Tools for predicting impact sound transmission based on the ISO 12354 calculation framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The National Building Code of Canada (NBC) does not currently include protection from impact noise in dwellings. However, it is possible that such a requirement might be introduced in one of the future code cycles. To this end, the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) has formed an industry-sponsored consortium, the Special Interest Group on Impact Sound (SIG Impact), with industry associations and product manufacturers as members. The goal of SIG Impact is to prepare builders, designers, and acoustical consultants for a future change to the NBC, by providing design guidance in the form of a research report and an online tool. The new research report, RR-332, follows the successful model of the published research report on airborne sound transmission, RR-331, in providing guidance and explanations on how to calculate and combine direct and flanking impact sound transmission. RR-332 uses the method given in ISO 12354-2, adapted to the relevant ASTM standards used in North America. This paper provides an overview of RR-332, how the implementation of ISO 12354-2 is achieved using ASTM standards, and presents several calculation examples. In addition, the future update to the online tool SoundPATHS to calculate impact sound transmission 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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".