofofhighest
was
the
were
0.71 the
were
obtained Dhighest
calculated
obtainedwere
Dthe
50obtained
at D
50only
were
at RWthe
50 were
checked.
from
at RW
theCC checked.
the
+checked.The
RW CC standard
++location
FC.+The
+CC The
InFC. Instandard
+ FC. deviation
corresponding
standard
addition, fortodeviation
In deviation
addition,
addition,for
foreach
the
each JND.
each
for
step, for
The
for each each
receiving
results
step,
values receiving
receiving
values
step, point
of
values
within poin
withiwp
wasJND
the the the
was
calculated
wasof JND
the computer
thecalculated
using
calculated
ofhighest
JND the modeling
these
using
of highest
the using
Dhighest
were are
D50these
values
50 these
shown
were
D [27,45].
values in
values Figures
checked.
were
checked.
50 The
[27,45].[27,45].
checked.
The The6
standardand
smallest
TheThe The 7. smallest
smallest
standard
standard standard
standard
deviation deviations
deviation
deviation fordeviations
deviations
for each (1%)
each
for each
receiving were
(1%)
receiving (1%)
were
receiving
point wer
ob-poin
obp
tained
was fortained
tained
was the
was
calculated forRW forin
the
calculated the
RW
calculated
using step
usingRW
thesein 1, in
stepRW
these
usingvaluesstep +RW 1,values
CC
1,values
these RW
+inCC
[27,45]. +The
step CC
in
[27,45]. 2, in
step
[27,45].and
The step
smallest RW
2,The
and2,standard
smallest +and
RW
smallest RW
CCstandard
++ CC
FC + +in
CC
FC
standard + in
step FC 3. in
step
deviations
deviations Thestep
deviations
(1%) The
(1%)
were3. (1%)
3.standard Theob-stan
standard
were ob
wer
deviation
tained fordeviation
was
deviation
tained forRW
tained
the was
the
forinwas
calculated
RW
thestep calculated
calculated
in
RW only
step
1, in
RW from
only
1,+RW
step only
CC the
1,from from
+inCC
RW location
+the
step in
CC the
location
step
2, in
and location
corresponding
2,RW
step and corresponding
corresponding
RW
2, +and
CCRW ++ CC
FCto+ the
+CC
in to
FC JND.
+the
stepinto3.
FC the
The
JND.
step
in
The JND.
3.
step The3. The
results
The
standard ofresu
results
stano
standard
The
the computer
deviation the
the computer
deviation computer
modeling
deviation
was wasmodeling
was
calculated modeling
are
calculated shown
calculated
only areonly
from are in
shown shown
from
only
theFigures
in
the
from
location in 6Figures
Figures and
location
the 67.and
location 6 and
7.
corresponding
corresponding 7. to thetoJND.
corresponding the
to JND.
the
TheJND. The The
results results
ofresuo
the computer
the computer modelingmodeling are
the computer modeling are shown in Figures 6 and 7. shown
are shown in Figures
in Figures 6 and 6 7.
and 7.
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21

Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21

Buildings 2024, 14, 222 12 of 20

Figure 6.DD
Figure6.6.
Figure D and
50
5050 and
and
RTRT
RT
forfor
for each
each
each sound-absorbing
sound-absorbing
sound-absorbing material
material
material location
location
location ininthe in the computer
thecomputer
computer modeling.
modeling.
modeling.

