1. Biblio Summary on Vibration
Vincent Wong

2. Overview of Nano-scale Level Facilities

3. Standards of Vibration Criteria
Use of vibration criteria in the selection of structural systems for nanotechnology research.pdf

4. Navigating vibration scaling
TMC 2007 Technical Background.pdf

5. Brief Overview of Vibration Isolation Performance in the World

6. NC-NT looks like NC-10 in Noise Criteria Rating
Sound pressure level reference sound pressure in air is 20 µPa RMS,
Desired Vibration Amplitude: condition close to Cornell i.e. 1E-8 – 1E-9
Desired SPL: 0-10db?
NC-NT looks like NC-10 in Noise Criteria Rating
See appendix on p.21 for the complete graph of Noise Criteria Rating
Generic Vibration Criteria for Nanotechnology Experiments.pdf

7. Institute
Vibration Amplitude
Concern
Features
NIST-A
0.025mm/s for 1<f<20Hz
3mm/s for 20<f<100Hz
Noise isolation need to be improved by 20-25dB for 60<f<100Hz (see appendix on p.20)
Temp & humidity control
Acoustic isolation
EMI & RF shielding
Clean power
3 layers of isolators?
NIST-A1
6mm/s for f<5Hz
0.75mm/s for 5<f<100Hz
Cornell University – Davis Lab
0.01mm/s for 20<f<70Hz
0.001mm/s for 70<f<180Hz
(See p.3)
Vibration
Acoustics
EMI
20 tons inertia block
2 layers of passive isolators
Elimination of building services
Cambridge
0.01mm/s for 5<f<80Hz
(See p.12)
38 tons inertia block
Gaithersburg, MD site
1mm/s for 6<f<50Hz
0.01mm/s for 50<f<100Hz
(See p.14)
Elevated commuter trains
Heavy truck traffic
118 tons inertia block
2 layers of active isolators + 1 layer of semi-active air springs

8. Institute
Vibration Amplitude
Concern
Features
Princeton University – Low Vibration Lab
30 tons inertia block
Two levels of access (experiment & cryogenics)
RF & EMI shielding
Trinity College Dublin - CRANN
Elevated commuter trains
Heavy truck traffic
Basement
A one meter thick concrete slab on the typical Dublin boulder clay with concrete plinths on springs or resilient pads

9. NIST
NIST-TOUR-BOOK.pdf

10. Cornell University – Davis Lab
Why does one nano lab cost more than another.pdf

11. (Con’t)
Why does one nano lab cost more than another.pdf

12. Cambridge
Generic Vibration Criteria for Nanotechnology Experiments.pdf

13. (Con’t)
Generic Vibration Criteria for Nanotechnology Experiments.pdf

14. Gaithersburg, MD site
Generic Vibration Criteria for Nanotechnology Experiments.pdf

15. (Con’t)
Generic Vibration Criteria for Nanotechnology Experiments.pdf

16. Princeton University – Low Vibration Lab
Why does one nano lab cost more than another.pdf

17. Trinity College Dublin - CRANN
Why does one nano lab cost more than another.pdf

18. Environmental Disturbances
In general, the followings are the common environmental disturbances/concern:
Seismic vibration from the lab floor
Mechanical disturbance
Inside building: pump, HVAC system, people walking, etc.
Outside building: traffic(subway), construction sites
Acoustic force acting on setup(i.e. SPL)
Resonant modes of the slab
Acoustic Resonant
EMI
RFI
Temperature stability -> mechanical distortion
Generic Vibration Criteria for NanoTech.pdf

19. Disturbance Sources for nanoG
Inside the building near nanoG:
Huge compressor in mechanical room
Ventilation fans for the building
Ventilation system for nanoG
Pumping system outside room
Power lines
People walking around
Outside:
Construction sites
Traffics

20. Common Practices to Perform Vibration Isolation
Common Features of Nanotech lab in the world
NanoG
Basement Lab
Yes
Multiple layers of isolators
2 layers (isolators on slab & frame)
Rectangular-shaped Slab
nanoG room 1: Hexagon-shaped Slab
nanoG room 2&3: Rectangular-shaped Slab
Acoustic shielding
Anechoic material between double-layer wall (partly installed)
Double layers of acoustic Door
RFI & EMI shielding
Temperature control

21. Appendix I: NIST’s SPL level

22. Appendix II: NR Curve (European scale)

23. Appendix II: NC Curve (US scale)

24. Overview of Acoustic Door Standards

25. What is STC?

26. Weaknesses

27. Sound Transmission Class
STC
Performance
Description
50-60
Excellent
Loud sounds heard faintly or not at all
40-50
Very Good
Loud speech heard faintly
TruStile Doors with Correct Gasketing
35-40
Good
Loud speech heard but hardly intelligible
30-35
Fair
Loud speech understood fairly well
25-30
Poor
Normal speech understood easily and distinctly
Typical Hollow  Core Door
20-25
Very Poor
Low speech audible
The above table shows how the quality of the doors are represented by the STC value.
See appendix on p.28 for Comparison of SPL and Loudness Sensations

28. Changes in STC/Changes in Apparent Loudness
Changes in STC Rating
Changes in Apparent Loudness
+/- 1
Almost imperceptible
+/- 3
Just perceptible
+/- 5
Clearly noticeable
+/- 10
Twice (or half) as loud

29. Expected Performance of Acoustic Doors in nanoG
STC value of our doors
Source SPL (dB)
Expected Transmitted SPL (dB)
39-52 (Very good) 80
28-41 60
8-21
54-59 (Excellent)
21-26
1-6

30. Appendix III: