The Transmission Loss of Double Stud Walls with Layers of Gypsum Board Installed inside the Wall Cavity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A demising wall assembly that is frequently being specified for mid-rise and high-rise building constructions is a double steel stud wall assembly with one or more sheets of fire rated gypsum board installed inside the wall cavity between the rows of studs, creating a triple leaf wall. Locating the gypsum board inside the wall cavity can sharply decrease the transmission loss below the 200 Hz one-third octave band due to the creation of two mass-air-mass resonances centered around the 80 Hz one-third octave band. For the walls tested as part of this study, this decrease in the transmission loss was 14 to 17 dB. One theory for why gypsum board is being specified inside the wall cavity is the belief that the gypsum board in the wall cavity maintains the transmission loss of the wall even if residents create small holes in the outer gypsum board layers by hanging decorations on the wall or securing furniture to the wall. To disprove this theory, an increasingly larger number of holes were drilled into the gypsum board on both sides of a wall to determine the effect on the transmission loss. It was found that a significant number of holes, well in excess of normal use of a wall needed to be drilled into the gypsum board before the transmission loss was affected.
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) | 0.001 | 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".