Figure
Figure7.7.DD
50 for each sound-absorbing material location and the standard deviation among the re-
50 for each sound-absorbing material location and the standard deviation among the
ceiving
Figure points
7. D within thesound-absorbing
50 forwithin
each JND in the computer modeling.
material location and the standard deviation among the re-
receiving points the JND in the computer modeling.
ceiving points within the JND in the computer modeling.
4.2.
4.2.1/10-Scaled
1/10-ScaledModel
ModelExperiment
Experiment
The
TheRTRT and
4.2. 1/10-Scaled D5050for
D
andModel various
variousconfigurations
forExperiment configurationswere werecalculated
calculatedby byaveraging
averagingthe the values
values
measured
measuredat at the
the four
four receiving
receiving points
points (R1–R4).
(R1–R4). InInstepstep1,1,the
theshortest
shortestRT RTofof0.70
0.70ss and
and
The RT and D50 for various configurations were calculated by averaging the values
highestD
highest D5050ofof46%
46%were
wereobtained
obtainedatatthe theRW.
RW.In Instep
step2,2,the
theshortest
shortestRTRTofof0.60
0.60ssand
andhighest
highest
measured
DD5050ofof55%
55%wereat
were the four receiving
obtained
obtained atatthe
theRW RWpoints
++CC. (R1–R4).
CC.InIn Inshortest
step3,3,the
step the step 1, RT
shortest the
RTof shortest
of 0.52ssand
0.52 andRThighest
of 0.70 s and
highest
highest
D D50
D5050ofof66%
66% of 46%
were
were wereatobtained
obtained
obtained at
thetheRWRW +at +the
CC CC RW.
+ FC.+ FC.In Values
step
Values 2, within
withinthethe
shortest RT
the highest
highest JND ofof0.60
JND swere
D50of and
D50 highest
D
checked for each step, and these values were used to calculate the standard deviation for highest
were
50 of 55%
checked werefor obtained
each step, at
and the RW
these +
valuesCC. In
were step
used 3,
to the shortest
calculate the RT of
standard 0.52 s and
deviation
Dfor of
50 each
each 66% were obtained
sound-receiving
sound-receiving at
point.
point. The the RW
The + standard
CC +standard
smallest
smallest FC.deviations
Values within
deviations the were
(1%)(1%)
were highest JND
obtained
obtained of
forD50 were
for the
the and
checked
RW RW RWand
for+RW CC+instep,
each CCstepinand
1step 1step
andthese and2, step
values 2, were
respectively.
respectively. used
Step to3 Step 3 was omitted
calculate
was omitted the because
standard
because the
deviation
the stand- for
standard
ard deviation
deviation was was calculated
calculated only only
where where
it it corresponded
corresponded to the
each sound-receiving point. The smallest standard deviations (1%) were obtained for theto the
JND. JND.
Figures Figures
8 and 98 and
show 9
show
the the results
results of the 1/10-scale
of the 1/10-scale model. model.
RW and RW + CC in step 1 and step 2, respectively. Step 3 was omitted because the stand-
ard deviation was calculated only where it corresponded to the JND. Figures 8 and 9 show
the results of the 1/10-scale model.
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21

Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21

Buildings 2024, 14, 222 13 of 20

Figure
Figure 8.
8. D
D5050and
andRT
RTfor
foreach
eachsound-absorbing
sound-absorbingmaterial
materiallocation
locationininthe
the1/10-scale
1/10-scalemodel.
model.
Figure 8. D50 and RT for each sound-absorbing material location in the 1/10-scale model.

Figure 9. D50 for each sound-absorbing material location and the standard deviation among receiving
Figure 9. D50 for each sound-absorbing material location and the standard deviation among receiv-
points within
ing points the the
within JNDJND
in the 1/10-scale
in the model
1/10-scale experiment.
model experiment.
Figure 9. Acoustic
4.3. Field D50 for each sound-absorbing material location and the standard deviation among receiv-
Measurement
4.3. Field
ing points Acoustic
within Measurement
the JND at in the
thefour
1/10-scale model experiment.
The values measured receiving points (R1–R4) were averaged to analyze the
RT and D50 for various configurations. Unfortunately,(R1–R4)
The values measured at the four receiving points owing towere averaged
ceiling damage toin
analyze the
the actual
RT
4.3. and D
Field for various
50Acoustic configurations.
Measurement Unfortunately, owing to ceiling
classroom, step 3 could not be completed. In step 1, the shortest RT of 0.81 s and highest damage in the actual
classroom,
D50 ofThe step
68%values 3 could
were obtained not be completed.
at the CC.four In step
In step 1, the
2, the shortest
shortest RTRT of of 0.81
0.73 s andobtained
s was highest D of
at50analyze
the
measured at the receiving points (R1–R4) were averaged to the
68%
RWandwere
+ FC, obtained at the CC. In step
the highest D50 of 72% was2, the shortest RT of 0.73 s was obtained at the RW + FC,
RT Dwhile
50 for various configurations.
obtained at the
Unfortunately, RW +toCC.
owing All measurements
ceiling damage in the actual
while the highest
were within D50 ofrange.
the JND 72% was obtained
Values withinat the
theRW + CC.JND
highest All measurements were within
of D50 were checked the
for each
classroom,
JND range. step
Values3within
could thenothighest
be completed.
JND of DIn step 1, the shortest RT of 0.81 s and
50 were checked for each step, and these values
highest D50 of
step, and these values were used to calculate the standard deviation for each receiving
68% used
were were obtained atthe
the CC. In deviation
step 2, theforshortest RT of 0.73 s was obtained at the RW + FC
point. Thetosmallest
calculatestandard
standard
deviations (2%) eachobtained
were receiving point.
for theThe
RWsmallest
and RWstandard
+ CC in
while the highest
deviations
step 1 and (2%)
step wereD50obtained
of 72% was
2, respectively. for obtained
the
Figures RW andat11
10 and the
RW +RW
CC+the
depict inCC.
stepAll
field measurements
1measurement
and were within the
step 2, respectively.
results.
JND range. Values within the highest JND
Figures 10 and 11 depict the field measurement results. of D 50 were checked for each step, and these values
were used to calculate the standard deviation for each receiving point. The smallest standard
deviations (2%) were obtained for the RW and RW + CC in step 1 and step 2, respectively
Figures 10 and 11 depict the field measurement results.
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21
Buildings 2024, 14, 222 14 of 20

Figure 10. D50 and RT for each sound-absorbing material location in the field acoustic measure-
ment.
Figure10.
Figure 10.DD andRT
5050and RTforfor each
each sound-absorbing
sound-absorbing material
material location
location in the
in the field field acoustic
acoustic measure-
measurement.
ment.

Figure11.
Figure Dfor
11.D50 50 for each
each sound-absorbing
sound-absorbing material
material location
location and
and thethe standard
standard deviation
deviation among
among sound
sound
receiving points within the JND in the field acoustic measurement.
receiving points within the JND in the field acoustic measurement.
4.4. Comparison among Three Experiments
Figure
4.4. 11. D50 among
Comparison for each sound-absorbing
Three Experiments material location and the standard deviation among sound
For allpoints
receiving experiments,
within the theJND
RW, inRW the+ CC,
fieldand RW +measurement.
acoustic CC + FC exhibited the lowest RT with
a JND of 5%. Furthermore, for a JND of 5%, the RW, RWCC
For all experiments, the RW, RW + CC, and RW + + FC
+ CC, and exhibited
RW + CCthe + FClowest RT
exhibited
with
the a JND of 5%. Furthermore,
D50 . Figure for a JND of 5%, the RW, RW + CC, and
a comparison of the RT and D50 values, which indicates RW + CC + FC
4.4.highest
exhibited
Comparison
the highest
among
D
12Three
presents
Experiments
50. Figure 12 presents a comparison of the RT and D50 values, which
that the shortest RT and highest D50 with the most even distribution was obtained with RW,
RW +For
indicates CC, all
that
and experiments,
theRW shortest
+ CC +RT FCthein RW,
and 1,RW
highest
step stepD+502,
CC,andand
with theRW
step most + even
CC +distribution
3, respectively. FCFigure
exhibited13was theob-lowest RT
presents
awith
tained a JND
with
comparison RW, of 5%.
ofRWthe+RTFurthermore,
CC, andandD50RW + for
values a+ JND
FC inof
CCobtained 5%,1,three
step
from the
stepRW,2, andRW + CC,
step
experimental and RWThe
3, respectively.
methods. + CC + FC
Figure
three 13 presents
exhibited the highest
experimental amethods
comparison
D50. Figure
showedof the
12 RT and
presents
similar trends Da50comparison
values
but obtained
differed inofthe
thefrom three
RT and
actual Dexperi-
values, values, which
50 which
mental
were methods.
indicates that The
attributed to three experimental
theunavoidable
shortest RTissues
andwith methods
highest Dshowed
diffraction
50 withandsimilar trends
low-frequency
the most even but differed inin was ob
calculations
distribution
the
theactual values,
computer
tained with RW, which
modeling were
RW +and attributed
CC,high-frequency to
and RW + CCsound unavoidable
+ FC in issues
absorption with
step 1, step diffraction
in the 2, 1/10-scale
and step and3,model.
low-
respectively
frequency
Although calculations
Bistafa and in the
Bradley computer
[14] found modeling
that the and high-frequency
difference between sound
computer absorption
modeling
Figure 13 presents a comparison of the RT and D50 values obtained from three experi
inand
the measurements
1/10-scale model. Although
is greater whenBistafa and Bradley
the space has less[14]soundfound that the difference
absorption, be-
this difference
mental methods. The three experimental methods showed similar trends but differed in
tween computer
decreases modeling
significantly as and measurements
the level is greater when
of sound absorption the space
increases. has less sound
The similarity of the
the actualthis
absorption,
trends among
values, whichdecreases
difference
the experimental
weremethods
attributed
significantly to unavoidable
as the level
was statistically
issues
of sound
validated
with
using
diffraction
absorption
the Spearman in- and low
frequency
creases.
correlation calculations
The coefficient,
similarity of which in the
the yieldedcomputer
trends among
p-valuesthe modeling
experimental
of less and
than 0.05 forhigh-frequency
methods sound
was statistically
all experimental methods. absorption
in the 1/10-scale
validated using because
Consequently, model.
the Spearman Although
correlation
the correlation Bistafa
was and Bradley
coefficient,
significant which
at the 95% [14]
yielded found
p-values
confidence that
of the
level, less difference
than
the results be
tween
0.05 for all
of each computer
experimental
experimental modeling
methods.
method and
were measurements
Consequently,
concluded to because is greater
exhibit the thesame when
correlation the
trend. was space has
The significant
correlations less sound
atfor
theeach
95%experimental
absorption, this difference
confidence method
level, are shown
the decreases
results in Table
significantly
of each 5. These
experimental findings
as method
the level are
wereof consistent
sound
concluded with
absorption
to in
creases. The similarity of the trends among the experimental methods was statistically
validated using the Spearman correlation coefficient, which yielded p-values of less than
0.05 for all experimental methods. Consequently, because the correlation was significan
at the 95% confidence level, the results of each experimental method were concluded to
 Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 21

Buildings 2024, 14, 222 15 of 20

exhibit the same trend. The correlations for each experimental method are shown in Table
5. These findings are consistent with those of Sala and Viljanen, as well as Ryu et al. [13,40],
those
who of Sala and
concluded thatViljanen,
applyingas well as Ryu et al.material
a sound-absorbing [13,40], to
who theconcluded
rear wall andthataapplying
portion a
ofsound-absorbing material
the ceiling is effective. to the rear
However, wall and
different a portion
results wereofobtained,
the ceiling is to
due effective. However,
differences in
different
the research results
goals,were
from obtained,
Lokki anddue to differences
Kusinen’s in thefindings,
[38] research researchwhichgoals,suggested
from Lokki thatand
Kusinen’s
the absorption [38]surface
research findings,
should which
be placed suggested
close that the
to the sound absorption
source surface
to maximize should
clarity. To be
placed close to the sound source to maximize clarity. To achieve a rapid
achieve a rapid speech transmission index of 0.75, they suggested covering 30% of the speech transmission
index
total of with
area 0.75, they suggested covering
a sound-absorbing 30%on
material ofthe
theceiling
total area
andwith
backa wall.
sound-absorbing
However, bymaterial
cov-
on the
ering ceiling
20% of theand back
total areawall.
withHowever,
the RW + by
CCcovering 20% ofthe
configuration, theKorean
total area with the
standard of RW + CC
RT 0.6
s configuration,
was met. The amountthe Korean standard of RT material
of sound-absorbing 0.6 s wasrequired
met. Thewillamount of sound-absorbing
vary depending on the
materialstandards
acoustic required of will vary
each depending on the acoustic standards of each country.
country.

(a)

Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 21

(b)
Figure
Figure12.
12.Comparison
Comparisonofof
(a)(a)
RTRT
and (b)(b)
and D50Dfor different
50 for steps.
different steps.

