Flanking Transmission at Joints in Multi-Family Dwellings. Phase 1: Effects of Fire Stops at Floor/Wall Intersections Nightingale, T.R.T. and Halliwell, R.E. www.nrc.ca/irc/ircpubs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report was supported by a Consortium including: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Forintek Canada Gypsum Manufacturers of Canada National Research Council Canada New Home Warranty programs of Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, and Yukon Ontario Ministry of Housing Owens Corning Fiberglas Canada Inc. Roxul Inc. Final Report -- October 7, 1997 Page i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fire stops can introduce a physical connection between the two sides of a double-stud wall, hence providing structural flanking paths for transmission of vibration which worsens the sound insulation. This study primarily addressed the specific case of a load-bearing party wall with double wood studs, supporting a floor with wood joists perpendicular to the party wall and a floor deck or sub-floor of 15.9 mm OSB. Even without structural transmission of vibration through a fire stop, the sound insulation in a real building is normally affected by flanking transmission. Addition of a fire stop provides yet another path for vibration transmission between the rooms, and hence tends to worsen the sound insulation further. This study examines how a fire stop at the floor/wall junction can degrade the apparent sound insulation of the party wall (the nominal separation) by increasing structural transmission of vibration around that wall via the connected floor system (the flanking path). Group 0 Constructions have no physical fire stop. Adding batt insulation to fill the wall's inter-stud cavities leaving a gap of 25 mm or less (Case 2) improves sound insulation provided by the party wall itself while adding negligible structural transmission. Strictly speaking, this is not a fire stop, but it does provide the necessary fire resistance (as shown in the companion study of fire spread) and meets the presc...
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".