Effects of flooring, topping and underlayment on impact sound insulation of wood-joisted floor-ceiling assemblies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Footstep impact noise transmission through floor-ceiling assemblies is a major source of complaints in wood-framed multi-family buildings. Experience shows that adding a finishing-topping-underlayment sandwich on a base floor-ceiling assembly significantly affects the noise transmission. So far, no reliable tool has been developed for designing the proper sandwich and most proposed solutions rely basically on trial and error. FPInnovations has launched a major research project to develop such tools. First phase of the project is focused on understanding the effects of flooring, topping and underlayment on the impact sound insulation. A mock-up assembly simulating a pair of typical stacked rooms was built. Standard field impact sound transmission tests were conducted on floors topped with a 1.2m by 1.2m four-layer sandwich patch. By varying the combination of flooring, topping and underlayment, over 50 patches were tested to better understand the effects of the type of materials in each layer on the assembly's overall impact sound insulation. Based on a large number of tests conducted so far, it is evident that proper combination of flooring, topping and underlayment produces satisfactory impact sound insulation on wood-joisted floor-ceiling assembly. Verification testing on the assembly fully covered by the 4-layer samples is under way.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".