(a)
Figure 13. Cont.
Buildings 2024, 14, 222 16 of 20
(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure13.
13. Comparison of (a)
Comparison of (a)RT
RTandand
(b)(b)
D50Daccording
50 according to optimal
to the the optimal location
location in experimental
in experimental method.
method.
Table 5. Spearman correlation coefficient analysis of RT and D50 for each experimental method.
Table 5. Spearman correlation coefficient analysis of RT and D50 for each experimental method.
1/10-Scale Model Field Acoustic
Experiment Methods Parameters Computer Modeling 1/10-Scale Model Field Acoustic
Experiment Measurement
Experiment Methods Parameters Computer Modeling
Experiment Measurement
RT - 1.000 ** 0.852 *
Computer modeling
D50 RT - - 1.000
0.982 ** ** 0.852 **
0.982 *
Computer modeling
RT D50 1.000 **- 0.982
- ** 0.982
0.852***
1/10-scale model
D50 RT 0.9821.000
** ** - - 0.954
0.852 **
*
1/10-scale model
RT D50 0.852 * **
0.982 0.852- * - **
0.954
Field measurement
D50 0.982 ** 0.954 ** -
RT 0.852 * 0.852 * -
Field measurement * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001.
D50 0.982 ** 0.954 ** -
* p4.4.1.
< 0.05, ** p < 0.001. Time
Reverberation
Elementary classrooms in Korea should have an RT of <0.6 s [2]. Table 6 shows
4.4.1. Reverberation Time
the configurations that produced RTs of ≤0.6 s. The 1/10-scale model yielded a shorter
Elementary classrooms
RT than the other experimentalin Korea should RW
methods. have+ an
CCRT of <0.6 s an
produced [2].RT
Table
of ≤60.6
shows
s in the
step
configurations that produced RTs of ≤0.6 s. The 1/10-scale model yielded a shorter
2. Step 3 yielded a suitable RT for all three configurations, implying that a sufficientRT than
the
areaother experimental
of the elementarymethods.
classroomRW + CC
must be produced an RT
covered with of ≤0.6 s in stepmaterial
a sound-absorbing 2. Step 3to
achieve the required acoustic performance. However, the RT may differ among classrooms.
Therefore, the acoustic performance of existing classrooms should be investigated, and a
sound-absorbing material should be gradually applied until the appropriate RT is achieved.

Table 6. Comparison of RT among configurations and experimental methods.

1/10-Scale Model Field Acoustic

Computer Modeling
Experiment Measurement
RW
1.18 s 0.70 s 0.83 s
(7% of total area)
RW + CC
0.75 s 0.60 s 0.74 s
(20% of total area)
RW + CC + FC
0.55 s 0.52 s -
(32% of total area)

4.4.2. D50
A D50 of >50% is required for speech intelligibility at all frequencies [46–48]. Table 7
shows that the measured values of D50 are greater than 50%. The D50 for the field mea-
surement was higher than for the other experimental methods. The D50 standard was met
Buildings 2024, 14, 222 17 of 20

at the RW in step 1. The D50 standard was also met in step 3 at the RW + CC. The field
measurement results were not available in step 3, but the other two experimental methods
indicated that the RW + CC + FC produced a D50 of ~70%, which would ensure a high level
of speech intelligibility.

Table 7. Comparison of D50 among configurations and experimental methods.

1/10-Scale Model Field Acoustic

Computer Modeling
Experiment Measurement
RW
51% 46% 68%
(7% of total area)
RW + CC
61% 55% 72%
(20% of total area)
RW + CC + FC
71% 66% -
(32% of total area)

