Sound insulation of Finnish building boards - Centria tutkimus ja ...

Sound insulation of
Finnish building boards
Petra Larm, Jarkko Hakala, Valtteri Hongisto
Work Environmental Research Report Series 22
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, 2006

Larm P, Hakala J, Hongisto V
Sound insulation of Finnish building boards

Work Environmental Research Report Series 22
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, 2006
SUMMARY OF PUBLICATION
Publication:
Authors:
Title:
PROJECT
Work Environmental Research Report Series 22, Finnish
Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland, 2006.
ISBN 951­802­713­7, ISSN 1458­9311
Larm P, Hakala J, Hongisto V
Sound insulation of Finnish building boards
Research project: dBuilding
Department in Charge: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Good Indoor
Environment Theme, Laboratory of Ventilation and
Acoustics, Turku
Financier:
Tekes, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, companies
Project Duration: 1/2003 –12/2006 FIOH project number: 305017
Date of publication: Aug 23, 2006 Permission to publish: Aug 2006
Pages: 34 Volume: 1
ABSTRACT
The airborne sound insulation of 27 Finnish building boards were investigated in
laboratory conditions. The goal was to attain reliable and comparable sound
insulation data for these products by using the same measurement arrangement and
mounting method during each test. The sound reduction index was determined
according to ISO 140­3 and ISO 717­1. Physical properties, such as the total loss
factor, surface mass, and Young's modulus, were also determined to improve the
material data base used in sound insulation prediction models. The measurements
were made in the laboratory of acoustics of Finnish Institute of Occupational Health
in Turku.
The surface masses of the boards lied between 3 and 31 kg/m 2 . The weighted sound
reduction indices, R w , lied between 23 and 40 dB. The results predicted by the
physical properties of the boards will be presented in a subsequent report. The
results of this study can be exploited by manufacturers, designers, constructors and
researchers.

Larm P, Hakala J, Hongisto V
Sound insulation of Finnish building boards
JULKAISUTIEDOT
Julkaisu:
Kirjoittajat:
Otsikko:
Työympäristötutkimuksen raporttisarja 22, Työterveyslaitos,
Helsinki, 2006
ISBN 951­802­713­7, ISSN 1458­9311
Larm P, Hakala J, Hongisto V
Rakennuslevyjen ääneneristävyys
PROJEKTITIEDOT
Tutkimusprojekti: Ääneneristävyys vaativissa rakennuksissa ­ dBuilding
Vastuullinen osasto: Työterveyslaitos, Laadukas sisäympäristö ­teema,
Ilmastointi­ ja akustiikkalaboratorio, Turku
Rahoittaja: Tekes, Työterveyslaitos, 6 rakennusalan yritystä
Projektin kesto: 1/2003 –12/2006 TTL:n projektinumero: 305017
Painopäivämäärä: 23.8.2006 Julkaisuvapaa: heti
Sivuja: 34 Painos: 1
TIIVISTELMÄ
Tutkimuksessa selvitettiin 27 suomalaisen rakennuslevyn ilmaääneneristävyys
laboratorio­olosuhteissa. Tarkoituksena oli aikaansaada mahdollisimman
vertailukelpoisia mittaustuloksia. Jokaisen mittauksen yhteydessä käytettiin samoja
mittausjärjestelmiä eikä näytteen asennustapaa muutettu näytteiden välillä.
Ilmaääneneristävyys määritettiin ISO 140­3 ja ISO 717­1 mukaan. Myös
kokonaishäviökerroin, pintamassa ja Youngin moduli määritettiin, jotta voitaisiin
parantaa ääneneristävyyden ennustelaskelmissa käytettävää materiaalitietokantaa.
Mittaukset tehtiin Työterveyslaitoksen ilmastointi­ ja akustiikkalaboratoriossa
Turussa.
Tutkittujen rakennuslevyjen pintamassat vaihtelivat 3 ja 31 kg/m 2 välillä.
Ilmaääneneristysluvun R w arvot vaihtelivat 23 ja 40 dB välillä. Levyjen fysikaalisten
ominaisuuksien mukaan ennustetut tulokset esitetään vasta seuraavassa raportissa.
Tutkimuksen tuloksia voivat hyödyntää rakennustuotevalmistajat ja ­toimittajat,
suunnittelijat, rakentajat ja tutkijat.

