search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
108 INSULATION


The new Acoustic Verification Scheme has been created in response to concerns related to the comparability of acoustic airborne sound insulation claims


data, it was then possible to verify all of the test evidence that was being put forward and highlighted companies who had not tested operable walls as they should have done. In other words, it highlighted those who were testing an operable wall as a fixed partition. During that process, some companies withdrew from the scheme.


need to be able to understand the acoustic claims, in what conditions the products should be installed, and ensure that the results aren’t misleading.


Mind the gap With the acoustic performance of products being so important, and in a bid to curb growing incidents of ‘passing off,’ a new Acoustic Verification Scheme has been created. This is in response to confusion and concerns related to the comparability of acoustic airborne sound insulation claims.


The need for an acoustic verification process began to emerge with operable walls, as users were complaining these walls were not performing in the way that was expected. This was partly due to the installation process and partly due to it being the only partition that was dismantled and re-erected on a regular basis by non-trained staff. If the acoustic seals are not correctly locked when the walls are closed, acoustic integrity can be compromised by leakage allowing sound to come through any gaps between the panels. There have been incidences of falsification, and in some cases, tests revealed that manufacturers were treating an operable wall like a normal fixed partition, and physically sealing every joint. It actually needed to be tested like a door and operated five times before the test commenced, to demonstrate it was completely operable. This made a huge difference, enough to put some manufacturers in front of their competitors. As part of the scheme, which provides a method in which independent acoustic consultant Cundall verifies acoustic test


WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK


Consistent test framework For contractors such as Wilmott Dixon, the ability to verify acoustic test data meant they could specify manufacturers in confidence that it was a level playing field. They had been tested in the same way and had comparable figures. As a result, the contractor is only using operable walls that have met the requirements of the scheme. In the case of partitioning systems, it’s important to verify data to ensure that everyone in the market is working to a level playing field. While fixed partitions are different from operable walls, as all the joints can be sealed, it was agreed that a set of parameters that would constitute a test could be used for comparison reasons. This would then provide specifiers and architects with the assurance that if they choose a product from this list, all products will be tested in the same way and all data has been verified. It’s essentially a verification process; by simply taking the data companies are providing in test reports and verifying it meets the criteria required to meet the scheme.


Those seeking to exemplify best practice are recognised and rewarded for this, preventing inaccurate or misleading information from undermining the market and responsible manufacturers. Ultimately, it enables people to compare products and systems on a ‘like for like’ basis and be reassured that performance will be consistent, and reassures customers that their buildings will perform as expected.


Joe Cilia is technical director of FIS, the industry body for the UK finishes and interiors sector


ADF NOVEMBER 2020


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132