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The appropriate locations for sound-absorbing material inside an elementary class-
room were determined in the present study to achieve an even D50 distribution while
meeting the RT standard. Three different experimental methods were used to measure and
compare the RT and D50 results for various configurations (Table 4). A summary of the
findings is presented as follows:
• The RW produced the shortest RT and the highest and most even D50 in step 1, while
the RW + CC produced the shortest RT and the highest and most even D50 in step 2.
Further, the RW + CC + FC produced the shortest RT and highest D50 in step 3, despite
using less sound-absorbing material than the AC. Thus, the RC + CC + FC is more
economical and acoustically sound than the AC, despite the latter’s widespread use in
Korean classrooms.
• The RW + CC + FC met the RT standard of <0.6 s suggested for elementary classrooms.
Furthermore, the RW + CC met the requirement of D50 > 50%. The best configuration
to ensure a high-quality acoustic environment for learning in a classroom appears to
be RW + CC + FC.
• Even when side walls are excluded from the interaural level difference, the uniformity
of D50 can vary depending on where the sound-absorbing materials are located within
an area. The back walls of many Korean elementary school classrooms are frequently
used as bulletin boards, but this should be improved to block late-reflected sound in
small spaces like classrooms.
• In comparison to an RT of 0.6 s, speech intelligibility for D50 can be achieved with a
smaller area of sound-absorbing materials. However, sufficient intelligibility values
can be obtained if an RT of 0.6 s is achieved in Korean elementary school classrooms
by strategically placing sound-absorbing materials.
• The current study examined the best location for sound-absorbing materials in Korean
elementary school classrooms based on D50 and RT, the two important parameters in
evaluating classroom acoustics. The findings reveal that the D50 can vary depending on
the sound-absorbing materials’ locations. This can lead to improved teacher–student
communication and an increase in satisfaction with the overall educational experi-
ence. However, several limitations should be mentioned. First, step 3 could not be
performed in the field acoustic measurement due to damage to the classroom ceiling.
Although this value can be predicted using scientific statistical methods, comparing
it to actual experimental data would be inappropriate. Hence, it was regarded as a
missing value in the present study. Furthermore, numerical simulations and scale
modeling are suitable for acoustic design. Obtaining a full-scale object to derive
some design principles is unnecessary. Second, the location of the sound-absorbing
materials was only investigated with a small group of students, excluding teachers,
Buildings 2024, 14, 222 18 of 20

and assuming that the classroom was mostly empty. When researching classroom
acoustics, future researchers must consider the occupied/unoccupied states of class-
rooms and teacher fatigue. Finally, the present study compared the level of acoustic
performance by dividing the ceiling into three equal parts based on the area of the rear
wall. However, this method may have limitations in other classrooms due to factors
such as HVAC systems and lighting. Overall, the findings of the present study and
those of future studies based on these limitations can hopefully be used as guidelines
for the development of national standards for classroom acoustic environments.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.-H.H.; methodology, S.-M.L. and C.-H.H.; software,