Work Environmental Research Report Series 22
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, 2006
FOREWORD
This investigation was a part of dBuilding project which was carried out
during 2003­2006 in Finnish Institute of Occupational Health in Turku. The
aim of the project was to develop the prediction models of airborne sound
insulation of multilayer walls.
As a part of the project, the sound insulation of single building boards had to
be investigated since they form the basis of multilayer walls. There were
very little reliable data available on single building boards as such, although
they are applied in various multilayer structures.
The measurements were carried out by Jarkko Hakala and Petra Larm
during December 2004 and July 2005.
The research project was financed by Tekes, Rautaruukki, Knauf, Saint­
Gobain Isover, Antti­Teollisuus, Aker Yards Piikkiö and Kurikan Interiööri.
Thanks are due to the contact persons for their support and useful
comments in the meetings of the steering group.
The final report of the dBuilding project deals with the prediction model of
multilayered walls. The report will be published during 2007 in this report
series.
Turku, August 23, 2006
Valtteri Hongisto

Larm P, Hakala J, Hongisto V
Sound insulation of Finnish building boards
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 7
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS..................................................................................... 8
3. MOUNTING ........................................................................................................... 10
4. THEORY IN BRIEF................................................................................................. 12
5. RESULTS............................................................................................................... 14
5.1 The dependence of R W on the surface mass........................................................ 15
5.2 Predicted R W versus measured R W ...................................................................... 15
5.3 Sound insulation as a function of frequency ....................................................... 15
5.4 The total loss factor............................................................................................ 20
6. DISCUSSION......................................................................................................... 21
REFERENCES............................................................................................................. 22
A1. DESCRIPTIONS OF THE BUILDING BOARDS........................................................ 23
A2. METHODS IN DETAIL .......................................................................................... 24
A2.1 Sound reduction index...................................................................................... 24
A2.2 The uncertainty of the sound insulation measurement..................................... 25
A2.3 Young's modulus .............................................................................................. 29
A2.4 The total loss factor of the board...................................................................... 30
A3. SOUND REDUCTION INDICES AND TOTAL LOSS FACTORS .................................. 32

Work Environmental Research Report Series 22
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, 2006
1. INTRODUCTION
At present, lightweight building boards are being commonly used in various
wall structures because of their low costs and easy construction.
Optimization is often needed in order to achieve the desired characteristics
and sound insulation with defined cost, efficiency and other conditions. The
experimental testing of structures is time consuming and, thus, the
prediction of the behaviour of a wall is often a good alternative. A prediction
model for different kind of single and multilayer wall structures has been
developed and used in FIOH for the prediction of sound insulation. The
model is now being further developed. Also the databases are extended and
improved.
Building boards have been tested in various different projects but the
comparison between the achieved results is not reliable because of different
testing conditions. The mounting of the board, e.g. the position of the board
in the niche of the test opening and the screwing tightness can have a
significant effect on the results. It is also difficult to obtain test data from
companies, because usually only R w values have been published and original
test data is not available in public. The data can also be obsolete or
imperfectly reported.
The differences between different building boards are rather small, if their
surface masses are of the same class. The differences can be only a few
decibels. Such small differences can be buried under inter­laboratory
differences, which have been reported to be even several decibels at certain
frequencies and 1 to 2 dB for R w . To obtain comparable data for building
boards, it is preferable that the measurements are carried out in the same
laboratory using the same apparatus and same mounting practice.
Although the differences between building boards can be only a few decibels
it does not mean that their comparison is worthless. The choice of the
optimum building board is very important in multilayer wall structures.
Typically, multilayer wall comprises 2 to 4 boards but 8 building boards are
used sometimes. In such cases, the effect on optimization on the total
performance of the wall can be even 10 dB.
The main goal of this study was to produce reliable data of the sound
insulation of the most commonly used building boards in Finland.
Altogether 27 commonly used building boards available in Finland in 2005
were selected for the study. The main parameter studied was the sound
reduction index. The specimens were all tested exactly in the same way, so
the results are as comparable as possible. Also basic material parameters
were determined, such as Young's modulus, total loss factor and surface
mass of the board.
The prediction of the multilayer structures is facilitated and made more
accurate as the measured values can be exploited in the predictions. This is
valuable data also for manufacturers and designers.
7

