Applied Acoustics 76 (2014) 119–127

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Acoustics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apacoust

Technical Note

Towards better predictions of theatre chair absorption

using the perimeter-to-area method
Young-Ji Choi a,⇑, John S. Bradley b, Dae-Up Jeong a
a
Department of Architectural Engineering, Chonbuk National University, 664-14 1Ga, Duckjin-Dong, Duckjin-Gu, Jeonju, Jeonbuk 561-156, Republic of Korea
b
Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council, 1200 Montreal Rd., Ottawa K1AS 0R6, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The present study investigated factors influencing the precision of the perimeter-to-area (P/A) method for
Received 23 January 2013 predicting the absorption coefficients of theatre chairs in an auditorium, and proposes guidelines for
Received in revised form 6 July 2013 obtaining more precise predictions. Regression lines were fitted to measurements of the absorption coef-
Accepted 16 July 2013
ficients of blocks of theatre chairs with a range of P/A ratios obtained in full scale and scale model rever-
Available online 31 August 2013
beration chambers. The choice of numbers of samples, and sample P/A ratios, influenced the precision of
regression lines. Samples should be chosen to include a wide range of P/A values, but should not include
Keywords:
cases with only 1 row or only 1 chair in each row of sample blocks of chairs. Including a row space in front
Absorption coefficients
Theatre chairs
of the first row of each block of chairs, when calculating sample perimeters and areas, is more likely to
Perimeter to area lead to more precise predictions than excluding it. The precision of regression lines was also seen to vary
with the type of chair such that low absorption chairs and high absorption chairs tended to have less pre-
cise regression results.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction of an infinitely large sample of chairs. This procedure is necessary

Previous studies of thin layers of porous absorbers have found
that sample size influences the measured sound absorption coeffi-
cients in a reverberation chamber [1,2]. This is mainly caused by
the additional absorption and diffraction effects from the edges
of the sample. Bradley [3,4] showed that the absorption coeffi-
cients of theatre chairs were also linearly related to the sample
perimeter-to-are ratio, P/A, as occurred for typical porous absorb-
ing materials. Making use of this phenomenon, one can measure
the absorption coefficients of blocks of chairs with various P/A val-
ues in a reverberation chamber, and extrapolate to the P/A values
expected for the larger blocks of chairs found in an auditorium,
using linear regression fits to the measured values obtained in
the reverberation chamber. This method of estimating the ex-
pected absorption coefficients of chairs in an auditorium is referred
to as the P/A method. For example, the absorption coefficient of a
particular block of chairs, a, can be related to the P/A ratio of the
block of chairs by the following equation:
a ¼ bðP=AÞ þ a1
Here b is the slope of the regression line and a1 is the intercept of
the regression line which corresponds to the absorption coefficient
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 1029270563.
E-mail address: youngji@chonbuk.ac.kr (Y.-J. Choi).
because the absorption coefficients of blocks of chairs in a reverber-
ation chamber can be higher than the effective absorption coeffi-
cients of the larger blocks of chairs found in an auditorium and
the P/A method makes it possible to relate these values.
The precision of the predicted absorption coefficients is partly
determined by the errors associated with the original regression
lines. One can assess the precision of the process in terms of the
standard deviation of the measured data about each regression
line, which is referred to as the standard error of the estimate
(r). One can use these standard errors of the estimates to evaluate
various details of the measurement procedure along with related
coefficients of determination (R2), and significance levels (p-val-
ues). The success of the P/A method for predicting the absorption
coefficients of theatre chairs in large performance halls, from mea-
surements of sample blocks of chairs in a reverberation chamber,
has been demonstrated in a number of studies [3–8]. Previous
work by Choi et al. [8] has also demonstrated the success of scale
model tests for predicting the absorption coefficients of blocks of
chairs in a model recital hall.
ð1Þ However, the precision of the P/A method has yet to be consid-
ered in any detail. The effects of various factors on the precision of
the regression lines should be examined. This could lead to a better
definition of the P/A method and to improved precision for this
procedure. Better guidelines for obtaining more precise prediction
results, when using the P/A method, would help to encourage the
more general use of this method.

0003-682X/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2013.07.010
120 Y.-J. Choi et al. / Applied Acoustics 76 (2014) 119–127

The present study investigates the precision of the P/A method (a) type G
for predicting the sound absorption of theatre chairs. Four main
points are examined concerning the measurements of the absorp-
tion coefficients of sample blocks of theatre chairs in a reverbera-
tion chamber as part of the P/A method. These are: (1) to CCP
examine the effect of the numbers of samples and the sample con-
figurations on the precision of regression lines, (2) to consider the
importance of how the area of each sample is determined, (3) to
investigate how the precision of regression fits vary with the chair
characteristics, and (4) to show that scale model results can be
used to demonstrate the same effects as found in full scale mea-
surements of chairs with similar accuracies.