S.-M.L.; validation, S.-M.L. and C.-H.H.; formal analysis, S.-M.L. and C.-H.H.; investigation, S.-M.L.
and C.-H.H.; resources, C.-H.H.; data curation, S.-M.L.; writing—original draft preparation, S.-M.L.;
writing—review and editing, C.-H.H.; visualization, S.-M.L.; supervision, C.-H.H.; project admin-
istration, C.-H.H.; funding acquisition, C.-H.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant
funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (NRF-2020R1A2C2009963) and conducted during the
research year of Chungbuk National University in 2022.
Data Availability Statement: The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made
available by the authors on request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Nilsson, M.; Soli, S.D.; Sullivan, J.A. Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds
in quiet and in noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1994, 95, 1085–1099. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Jo, A.H.; Park, C.J.; Haan, C.H. Investigation of the appropriate reverberation time for lower-grade elementary school classrooms
using speech intelligibility tests. Buildings 2022, 12, 808. [CrossRef]
3. Park, C.J.; Lee, S.M.; Jo, A.H.; Haan, C.H. Influence of SNR on the speech perception of incomplete hearing people. Appl. Acoust.
2022, 201, 109091. [CrossRef]
4. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Guidelines for Addressing Acoustics in Educational Settings. 2004. Available
online: https://www.gofrontrow.com/resources/case-studies/guidelines-for-addressing-acoustics-in-educational-settings/
(accessed on 15 May 2022).
5. Crandell, C.C.; Smaldino, J.J. Classroom acoustics for children with normal hearing and with hearing impairment. Lang. Speech
Hear. Serv. Sch. 2000, 31, 362–370. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Nelson, P.B.; Soli, S. Acoustical barriers to learning: Children at risk in every classroom. Lang. Speech Hear. Serv. Sch. 2000, 31,
356–361. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Johnson, C.E. Children’s phoneme identification in reverberation and noise. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2000, 43, 144–157. [CrossRef]
8. Kuttruff, H.; Mommertz, E. Room acoustics. In Handbook of Engineering Acoustics; Müller, G., Möser, M., Eds.; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013.
9. Haas, H. The influence of a single echo on the audibility of speech. J. Aud Eng. Soc. 1972, 20, 146–159.
10. Thuele, R. Richtungsverteilung und zeitfolge der schallrückwürfe in Räumen. Acta Acust. United Acust. 1953, 3, 291–302.
11. Ansay, S.; Zannin, P.H.T. Using the parameters of definition, D50 , and reverberation time, RT, to investigate the acoustic quality of
classrooms. Can. Acoust. 2016, 44, 6–11.
12. IEC 60268-16:2020; Sound System Equipment—Part 16: Objective Rating of Speech Intelligibility by Speech Transmission Index.
IEC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
13. Sala, E.; Viljanen, V. Improvement of acoustic conditions for speech communication in classrooms. Appl. Acoust. 1995, 45, 81–91.
[CrossRef]
14. Bistafa, S.R.; Bradley, J.S. Predicting reverberation times in a simulated classroom. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2000, 108, 1721–1731.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Arau-Puchades, H. An improved reverberation formula. Acta Acust. United Acust. 1988, 65, 163–180.
16. Cucharero, J.; Hänninen, T.; Lokki, T. Influence of sound-absorbing material placement on room acoustical parameters. Acoustics
2019, 1, 644–660. [CrossRef]
17. Nijs, L.; Rychtáriková, M. Calculating the optimum reverberation time and absorption coefficient for good speech intelligibility in
classroom design using U50. Acta Acust. United Acust. 2011, 97, 93–102. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2024, 14, 222 19 of 20

18. ANSI S12.60-2002; American National Standard Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements, and Guidelines for
Schools. American National Standards Institute: New York, NY, USA, 2002.
19. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Guidelines for Acoustics in Educational Environments; American Speech-Language-
Hearing Association: Rockville, MD, USA, 1995; Volume 37, pp. 15–19.
20. Building Bulletin 93; Acoustic Design of Schools. British Department for Education and Employment: London, UK, 2015.
21. DIN 18041; Hörsamkeit in Räumen—Anforderungen, Empfehlungen und Hinweise für die Planung (Acoustic Quality in
Rooms–Specifications and Instructions for the Room Acoustic Design). Beuth: Berlin, Germany, 2018.
22. UNI 11532-2; Caratteristiche Acustiche Interne di Ambienti Confinati—Metodi di Progettazione e Tecniche di Valutazione—Parte
2. Settore Scolastico. UNI: Milano, Italy, 2020.
23. New Zealand Ministry of Education. Designing Quality Learning Spaces—Acoustics v3.0; New Zealand Ministry of Education:
Wellington, New Zealand, 2020. Available online: https://assets.education.govt.nz/public/Documents/Primary-Secondary/
Property/Design/Flexible-learning-spaces/DQLS-Acoustics-v-3.0-16-December-2020-Final.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2022).
24. Park, C.J.; Haan, C.H. Initial study on the reverberation time standard for the Korean middle and high school classrooms using
speech intelligibility tests. Buildings 2021, 11, 354. [CrossRef]
25. Lee, S.M.; Park, C.J.; Haan, C.H. Investigation of the appropriate reverberation time in learning spaces for elderly people using
speech intelligibility tests. Buildings 2022, 12, 1943. [CrossRef]
26. Knecht, H.A.; Nelson, P.B.; Whitelaw, G.M.; Feth, L.L. Background noise levels and reverberation times in unoccupied classrooms:
Predictions and measurements. Am. J. Audiol. 2002, 11, 65–71. [CrossRef]
27. Christensen, C.L.; Koutsouris, G.; Rindel, J.H. The ISO 3382 parameters: Can we simulate them? Can we measure them? In
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Room Acoustics, Toronto, ON, Canada, 9–11 June 2013; Volume 910.
28. Park, C.J.; Haan, C.H. Effects of the complexity of 3D modeling on the acoustic simulations and auralized sounds. J. Acoust. Soc.
Korea 2011, 30, 22–32. [CrossRef]
29. Harris, C.M. Absorption of sound in air versus humidity and temperature. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1966, 40, 148–159. [CrossRef]
30. ISO 3382-1:2009; Acoustics—Measurement of Room Acoustic Parameters-Part 1. Performance Spaces. International Standardiza-
tion Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
31. ISO 3382-2:2008; Acoustics—Measurement of Room Acoustic Parameters-Part 2. Reverberation Time in Ordinary Rooms.
International Standardization Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
32. Barron, M.; Chinoy, C.B. Auditorium acoustic modeling now. Appl. Acoust. 1983, 16, 279–290. [CrossRef]
33. ISO 354:2003; Acoustics—Measurement of Sound Absorption in a Reverberation Room. International Standardization Organiza-
tion: Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.
34. Chojnacki, B. Miniature omnidirectional sound sources used in acoustic scale modeling-measurements and validation. Vib. Phys.
Syst. 2022, 33. [CrossRef]
35. Bartlomiej, C.; Sang-Ik, T.C.; Ravish, M. Full range omnidirectional sound source for near-field head-related transfer-functions
measurement. J. Aud Eng. Soc. 2021, 69, 323–339. [CrossRef]
36. Baruch, K.; Majchrzak, A.; Przysucha, B.; Szelag, ˛ A.; Kamisiński, T. The effect of changes in atmospheric conditions on the
measured sound absorption coefficients of materials for scale model tests. Appl. Acoust. 2018, 141, 250–260. [CrossRef]
37. Bradley, J.S. Acoustical design of rooms for speech. In Institute for Research in Construction; National Research Council of Canada:
Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2002.
38. Lokki, T.; Kuusinen, A. Placement of absorption material: DIN 18041 is misleading. In International Conference on Auditorium
Acoustics; Institute of Acoustics: Milton Keynes, UK, 2023.
39. Jeong, D.U.; Oh, Y.K.; Chu, H.K. Spatial distribution of early reflection and speech intelligibility. J. Archit. Inst. Korea Suppl. 2001,
1, 537–540. (In Korean)
40. Ryu, D.J.; Park, C.J.; Haan, C.H. Interior surface treatment guidelines for classrooms according to the acoustical performance
criteria. J. Acoust. Soc. Korea 2016, 35, 92–101. [CrossRef]
41. Russo, D.; Ruggiero, A. Choice of the optimal acoustic design of a school classroom and experimental verification. Appl. Acoust.
2019, 146, 280–287. [CrossRef]
42. Park, C.J.; Haan, C.H. Effect of the inter-aural level differences on the speech intelligibility depending on the room absorption in
classrooms. J. Acoust. Soc. Korea 2013, 32, 335–345.
43. Berg, F.S.; Blair, J.C.; Benson, P.V. Classroom acoustics: The problem, impact, and solution. Lang. Speech Hear. Serv. Sch. 1996, 27,
16–20. [CrossRef]
44. Seep, B.; Glosemeyer, R.; Hulce, E.; Linn, M.; Aytar, P. Classroom Acoustics: A Resource for Creating Environments with Desirable
Listening Conditions Report; Acoustical Publications Society of America: Melville, NY, USA, 2000.
45. Pawirasasra, M.S.; Sampurna, R. The effect of boundary shape to acoustic parameter. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2016, 776, 012068.
[CrossRef]
46. Fasold, W.; Veres, E. Schallschutz und raumakustik in der praxis. In Planungsbeispiele Konstruktive Lösungen; Verlag für Bauwesen:
Berlin, Germany, 1998.
Buildings 2024, 14, 222 20 of 20

47. Queiroz de Sant’Ana, D.; Trombetta Zannin, P.H. Acoustic evaluation of a contemporary church based on in situ measurements of
reverberation time, definition, and computer-predicted speech transmission index. Build. Environ. 2011, 46, 511–517. [CrossRef]
48. Macho-Stadler, E.; Elejalde-Garcia, M.J. Measuring the acoustic response of classrooms with a smartphone. Phys. Teach. 2020, 58,
585–588. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.