Larm P, Hakala J, Hongisto V
Sound insulation of Finnish building boards
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
The specimens and some of their basic characteristics are presented in Table
2.1. The English and Finnish trade names of the specimen, information on
their material and manufacturers/importers can be found from Appendix 1.
Table 2.1. The specimens and their properties.
Specimen Specimen Thickness Size Surface mass
No. [mm] [mm] [kg/m 2 ]
Plasterboards
1 KS6 7 1200 x 2240 5.9
2 KTS9 9 1200 x 2240 7.6
3 KN13 13 1200 x 2240 8.8
4 KEK13 13 1200 x 2240 11.7
5 DG15 15 1200 x 2240 16.8
Minerit
6 WS4 5 1200 x 2240 7.7
7 LW 8 1200 x 2240 9.8
8 WS8 8 1200 x 2240 13.2
9 HD8 8 1200 x 2240 14.7
10 Pastel8 8 1200 x 2240 14.8
11 HD10 10 1200 x 2240 18.4
Wood based
12 Chip11 11 1200 x 2240 7.0
13 MDF12 12 1200 x 2240 9.2
14 Ply15 15 1200 x 2240 10.4
15 MDF19 19 1200 x 2240 13.8
16 Chip22 22 1200 x 2240 13.9
17 Ply21 21 1200 x 2240 15.0
Wood fiber board
18 LION12 12 1200 x 2240 3.1
19 LION25 24 1200 x 2240 8.0
Aquapanel
20 AqID13 13 900 x 1200 14.0
21 AqOD13 13 900 x 1200 15.6
Steel
22 Steel2 2 1240 x 2240 15.6
23 Steel4 4 1245 x 2245 31.2
Others
24 MultiCo8 8 1200 x 2240 8.4
25 Master10 10 1200 x 2240 10.1
26 UniCo12.5 10 1200 x 2240 10.5
27 SXL18 18 570 x 2240 22.4
*The number after the specimen name is the thickness informed by the manufacturer. The
measured thickness values are presented in the third column.
8

Work Environmental Research Report Series 22
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, 2006
Sound reduction index R (dB) was measured according to ISO 140­3 [1] at
frequencies from 50 to 10000 Hz in 1/3 octave bands. The highest
measured frequency was extended from the normal 5000 Hz to 10000 Hz to
be able to observe the coincidence dip of most of the specimens.
The weighted sound reduction index R W (dB) was determined according to
ISO 717­1 [2] using frequency range from 100 to 3150 Hz. At low
frequencies, the measurement was carried out by sound intensity method
(ISO 15186­3) [3] to improve the measurement accuracy.
The results of sound reduction index are presented in the frequency range
from 100 to 10000 Hz, because the frequency range 50 –80 Hz suffered
from inaccuracies. The measurement results from the pressure and intensity
methods were combined in the following way. The results from the intensity
method (ISO 15186) were used at frequencies from 100 Hz to 200 Hz and
above that, the results from the pressure method (ISO 140­3) were used. A
more detailed description of the sound reduction index measurement is
presented in Appendix 2.
Young's modulus E [Pa] is a measure of the stiffness of the material. The
parameter is needed for the prediction of the sound insulation as the speed
of the bending wave in a board depends on the Young's modulus of the
board material. Young's modulus was measured using a self made bending
machine. The detailed description of the measurement method can be found
from Appendix 2.
The surface mass [kg/m 2 ] of each specimen was determined using a
laboratory scale UWE PM­150. The values could be slightly different from
their nominal values.
The sound insulation of a building board depends not only on the board
characteristics but also on the coupling to the surrounding structures. The
total loss factor characterises the boundary conditions of the mounting. It
is a sum of different loss mechanisms: internal losses of the board, losses
from the edges and sound radiation losses. The total loss factor was
measured because it affects the sound insulation mainly at and above the
critical frequency and variations in mounting can explain inter­laboratory
differences between the values of sound reduction index. The total loss
factors of the mounted building elements were measured according to ISO
140­3:1995(E) Annex E. A detailed description of the measurement method
for the total loss factor can be found from the Appendix 2.
9

