Empirical corrections for predicting the sound insulation of double leaf cavity stud building elements with stiffer studs

The experimentally determined normal incident mass-air-mass resonance frequency for a double leaf cavity stud building element is significantly greater than the theoretically predicted frequency for wood studs and steel studs manufactured from thicker sheet steel. This paper gives a method for calcu...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America Vol. 145; no. 2; p. 703
Main Authors Davy, John L, Fard, Mohammad, Dong, Wayland, Loverde, John
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States 01.02.2019
Online AccessGet more information

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:The experimentally determined normal incident mass-air-mass resonance frequency for a double leaf cavity stud building element is significantly greater than the theoretically predicted frequency for wood studs and steel studs manufactured from thicker sheet steel. This paper gives a method for calculating the effective mass-air-mass resonance frequency as the root mean square sum of the mass-air-mass resonance frequency and the resonance frequency of the first bending wave mode of the leaves between the studs. This calculation should use the isothermal mass-air-mass resonance frequency if the building element cavity contains porous sound absorbing material. If the cavity does not contain porous sound absorbing material, the usual adiabatic mass-air-mass resonance frequency should be used in the calculation. Because the exact boundary conditions of the building element leaves at the studs and the effective in situ damping are unknown, the paper gives empirical correction factors to determine the actual resonance frequency and the depth of the dip in the predicted sound insulation. This paper also gives empirically derived formulae for the line and point equivalent translational compliances of steel studs manufactured from different sheet steel gauges and compares them with formulae derived by other authors for the case of 25 gauge steel studs.
ISSN:1520-8524
DOI:10.1121/1.5089222