Flanking impact sound transmission in wood-framed multifamily construction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports findings from a recently completed study of flanking sound transmission involving the wall/floor junction in wood-framed multifamily buildings. Flanking transmission exists in all buildings, but it can be controlled through good design. The paper examines how common construction details affect flanking paths between horizontally, vertically, and diagonally separated rooms. Variables considered include mounting conditions and orientation of the floor joists, framing of the wall assembly and any associated fire blocking, and mounting and number of layers of gypsum board. Estimates of the apparent sound insulation were obtained by summing the energy transmitted by the direct path through the wall or floor assembly separating the pair of rooms, and all the flanking paths involving the relevant wall-floor junctions. Results indicate that if there is no floor topping (i.e., the subfloor is bare) the apparent sound insulation for both airborne and impact sources is typically limited by flanking transmission involving the floor. Since, the source room floor is an element common to all impact flanking paths, three different toppings were evaluated as treatment options, and additional layers of gypsum board and resilient mounting were considered as options for the walls. The effectiveness of each option is discussed
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".