CCM
2. Measurement procedures

2.1. Full-scale reverberation chamber measurements

Metal
Tests were performed in a 254 m3 reverberation chamber, at the
National Research Council in Ottawa, having fixed diffuser panels
as well as a large rotating vane. The chamber was kept at a temper-
ature of 20 °C and a relative humidity of 50% and absorption coef-
(b) type H
ficients were corrected to be representative of these conditions
using the ANSI S1.26 standard [9], when there were small devia-
tions from these values. Reverberation time measurements were
made using least-squares linear fits to the decays from the ensem-
ble average of 20 interrupted pink-noise decays at each of nine
microphone positions in the room. Four independent noise sources
were used to create the interrupted noise decays, providing results
for the 36 combinations of source and receiver position. The facility CCP
requirements exceed those of ASTM C423 [10] which are said to
provide the best diffusion that is practically achievable. Although
measurements were made in 1/3-octave bands, the three individ-
ual 1/3 octave sound absorption coefficients in each octave band
were arithmetically averaged to produce a single octave-band va-
lue for subsequent comparison with octave-band measurements
in rooms.
As well as the chair absorption data already published [3,4], the Wood
data were taken from various unpublished tests performed over a
number of years. Groups of up to 18 chairs were measured in var-
ious configurations. All samples were measured with edges ex-
posed, because including screens around the chairs has been Plastic
shown to be less successful than using the P/A method without
screens [11]. The absorption coefficients were calculated using
Fig. 1. Sketch of side view of type G and type H chairs. CCM, cloth covered metal;
floor areas that included the row-to-row space in front of the first CCP, cloth covered absorptive pad.
row of each block of full scale chairs. The various samples had a
range of P/A values between 1.39 and 2.71 m1 for the types A to
E chairs with a row-to-row spacing of 0.91 m, between 1.54 and
3.31 m1 for the type F chairs with a row-to-row spacing of summarises the details of the 8 types of theatre chairs. Fig. 1 is a
0.76 m, between 1.37 and 6.01 m1 for the type G chairs with a sketch of chair types G and H which included absorptive seat and
row-to-row spacing of 0.9 m, and between 1.3 and 2.27 m1 for back pads. Similar sketches for chair types A to E can be found in
the type H chairs with a row-to-row spacing of 1.0 m. Table 1 [3], and for chair type F in Ref. [4].

Table 1
Descriptions of the 8 types of full scale theatre chairs.

Chairs Back pad Rear of back Seat pad Seat sides Seat underside Arm rests
A CCP Metal CCP CCP Metal Wood
B CCP CCM CCP CCP Metal Wood
C Thin CCP Rigid plastic CCP CCP Metal Wood
D CCP Metal CCP Metal Metal CCW
E CCP CCP CCP CCP Perforated metal CCP
F Wood Wood VCP Metal Metal Wood
G CCP CCM CCP CCP Metal CCP
H CCP Wood CCP Wood Plastic Wood

CCP = cloth covered pad, CCM = cloth covered metal, CCW = cloth cover wood, VCP = vinyl covered pad.
 Y.-J. Choi et al. / Applied Acoustics 76 (2014) 119–127
2.2. 1/10 scale reverberation chamber measurements
The volume of the 1/10 scale model reverberation chamber was
300 m3 (full scale) and it was built using 20 mm thick acrylic pan-
els. In the measurements, a 1.37-s logarithmic sine sweep from
1 kHz to 100 kHz was used, which corresponds to full-scale fre-
quencies from 100 Hz to 10 kHz. To eliminate the unwanted effects
of air absorption, the model chamber was filled with nitrogen dur-
ing each test. The reverberation chamber was kept at a constant
temperature of 25 °C and a relative humidity of 4%. Six combina-
tions of two source positions and three receiver positions were se-
lected for measuring the absorption coefficients of the unoccupied
chairs. Twenty dB of each decay, from 5 dB to 25 dB, was used
to calculate reverberation times according to the procedures de-
scribed in ISO 354 [12]. Prior to the measurements, the diffusivity
of the sound field in the reverberation room was also examined
according to ISO 354 [12]. There was no evidence of non-linear de-
cays over this range when the absorption of the chairs was mea-
sured. The measurements were made in 1/3-octave bands, but
the absorption coefficients were presented as octave-band values
derived by averaging the three individual 1/3 octave sound absorp-
tion coefficients in each octave band. A repeatability test of the
measurements for the absorption coefficients of the chairs was car-
ried out to check whether the results were consistent for each
measurement. The measurements were repeated three times, and
the results were presented as the mean absorption coefficients.
Model chairs having a width of 0.6 m (full scale) were con-
structed as a bench type seat with an underpass (see Fig. 2). A
1.0 mm single layer of felt was added on the seat and back of the
model chairs and these chairs are referred to as Felt chairs. Groups
of up to 24 model chairs were arranged in various-sized samples
having a range of P/A values between 1.11 and 5.56 m1 with a
row-to-row spacing of 0.9 m. The measurements were carried
out with the chair edges exposed and the absorption coefficients
were calculated using floor areas that included the row-to-row
space in front of the first row of each block of model chairs.
2.2. Model recital hall measurements
A 1/10 scale-model of a recital hall was used for measuring the
absorption coefficients of larger blocks of chairs with lower P/A val-
ues as found in auditoria. The model recital hall had a volume of
Fig. 2. Model Felt chairs. The height of the gap under the chairs was 150 mm (full scale).
121
1277 m3 (full scale) and was a simple rectangular shape with a flat
floor under the seating area. A sketch of the model recital hall is
found in Ref. [11]. The model recital hall was constructed using
15 mm thick varnished MDF panels. Periodic type diffusers, having
ribs that were 22 cm  22 cm in cross section (full scale), were in-
stalled on the side walls to prevent flutter echoes. The measured
scattering coefficients of periodic type diffusers averaged at mid-
frequencies (500 Hz and 1 kHz) were 0.58. Low-frequency sound
absorbing material was added on the ceiling to create an adequate
bass ratio for a recital hall. In the model recital hall measurements,
a single block of 11 rows of 16 model Felt chairs with a row-to-row
spacing of 0.9 m (full scale) was used. This block of chairs had a P/A
value of 0.41 m1. Reverberation times were measured both with
and without the model chairs in place using one source position
and 9 microphone positions. The hall was kept at a temperature
of 23 °C and a relative humidity of 8% during the measurements.
The unwanted effects of air absorption in the hall were avoided
by filling the model with nitrogen.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Effect of numbers of samples and sample P/A ratios
This section discusses the effects of the choice of the numbers of
samples and sample configurations, on the standard errors of the
estimates for each regression line. Bradley [3] suggested measuring
the sound absorption coefficients of samples with at least five dif-
ferent P/A values and extrapolating to the smaller P/A values of the
larger area seating blocks found in an auditorium. In general, hav-
ing a larger number of samples and a wider range of P/A values
should lead to more precise regression lines. Typically, 6–18 chairs
were included in each sample block for the reverberation chamber
tests. Very large samples can lead to less diffuse conditions in the
reverberation chamber and 24 chairs would correspond to the
maximum acceptable sample size of 10–12 m2 according to ISO
354 [12].
To explore the influence of numbers of samples and sample size,
measurements of type G chairs were made for 11 different samples
with a wide range of P/A values. The areas and P/A values of all 11
samples of type G chairs are given in Table 2. Fig. 3 shows the mea-
sured absorption coefficients plotted versus the sample P/A values
for the type G chairs. The regression lines shown on Fig. 3 were
122 Y.-J. Choi et al. / Applied Acoustics 76 (2014) 119–127

