Document ypjLkR9eXLDGqX188avX38Z73

FILE NAME: Pfizer (PFIZ) DATE: 1971 July 28 DOC#: PFIZ019 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Memo RE Kilnoise Acoustic Plaster - Problems & Improvements Inter-Office Comm unication MINERALS. PIGMENTS AND METALS D IVN PFIZER INC. 836 NATIONAL BANK BLOG. TOLEDO, OHIO 43604 M ark Hoffman - Easton July 28, 1971 Harry E. Reurke - Toledo . Kilnoise Acoustic P laster - Problem s and Improvements A t the presen t time, there a r e two problem s w ith K iln o ise a s we manu facture it today. Inadequate acoustical absorption (. 50 NRC minimal requirement). Potential environmental problem because of the asbestos ingredient. rk, the m ost important problem to solve is the need for an acoustical improvement on solid backing. Our literature, copy of which is enclosed, indicates that KUnolse has a noise reduction eoefflc'ency of .50 under the Rourke Method, and . 60 under the standard method (dry baseeoat applica tion), but this schedule of absorption is based on a suspended metal lath mounting which is typical in n o rm al school, church, etcetera, construction. However, the job that 1 am principally concerned with requires a solid mounting, which means that Kilnoise is being applied direct to concrete. This job is the new subway system in Toronto, Canada, which can amount to 100, 000 bags of Kilnoise or m ore. Kilnoise was accepted and is being applied on the tunnel job, predicated on its performance of at least .50 NRC on a solid backing. It then became necessary for us to build mock up samples and test them at Geiger Hamme Acoustical L aboratories at Ann Arbor, Mich igan, to meet the required minimum spec of . 50 NRC. To date we have run X panels at a variety of thicknesses on solid backing with the following results: 5 /8 " Perforated' (Test run May 3, 1971) 125 250 500 1,000 2,000 .10 .20 .35 .48 .59 4,000 .62 NRC .40 Actual .40 (.162) Perforated Brush Stippled (T est run February 26, 1971) 125 250 . 500 1,000 2,000 4.000 NRC Actual .11 .25 .42 .54 .65 .67 .45 46.5 SAMPLE 15821 52 C 04084 rk Hoffman ;e 2 ' P e rfo rate d 125 250 .15 .31 > Perforated 125 250 .8 .38 (T est run February. 26, 1971) 500 1,000 2,000 4,000 .37 .42 .38 .31 (Test run February 26, 1971) 300 1,000 2,000 4,030 ' .45 .43 .35 .26 NRC .35 NRC i 40 (Strong) Brush Textured and Perforated (Tett run July, 1971) 125 250 500 1,000 2,000 4,000.- NSC .1 6 .22 .30 .31 .33 .33 .30 you can see, we are not meeting at .50 NRC. In order for us to maintain our ition with regard to the tunnel application, it is imperative that xee do meet . 50 NRC even though we have to modify the product. iddition to the Toronto subway system, .we are working on another subway tem in Washington, D. C ., that will encompass 72 miles of tunnels. At the 'sent time, we are laying the groundwork for Kllnoiae to he specified and used, if we fail to meet performance In Toronto, there will be no opportunity to get Washington; D. C. job. A competitive m aterial tbat to my understanding has ;n used Is Cafco Sound Shield 65, as manufactured by 12. S. Mineral Products. n making arrangements to pick up sam ples off Caf co for your determination a s whether there is something in that product that would complement the NRC value Kilnolse when applied to a solid hacking. These sam ples should be in Easton week of August 5. Cafco claims that their m aterial contains lime, therefore, ists rusting and staining. We are presently shipping U. S. Mineral Products >roximateiy 100 tons of Type "N" Li me-a year, which we assum e they are puttinr. o a Sound Shield 85. In my opr?.*,an, they' should be using'Type " S " which would lance the application, but I would rather not eall that to their attention at this time. link a meeting would be in order between you. Bill Stephenson, Bob Plants and self, and Roger Linnett and Bon Ingram, if they can be available, to'review the tory of the development of Kilneise with regard to its changing in content and liscussion on application versus perform ance from an acoustical standpoint, doing this, we can develop a course te pursue with the Improvement, of the* prod- Z am hopeful that in finding ways to increase the acoustical value, we might io solve the potential hazard of asbestos and possibly eliminate the need for any sd tool work, such as brush texturing or nail perforating. In other words, if we re a material that we ean spray on and walk away from , with good acoustical val- , we may solve many problems and open new m arkets. Would you please review t foregoing and advise Bob Plante and myself as to when it would he convenient yo" to review this matter with us. cl. SAMPLE 15822 52: 04085