Larm P, Hakala J, Hongisto V
Sound insulation of Finnish building boards
3. MOUNTING
The specimens were mounted in a built­in frame of a test opening using 20
mm x 20 mm wooden laths with a screw attachment (division of 20 cm).
Thus, the boundary condition at the edges of the specimen was "fixed". The
perimeter of the frame was sealed with acrylic mass, and the perimeter of
the specimen with an adhesive tape.
The test opening was in a double filler wall. The two parts of the filler wall
were isolated from each other. The dimensions of the test opening were
1250 mm x 2250 x 480 mm. The typical width of commercial boards is 1200
mm. Therefore, the opening was narrowed by one inch board to the width of
1220 mm where the specimen was easy to fix.
The nominal specimen area was 2.7 m 2 . If the nominal size of the board was
smaller than the test opening, the opening was covered using two or three
boards and the joints of the boards were sealed with an adhesive tape. The
sealing between the boards was tested by measuring the sound intensity
coming through the sealing and the solid board before each sound insulation
measurement.
measurement direction
AS­1
280
acrylmastic duct tape
1250
AS­2
200
section of the single wall panel
Figure 3.1. Mounting of the specimen, seen from above. AS­1 and AS­2
indicate the isolated walls between the test rooms. The specimens were
installed in the middle of AS­1 as shown.
10

Work Environmental Research Report Series 22
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, 2006
Figure 3.2. Mounting of the specimen comprised of three pieces of building
board (specimen no. 20, AqID13).
11

Larm P, Hakala J, Hongisto V
Sound insulation of Finnish building boards
4. THEORY IN BRIEF
Some basic equations concerning the sound insulation behaviour of a thin
single building board are presented in this chapter for easier interpretation
of the results. More detailed information on the sound insulation of wall
structures is found e.g. from reference [4].
Sound reduction index R [dB] is defined as the logarithm to the base 10 of
the ratio of the sound power incident to the board W 1 to the sound power
transmitted through the board W 2 (assuming that there is no flanking
transmission through any other component than the board being tested):
W1
R 10log dB
(1)
10
W2
If the board is assumed to be thin and infinite, a simplified prediction model
can be used with good accuracy up to the critical frequency. At frequency f
[Hz] sound reduction index depends on the surface mass m [kg/m 2 ] of the
board according to:
2f
( ) 20log10 10
R f
c0
mf
42 10log
ln
S dB
The finite size of the board was taken into account by using a Sewell's
correction term, which depends on the frequency and the area S [m 2 ] of the
board and the velocity of sound in air c 0 (343 m/s).
Equation (2) is called the field incidence mass law. It is valid in reverberant
rooms where sound reaches the specimen evenly from all directions.
However, the mass law is valid only below the half of the critical frequency f c
of the specimen. At the critical frequency f c , the wavelength of the bending
wave in the panel coincides with the wavelength of the sound propagating in
air. At and above critical frequency, the sound energy is effectively
transmitted through the element and, thus, there is a dip in the sound
insulation curve. This is called the coincidence phenomenon. The critical
frequency can be calculated from
f c
2
0
12 1
2 m
3
c
(3)
2
Eh
where is Poisson's ratio (typically 0.25...0.28), E is Young's modulus [Pa]
and h is the thickness of the board [m].
In Fig. 4.1, the measured sound reduction index for specimen no. 4 (KEK13)
is presented. The critical frequency is found to be 2500 Hz. The critical
frequency and the half of the critical frequency are indicated in the figure.
The mass law value calculated by Eq. (2) is also presented.
(2)
12