Table 2 blocks of chairs, described in Table 3, are quite different. In all oc-
Full scale Type G chair configurations included in regres- tave bands the standard errors of the estimates are larger when the
sion analyses of Fig. 3 and Table 2. (The notation R3C6
indicates a sample of 3 rows of 6 chairs in each row).
3 smaller samples are included (i.e. N = 11 case).
In both analyses the resulting regression lines were not statisti-
Configuration Area (m2) P/A (m1) cally significant for the 125 Hz octave-band results. At this fre-
R3C6 8.55 1.37 quency, the absorption coefficients were much lower than at
R6C3 8.55 1.63 other frequencies, and the slopes of the regression lines were close
R3C4 5.70 1.69
R4C3 5.70 1.82
to 0. That is, there was no evidence of a systematic variation of
R3C3 4.28 2.00 absorption coefficients with P/A values in the 125 Hz octave band.
R7C2 6.65 2.21 When using these 125 Hz results to predict the expected values in
R5C2 4.75 2.34 a large hall, one should simply average the measured absorption
R2C2 1.90 3.01
coefficients of the 8 representative samples of chairs as suggested
R1C2 0.95 4.12
R2C1 0.95 4.90 by Martellota and Cirillo [6].
R1C1 0.48 6.01 The effect of the number of samples and sample configurations
on the precision of the regression lines were also investigated
using model reverberation chamber tests of the model Felt chairs.
Although the sample blocks of chairs with a single row or a single
2.0 chair in each row are not representative of the larger chair blocks
125
250
in an auditorium, these sample blocks were tested to compare
500 the acceptable range of sample sizes and configurations with those
1000 for the full scale reverberation chamber measurement results. Ta-
Absorption coefficient

1.5 2000
ble 4 includes sample areas and P/A values for all samples of the
4000
model Felt chairs tested.
Fig. 4 plots the measured absorption coefficients versus sample
P/A values for the model Felt chairs. The absorption coefficients of
1.0
model Felt chairs increased with increasing P/A values of sample
blocks of chairs, but the absorption coefficients of the three

0.5
Table 3
Values of Intercepts (a1) and slopes (b) followed by their respective standard errors
(SE) from linear regression lines fitted to plots of absorption coefficients versus P/A
values for type G chair results. Also shown are the standard errors of the estimate (r)
0.0 of the data about each regression line, the associated probability of the results
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 occurring by chance (p), and the coefficients of determination (R2). The N = 11 results
P/A, m-1 included all samples in Table 2; the N = 8 results excluded the 3 smallest samples.
(ns = not significant, * p < 0.2, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01).
Fig. 3. Absorption coefficients versus sample P/A for type G chairs with a row-to-
row spacing of 0.9 m. Data points are shown for 11 samples of chairs, but the Frequency, Hz a1 SE b SE r p R2
regression lines shown are fitted to only the 8 open symbol points, that exclude the N=8
highest 3 P/A values listed in Table 2. 125 0.509 0.0650 0.017 0.0315 0.043 ns 0.047
**
250 0.846 0.0701 0.097 0.0339 0.046 0.575
***
500 1.008 0.0242 0.100 0.0117 0.016 0.924
fitted to the 8 data values corresponding to the lower P/A values. ***
1000 1.131 0.0362 0.139 0.0176 0.024 0.913
That is, they did not include the smaller samples R1C1, R2C1 and 2000 1.084 0.0617 0.147 0.0299 0.040 ***
0.802
R1C2. (The notation R2C1 indicates a sample of 2 rows of 1 chair 4000 1.085 0.0672 0.121 0.0325 0.044 ***
0.698
in each row). The regression coefficients for the plotted regression N = 11
lines are included in Table 3 along with those for the regression 125 0.565 0.0405 -0.008 0.0127 0.061 ns 0.040
**
lines calculated including all 11 samples of the type G chairs. The 250 0.964 0.0551 0.042 0.0173 0.084 0.390
***
regression coefficients included are: the slope (b) and intercept 500 1.074 0.0213 0.068 0.0067 0.032 0.920
***
1000 1.194 0.0223 0.109 0.0070 0.034 0.964
(a1) values, as well as the standard errors (SE) of these quantities, ***
2000 1.169 0.0395 0.107 0.0124 0.060 0.891
the coefficient of determination (R2), the associated level of signif- 4000 1.159 0.0363 0.086 0.0114 0.055 ***
0.862
icance (p-value) and the standard error of the estimate (r). The
absorption coefficients of the three sample blocks with the highest
P/A values (R1C1, R2C1 and R1C2) deviate more significantly from
the trends of the other samples with smaller P/A values in Fig. 3. Table 4
These deviations from the trends of the larger samples were great- Model Felt chair test configurations included in regression analyses of Fig. 4 and
Table 5.
er at lower frequencies (125 and 250 Hz) and for the two smallest
samples with the highest P/A values. This may be because very Configuration Area (m2) P/A (m1)
small blocks of chairs are too small relative to the wavelength to R4C6 12.96 1.11
have absorption characteristics representative of larger blocks of R3C5 8.10 1.41
chairs. Because of these results and the fact that blocks with only R5C3 8.10 1.56
one row of chairs, or only one chair in each row, could not include R3C4 6.48 1.57
R4C3 6.48 1.67
the mutual screening of chairs by other chairs as found in larger R3C3 4.86 1.85
blocks, these blocks were not included in the regression analyses R2C3 3.24 2.22
illustrated in Fig. 3 and are not considered representative of the R3C2 3.24 2.41
larger blocks of chairs found in an auditorium. R1C3 1.62 3.33
R3C1 1.62 4.07
The two sets of regression results, calculated from the measure-
R1C1 0.54 5.56
ments of all 11 sample blocks of chairs and those from 8 sample
 Y.-J. Choi et al. / Applied Acoustics 76 (2014) 119–127 123

