Effect of structural changes on acoustic performance of wood frame walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sometimes in wood frame construction wall assemblies are required that have a higher axial loadbearing capacity than conventional loadbearing wall designs. To increase the axial load bearingcapacity to carry higher vertical loads, i.e. dead load or traffic load of upper building storeys, theframing has to be stronger, which can be achieved by either decreasing the spacing of the studs orby using stronger studs at a wider spacing. These significant structural measures increase the wallstiffness and thus can also affect the airborne sound insulation of the wall assemblies. The effectof wall stiffness on airborne sound insulation was investigated, by analysing bendingwavenumbers measured along the primary axis on the gypsum board leaf of a common staggeredstud wood frame wall and of assemblies with smaller than typical stud spacing (i.e. <400 mm),with multi-stud columns at a wider spacing, and with shear membranes in various configurations.A correlation in the change of bending wavenumber results and the change of airborne soundinsulation was found in frequency ranges where the wall stiffness was influenced by the designchanges. The results are promising and a first step towards a method for the estimation ofairborne sound insulation changes from the mechanical properties of the wall.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".