2.0
blocks of chairs than indicated by the trends for the larger blocks
125
250
of chairs.
500 The different results for the type G chairs and the Felt chairs
1000 may be due to their quite different construction details. The model
2000
Felt chairs (Fig. 2) are less absorptive than the type G chairs and
Absorption coefficient

1.5
4000
would also form more complete barriers that would better screen
other chairs. Real theatre chairs, such as the type G chairs, usually
include many small gaps that would make them less effective at
1.0
screening other chairs. These construction differences could ex-
plain the different results for very small samples. However, it is
best to avoid such very small samples as likely not representative
0.5 of the larger blocks of chairs in large halls.
Possible separate effects of the number of chairs in each row
and the number of rows in each block of chairs were also investi-
gated as potential predictors of absorption coefficients of the sam-
0.0 ples of chairs in addition to the main effect of P/A. No systematic
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
effects of these additional variables were found that would add
P/A, m-1
to the prediction precision of the P/A values.
Fig. 4. Absorption coefficients versus sample P/A for model Felt chairs with a row-
to-row spacing of 0.9 m (full scale). Data points are shown for 11 samples of chairs,
3.2. Low absorption chairs and low significance regressions lines
but the regression lines shown are fitted to only the 8 data points shown as open
symbols, that exclude the 3 highest P/A values as described in Table 4.
Similar to the model Felt chairs, the type F full scale chairs also
had quite low absorption characteristics. The type F chairs had
non-upholstered plywood backs, heavy metal seat pans and vinyl
smallest sample blocks of chairs (R1C1, R1C3 and R3C1) were gen-
covered seat pads (Table 1). Some of the original type F chair
erally much higher than the trend determined by the larger blocks
regression coefficients (Table 1 of Ref. [4]) were found to include
of chairs.
small errors in the calculation of the air absorption correction for
Regression lines were fitted to all 11 sets of data shown in Ta-
ble 4 and to the 8 sets of data without the smallest 3 samples. Ta-
ble 5 includes the calculated regression coefficients for these Table 5
analyses. Fig. 4 includes the regression lines fitted to the 8 sets of Values of Intercepts (a1) and slopes (b) followed by their respective standard errors
(SE) from linear regression lines fitted to plots of absorption coefficients versus P/A
data. As found for the full scale type G chairs, the N = 8 case results
values for model Felt chair results. Also shown are the standard errors of the estimate
were not statistically significant in the 125 Hz octave band. For the (r) of the data about of each regression line, the associated probability of the results
N = 8 case the 500 Hz results were only marginally significant occurring by chance (p), and the coefficients of determination (R2). The N = 11 results
(p = 0.09) and the 2000 Hz results were not significantly related included all samples in Table 4; the N = 8 results excluded the 3 smallest samples.
to P/A values. These less significant results were again associated (ns = not significant, * p < 0.2, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01).
with lower slopes of the regression lines. For the model chairs, Frequency (Hz) a1 SE b SE r p R2
the regression analyses excluding the 3 smallest samples (N = 8) N=8
had lower standard errors of the estimates than for the case when 125 0.212 0.0418 0.021 0.0236 0.027 ns 0.086
all samples were included (N = 11). That is, excluding the 3 small- 250 0.209 0.0288 0.077 0.0163 0.018 ***
0.789
*
est samples would be expected to lead to more precise predictions 500 0.342 0.0277 0.031 0.0156 0.017 0.392
**
1000 0.420 0.0376 0.060 0.0213 0.024 0.556
of the absorption coefficients of the chairs in a large hall.
2000 0.540 0.0355 0.011 0.0201 0.022 ns 0.037
The less significant regression results for the model Felt chairs 4000 0.578 0.0607 0.083 0.0343 0.038 **
0.487
were probably due to the quite low absorption of the model Felt
N = 11
chairs, which were generally much less absorptive than the type 125 0.188 0.0241 0.039 0.0087 0.038 ***
0.696
G chairs. For the N = 8 results the less absorptive Felt chair results 250 0.185 0.0122 0.091 0.0044 0.019 ***
0.978
***
also had lower slope values than for the type G chairs in all octave 500 0.186 0.0355 0.126 0.0129 0.055 0.915
***
frequency bands. The lower absorption of the model Felt chairs is 1000 0.247 0.0532 0.156 0.0193 0.083 0.876
***
2000 0.253 0.0768 0.173 0.0279 0.120 0.810
presumably due to differences in amounts of absorbing materials 4000 0.253 0.0912 0.270 0.0331 0.142 ***
0.881
included in the two types of chairs and possibly also to the lack
of the many small spaces between components of each chair and
between chairs found for most types of full scale chairs such as
the type G theatre chairs. Less absorptive chairs have been found Table 6
to exhibit less variation of absorption coefficients with P/A ratio Values of intercepts (a1) and slopes (b) followed by their respective standard errors
and this will be discussed further in the next section. (SE) from linear regression lines fitted to plots of absorption coefficients versus P/A
values for type F chair results. Also shown are the standard errors of the estimate (r)
Barron and Coleman [5] tested small samples consisting of sin-
of the data about each regression line, the associated probability of the results
gle and double rows of model chairs to determine if the P/A meth- occurring by chance (p), and the coefficients of determination (R2). (ns = not
od could be extended to these cases. He found that the double rows significant, * p < 0.2, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01).
of model chairs seemed to fit his regression lines, but not the re-
Frequency, Hz a1 SE b SE r p R2
sults for the single row of model chairs. The measured absorption
N=7
coefficients of a single row of model chairs were very high com-
125 0.551 0.0468 0.021 0.0198 0.031 ns 0.188
pared to those measured with multiple rows of Barron’s model 250 0.557 0.0370 0.054 0.0156 0.024 **
0.704
chairs. The model Felt chair results for only 1 chair or only 1 row 500 0.557 0.0606 0.058 0.0256 0.040 *
0.504
***
in a block (R1C1 or R1C3) are in agreement with Barron’s results 1000 0.587 0.0179 0.045 0.0076 0.012 0.878
**
[5], but the results are different than the full scale type G chairs 2000 0.466 0.0302 0.033 0.0128 0.020 0.574
*
4000 0.347 0.0473 0.032 0.0200 0.031 0.340
that showed lower absorption coefficients for the smaller sample
124
0.8
0.7
Absorption coefficient
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
P/A, m-1
Fig. 5. Absorption coefficients versus sample P/A for type F chairs with a row-to-
row spacing of 0.76 m. Data points are shown for 7 samples of chairs and regression
details are found in Table 4. Less significant results are shown by open symbols
(125, 500 and 4000 Hz results).
differences in temperature and humidity between the reverbera-
tion chamber measurements with and without the chairs. When
the effects of the different air absorptions were corrected, the high
frequency results changed a little from the previously published
values and the results of regressions to the corrected values are in-
cluded in Table 6.
The regression results for these chairs in Table 6 and Fig. 5 in-
clude several less significant results. As for several other types of
chairs, the 125 Hz regression results were not significant. At
500 Hz the type F chair results were only marginally significant
(p = 0.07) and also they were not significant at 4000 Hz (p = 0.17).
These low significance results were again associated with lower
slope values. In spite of the low significance of some of the results,
the standard errors (r) of the estimates were mostly quite small
and there is not much evidence of increased scatter. That is, the
low absorption type F chairs had generally lower slopes that led
to less significant regression results even though there was not in-
creased scatter about the regression lines as indicated by the stan-
dard errors of the estimates. For example, the slopes of the
regression results in Table 6 for the type F chairs are all smaller
than those for the more absorptive type G chairs in Table 3. (The
r values and slopes for all 9 types of chairs are later presented in
Table 8).
Low significance regression results have often been reported for
chairs with lower absorption coefficients [6,7]. This was true for
the model Felt chairs and also for the type F full scale chairs. It is
also often the case for 125 Hz results where most chairs tend to
be less absorptive. However, the precision of the results, as indi-
cated by the standard error of the estimates, is usually similar to
the values at other frequencies in spite of the lack of a P/A effect.
This suggests that in these low significance and low slope cases,
one can predict the expected absorption coefficients for larger
blocks of chairs simply by using the average absorption coefficient
of all measured representative blocks of chairs as suggested by
Martellota and Cirillo [6].
While the results for most chairs show statistically significant
regression results, the practical question is how best to use the
absorption coefficient data obtained from the less significant rever-
beration chamber test results, to predict expected absorption coef-
ficients in an auditorium. It is important to realise that low
significance results do not mean one cannot predict the expected
absorption coefficients; they mean that there is little evidence that
absorption coefficients vary systematically with P/A values. At
Y.-J. Choi et al. / Applied Acoustics 76 (2014) 119–127
some point one must reject the regression approach as being not
statistically significant enough to be useful. Below some minimum
acceptable level of significance one should simply use the average
absorption coefficients to estimate values expected in an audito-
rium. This is equivalent to assuming a slope of 0 for the regression
line.
For much human factors research, a minimum acceptable level
of significance of p < 0.05 is often used. In other fields other criteria
are used. Inspection of the chair absorption data suggests there are
small benefits to using a lower minimum level of significance to
determine when to estimate absorption coefficients for larger
125
250 blocks of chairs from the regression results. Consequently, it is pro-
500
1000
posed that a significance criterion of p < 0.2 would be more appro-
2000 priate. For p < 0.2, there would be a 1 in 5 chance that the
4000 relationship could occur by chance, but it is still more likely that
3.5 4.0 the relationship is a systematic effect of the P/A value of the chair
samples. This is supported by visual inspection of the regression
lines shown in Figs. 3–5 where the low significance results often
indicate a definite positive slope. It is therefore recommended that
when the p-value is greater than 0.2, one should assume there is no
P/A effect and the absorption coefficients expected for large halls
should be estimated by arithmetically averaging the results from
all representative blocks of chairs.
Alternatively one could decide when to use the regression re-
sults for predictions based on a minimum acceptable slope value.
For the results in this paper, a minimum acceptable slope of
+0.028 would include the same cases as the p < 0.2 criterion and
might be an equally successful method of selecting the method
for calculating predictions. A slope based criterion better relates
to the usual physical cause of low significance regression results
for chair absorption data, but in some cases, might lead to using
insignificant results for cases with increased scatter and only mod-
erately low slope values. A significance level criterion would be the
safer approach.
Since these less significant cases often have slopes close to 0,
the two possible approaches will usually lead to quite similar esti-
mates of the absorption coefficients for a large hall. For example,
using the type G chair data at 125 Hz, the average absorption coef-
ficient is 0.544 and the prediction for a P/A of 0.5 would be an
absorption coefficient of 0.518. The difference of 0.026 is interme-
diate to the standard errors of the estimates for the type G chairs.
That is, the difference between the two approaches for this case
with low significance and low slope values is about the same as
the expected error for predictions from the results with statisti-
cally significant regression lines.
3.3. Comparison of the precision of regression fits for various types of
chairs
This section considers the variations in the precision of the
regression fits to plots of absorption coefficients versus P/A values
for 9 different types of chairs. The data were obtained from several
sources. The regression results for types A to E chairs were pre-
sented in Tables 2 and 3 of Ref. [3]. The regression results for the
type G chairs and the model Felt chairs are presented in Tables 3
and 5 of this paper. Table 6 presents the regression results for
the type F chairs and Table 7 the regression results for the type
H chairs. All full scale chairs are described in Table 1.
The precision of the regression fits to the data from the 9 types
of chairs (8 full scale types and the model Felt chairs) were com-
pared in terms of the standard errors of the estimates (r) of the
regression lines. The r values for the 9 types of chairs are included
in Table 8 along with the associated significance and slope values
for each of the octave-band regression lines. The precision of the
predictions of the regression lines are seen to vary considerably
with chair type.
 Y.-J. Choi et al. / Applied Acoustics 76 (2014) 119–127 125

Table 7 frequency. However, the average r values over chair type were
Values of Intercepts (a1) and slopes (b) followed by their respective standard errors lowest for the 500 and 1000 Hz results where the slopes tended
(SE) from linear regression lines fitted to plots of absorption coefficients versus P/A
values for type H chair results. Also shown are the standard errors of the estimate (r)
to have the highest values.
of the data about each regression line, the associated probability of the results There is some indication of a trend for the most and least
occurring by chance (p), and the coefficients of determination (R2). (ns = not absorptive chairs to have a little larger errors associated with the
significant, * p < 0.2, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01). regression lines calculated versus P/A values for them. However
Frequency (Hz) a1 SE b SE r p R2 for the low significance results, where there was no significant var-
N=6
iation with P/A values, there was no obvious trend for larger pre-
125 0.393 0.0396 0.037 0.0226 0.018 *
0.401 diction errors than for other more significant results.
**
250 0.807 0.0354 0.064 0.0202 0.016 0.712
***
500 0.849 0.0201 0.084 0.0115 0.009 0.930 3.4. Application of the P/A method
**
1000 0.931 0.0264 0.052 0.0151 0.012 0.751
*
2000 0.892 0.0197 0.028 0.0112 0.010 0.607
4000 0.879 0.0239 0.010 0.0137 0.011 ns 0.127 3.4.1. Calculation of sample perimeter and area
Previously published results showing the success of the P/A
method for predicting the absorption coefficients of chairs in per-
formance halls [3] were based on a particular procedure for calcu-
For chair types C, E, F, G and Felt, the results were not significant lating the area of the chair samples. Although this may be
in the 125 Hz octave indicating no systematic variations with P/A important to the success of the P/A method, it was not described
values. The standard errors of the estimates (r) varied with fre- in the previous publication. It was assumed that the area of the
quency and with chair type. All r values were less than 0.05. Even samples of chairs should include the space between the rows of
for the insignificant results (usually due to low slopes), one can ex- chairs in front of the first row, so that all rows were considered
pect to estimate absorption coefficients within approximately this to have the same area associated with them. Thus the sample areas
tolerance. When averaged over the frequencies from 250 to were determined as follows,
4000 Hz to get an idea of the overall precision for each chair type,
chair types E and G had average r values, of 0.029 and 0.034
Area ¼ ðR  Nr Þ  ðC  Nc Þ; ð2Þ
respectively, corresponding to the largest observed average values. where R is the row-to-row spacing in m, Nr is the number of rows, C
The type B chairs, were quite highly absorptive chairs and had an is the chair width in m and Nc the number of chairs in each row.
average r value of 0.025. These were followed by the least absorp- One can evaluate the merits of including a row-to-row space in
tive chairs, types F and Felt, with average standard errors of the front of the first row when calculating sample perimeters and areas
predictions over the same frequencies of 0.025 and 0.024 respec- by using the reverberation chamber test results of the 9 types of
tively. All other chair types had r values of less than 0.020 when chairs. If including this space leads to more precise regressions
averaged over frequency from 250 to 4000 Hz. When averaged lines, with lower standard errors of the estimates, then the proce-
over chair type, the standard deviations did not vary greatly over dure would be expected to provide more precise predictions of the

Table 8
Summary of: the standard errors of the estimate of the octave-band data about the regression lines (r), the statistical significance of the octave-band regression results (p-value),
and the values of slopes (b) for all 9 types of chairs. (ns = not significant, * p < 0.2, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01).

Chair type N Frequency (Hz)

125 250 500 1000 2000 4000
A 8 r 0.014 0.01 0.012 0.023 0.020 0.018
*** *** *** *** *** ***
p
b 0.071 0.113 0.134 0.123 0.103 0.098
B 7 r 0.021 0.017 0.019 0.026 0.026 0.036
*** *** *** ** ** **
p
b 0.091 0.112 0.072 0.069 0.084 0.087
C 7 r 0.011 0.019 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.005
* *** ** ** *
p ns
b 0.028 0.084 0.038 0.026 0.029 0.022
D 7 r 0.013 0.023 0.009 0.011 0.007 0.007
*** *** *** *** *** ***
p
b 0.085 0.089 0.07 0.059 0.064 0.059
E 6 r 0.018 0.041 0.014 0.022 0.027 0.039
* *** *** *** ***
p ns
b 0.03 0.113 0.18 0.239 0.283 0.325
F 7 r 0.031 0.024 0.04 0.012 0.02 0.031
** * *** ** *
p ns
b 0.021 0.054 0.058 0.045 0.033 0.032
G 8 r 0.043 0.046 0.016 0.024 0.040 0.044
** *** *** *** ***
p ns
b 0.017 0.097 0.1 0.139 0.147 0.121
H 6 r 0.018 0.016 0.009 0.012 0.01 0.011
* ** *** ** *
p ns
b 0.037 0.064 0.084 0.052 0.028 0.01
Felt 8 r 0.027 0.018 0.017 0.024 0.022 0.038
*** * ** **
p ns ns
b 0.018 0.075 0.029 0.059 0.009 0.082
126 Y.-J. Choi et al. / Applied Acoustics 76 (2014) 119–127
absorption coefficients of the chairs in large performance halls.
One could also consider other measures of the quality of the fitted
regression lines such as the associated R2 values or the significance
of the regression fit. However, as previously discussed, in some
cases, where regression fits are not statistically significant, the ex-
pected absorption coefficients of chairs when installed in auditoria
can be precisely predicted by simple averages of the absorption
coefficients of several samples of chairs in a reverberation cham-
ber. The standard deviation of these values about the mean value
can be compared to the standard errors of the estimates of the
regression lines for the more significant relationships. In this way
all reverberation chamber tests can be compared in terms of a
physically meaningful quantity.
For all 9 types of chairs (types A to H full scale and the model
Felt chairs) regression lines were fitted to plots of octave-band
absorption coefficients versus P/A values from reverberation cham-
ber absorption tests. This was repeated excluding and including
the space between rows in front of the first row of each sample
of chairs. For each of the 54 octave-band regression results, the
standard errors of the estimates were calculated. The two sets of
results were compared by calculating the differences between
the two sets of standard errors. Of the 54 pairs of octave-band re-
sults, most differed by less than ±0.01. In only 7 cases did the inclu-
sion of the row space in front of the first row decrease the error by
0.01 or more. In no cases did excluding the space in front of the
first row lead to a decreased standard error by at least 0.01. How-
ever, in 7 cases (13%) there was a practically useful improvement
in prediction precision, when the row-to-row space was included
for the first row of the samples, and this approach is therefore
preferred.
3.4.2. Accuracy of predictions for performance spaces
Small differences in regression coefficients when the space be-
tween rows is included or excluded from in front of the first row of
chairs, might also influence the precision of predictions of chair
absorption in performance halls. Figs. 4–7 of [3] showed the agree-
ment between the absorption coefficients measured in theatres
and those predicted using the P/A method when the row-to-row
space was included for the first row of the samples of chairs. How-
ever, no calculations were included where the row-to-row space in
front of the first row was excluded. Choi et al. have demonstrated
the success of the P/A method for model chairs [8]. By calculating
the sample areas to include a space in front of the first row, equiv-
alent to the row-to-row spacing of the chairs, they were able to
predict measured absorption coefficients in a model recital hall
quite precisely (Fig. 13 of Ref. [8] and Fig. 13 of Ref. [11]).
The regression results of the measurements of the model Felt
chairs using 8 different samples were used to predict expected
absorption coefficients of larger blocks of chairs in the model reci-
tal hall and to test the merits of including the row-to-row space in
front of the first row when calculating sample perimeters and
areas. Fig. 6 includes a comparison of the measured absorption
coefficients of the chairs in the model recital hall with the two pre-
dictions from the results for 8 samples of chairs. The two predic-
tions (with and without the row-to-row space in front of the first
row) were quite similar but in this case show a little better predic-
tion of the measured values when the row-to-row space is in-
cluded in front of the first row.
Measurements using the model Felt chairs were also used to
demonstrate the importance of including only samples of chairs
that are representative of larger blocks of chairs, when applying
the P/A method. That is, one should not include samples with
either only one row of chairs or only one chair in each row of
chairs. Fig. 6 compares measured absorption coefficients for the
model Felt chairs in the model recital hall with predicted absorp-
tion coefficients of the chairs from different groups of samples.
0.7
Measured
11 samples
0.6
8 samples
8 samples, No Space
Absorption coeffcient
7 samples
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
125 250 500 1000 2000 4000
Frequency, Hz
Fig. 6. Absorption coefficients of model Felt chairs predicted from reverberation
chamber measurements of chairs, compared with measured values in the model
recital hall (P/A = 0.41 m1). Results using 7, 8 and 11 samples of chairs are shown.
All samples included a row-to-row space in front of the first row except, the 8
samples results labelled ‘‘No Space’’ which had no space in front of the first row of
each sample of chairs.
The three predicted sets of absorption coefficients included differ-
ent numbers of samples in the reverberation chamber tests: (1) 11
samples, including the very small samples, (2) 8 samples, exclud-
ing the three cases of only 1 row or only 1 chair in each row of
chairs (i.e. R1C1, R3C1 and R1C3), and (3) 7 samples which were
the same as the 8 samples but also excluded the largest sample
block of chairs (R4C6). All cases included the row-to-row space
in front of the first row of chairs. The predicted absorption coeffi-
cients of the model Felt chairs using all 11 samples show large dis-
crepancies at mid- and high-frequencies relative to the values
measured in the model recital hall. As seen in Fig. 6, the largest dif-
ference is 0.2 at 4000 Hz.
The small sample blocks of chairs, with the highest P/A values,
have a large influence on the regression lines used to predict the
values in the recital hall and including them led to poor agreement
with the measured values in the recital hall. The predicted absorp-
tion coefficients of the model Felt chairs using 8 samples or 7 sam-
ples show good agreement with the measured values in the model
recital hall. The differences between predictions and measure-
ments were slightly smaller at high-frequencies for the predicted
absorption coefficients of model Felt chairs using 7 samples. The
largest discrepancies between the predicted and measured absorp-
tion coefficients of the model Felt chairs were 0.10 and 0.08 at
2000 Hz for those values predicted with 8 samples and 7 samples
respectively. That is, for all 6 octave bands, all predictions are with-
in 0.1 of the measured values. This is a little better than the predic-
tions of occupied chair absorption coefficients in 3 halls in Ref. [4].
These results demonstrate the value of using acoustical scale
models to confirm the precision of the P/A method for predicting
the expected sound absorption of chairs in a recital hall. Scale mod-
els make possible much better control of conditions than is usually
possible in full scale performance spaces. However, the current
new results suggest that the absorption characteristics of model
chairs must be accurately representative of full scale chairs.
4. Conclusions
The choice of the numbers of samples and sample configura-
tions for predicting the absorption coefficients of the larger blocks
of chairs in an auditorium can have a great influence on the
 Y.-J. Choi et al. / Applied Acoustics 76 (2014) 119–127
precision of the regression lines for both full scale and model
chairs. The results in this paper confirm that the previous recom-
mendation of at least 5 samples of chairs with the widest possible
range of P/A values is desirable when applying the P/A method.
However, very small samples that include only one row of chairs,
or only one chair in each row, should not be used. Such smaller
blocks of chairs are not representative of larger blocks of chairs
and would not include the same screening of chairs by other chairs
as found in larger blocks of chairs. Reverberation chamber tests of
both model and full scale chairs showed that including the very
small blocks of chairs led to quite different and less precise regres-
sion lines. Similarly, very large samples that may decrease the de-
gree of diffusion in the reverberation chamber should be avoided.
Although a number of relationships between absorption coeffi-
cients and P/A values were not statistically significant, it is still pos-
sible to predict absorption coefficients expected for the larger
blocks of chairs in an auditorium using the average absorption
coefficients of the samples measured in a reverberation chamber.
This is because almost all low significance regression results were
mostly due to the low slopes of the regression lines and not just to
increased scatter about the regression lines. It is proposed that
when the statistical significance of the regression lines fitted to
the measurements in reverberation chambers does not correspond
to p < 0.2, the expected values in large halls should be predicted as
the average of the measured values. The p < 0.2 criterion was found
to be approximately equivalent to requiring a minimum slope of at
least +0.028 for the regression lines.
The precision of the P/A method can vary with the type of chair.
There were indications of a trend that the prediction errors were
largest for the most and least absorptive chairs. Lower absorption
coefficient values were usually associated with low regression
slopes (slopes less than about 0.028), which led to insignificant
regression results. This was quite common for the 125 Hz results
and for chairs that generally included less absorptive material.
The calculation of sample areas and perimeters with the same
row-to-row space associated with all rows of chairs, including
the first row, was seen to be a little more successful than the alter-
native of excluding this space in front of the first row.
127
The new results demonstrate the value of using model tests to
better understand the sound absorption of theatre chairs, but mod-
el chairs must be used that accurately model the sound absorption
characteristics of full scale chairs.
Acknowledgements
This work was partly supported by a National Research Founda-
tion of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (1101-
000381). The travel grant to support collaboration for this research
was provided by the Korean Advanced Institute of Women in Sci-
ence, Engineering and Technology Support Programs for R&D
Activities, 2011.
References
[1] Ten Wolde T. Measurements on the edge-effect in reverberation rooms.
Acustica 1967;18:207–12.
[2] Bartel T. Effect of absorber geometry on apparent absorption coefficients as
measured in a reverberation chamber. J Acoust Soc Am 1981;69(4):1065–74.
[3] Bradley JS. Predicting theatre chair absorption from reverberation chamber
measurements. J Acoust Soc Am 1992;91(3):1514–24.
[4] Bradley JS. The sound absorption of occupied auditorium seating. J Acoust Soc
Am 1996;99(2):990–5.
[5] Barron M, Coleman S. Measurements of the absorption by auditorium seating –
a model study. J Sound Vib 2001;239(4):573–87.
[6] Martellota F, Cirillo E. Experimental studies of sound absorption by church
pews. Appl Acoust 2009;70(3):441–9.
[7] Martellota F, D’alba M, Crociata SD. Laboratory measurement of sound
absorption of occupied pews and standing audiences. Appl Acoust
2011;72(6):341–9.
[8] Choi YJ, Lee JH, Joo HK, Jeong DU. Effect of sample size on measurement of the
absorption by seats. Build Acoust 2011;18(1,2):83–96.
[9] ANSI S1.26. Method for calculation of the absorption of sound by the
atmosphere. Standards Secretariat Acoustical Society of America. 120 Wall
St., 32nd floor, New York, NY; 1995
[10] ASTM C423-02a. Standard test method for sound absorption and sound
absorption coefficients by the reverberation room method. American Society
for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, USA; 2002.
[11] Choi YJ, Bradley JS, Jeong DU. Effects of edge screens on the absorption of
blocks of theatre chairs. Appl Acoust 2012;73(5):470–7.
[12] ISO 354-Acoustics. Measurement of sound absorption in a reverberation room;
2003.