Work Environmental Research Report Series 22
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, 2006
60
50
40
R [dB]
30
20
10
0
f c /2
f c
100
160
250
400
630
1000
1600
2500
4000
6300
10000
Frequency [Hz]
Mass law
KEK13
Figure 4.1. The mass law curve calculated by Equation (2). Surface mass of
the specimen was 11.7 kg/m 2 .
13

Larm P, Hakala J, Hongisto V
Sound insulation of Finnish building boards
5. RESULTS
In Table 5.1, the measured data are presented for every specimen including
the surface mass, the critical frequency, Young's modulus and R W . This data
is discussed more in detail in the following chapters.
Table 5.1. The measured surface mass, the critical frequency, Young's
modulus and R W of the specimens.
Specimen Specimen Surface mass Critical frequency Young's modulus R w
number [kg/m 2 ] [Hz] [Pa] x 10 9 [dB]
Plasterboard
1 KS6 5.9 5000 5.4 28
2 KTS9 7.6 3150 4.8 28
3 KN13 8.8 2500 3.0 28
4 KEK13 11.7 2500 4.5 29
5 DG15 16.8 2000 7.8 31
Minerit
6 WS4 7.7 5000 15 30
7 LW 9.8 3150 9.6 30
8 WS8 13.2 3150 15 31
9 HD8 14.7 3150 16 33
10 Pastel8 14.8 3150 15 32
11 HD10 18.4 2500 15 32
Wood based
12 Chip11 7.0 4000 2.9 29
13 MDF12 9.2 2500 6.3 28
14 Ply15 10.4 1600 11 26
15 MDF19 13.8 1600 4.8 28
16 Chip22 13.9 2000 3.4 29
17 Ply21 15.0 1250 11 28
Wood fiber board
18 LION12 3.1 8000 0.3 23
19 LION25 8.0 4000 0.2 30
Aquapanel
20 AqID13 14.0 2000 7.9 30
21 AqOD13 15.6 2500 3.9 33
Steel
22 Steel2 15.6 8000 213 36
23 Steel4 31.2 3150 213 40
Others
24 MultiCo8 8.4 4000 7.6 30
25 Master10 10.1 3150 7.4 29
26 UniCo12.5 10.5 3150 2.3 32
27 SXL18 22.4 2000 7.6 33
14

Work Environmental Research Report Series 22
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, 2006
5.1 The dependence of R W on the surface mass
The measured surface masses and R W values are plotted in Figure 5.1.1 with
the designated building board groups according to Table 5.1. R W as a
function of the surface mass predicted by the mass law of Eq. (2) is also
presented.
The surface masses of the specimen varied from 3 to 30 kg/m 2 , and the
weighted sound reduction indices from 23 to 40 dB.
Most of the specimens could not reach the R W value predicted by the mass
law. This results from the fact that their critical frequency falls upon the
frequency range of R W calculation (100 –3150 Hz). The mass law is valid
only for frequencies below approximately half of the critical frequency.
Specimen 1, 6, 12, 18, 19, 22 and 24 (see Table 5.1) are situated close to
the mass law line because they have a high critical frequency.
According to Equations (2) and (3), it is expected that the higher the surface
mass, the higher is the sound reduction. Also, the higher the surface mass,
the lower is the critical frequency and, thus, the wider is the deviation from
the mass law. This behaviour could be detected with the specimen groups
composed of specimen having reasonably monotropic material properties,
i.e. bending stiffnesses are equal in vertical and horizontal directions. Such
specimens were plasterboards, Minerit board and steel.
Other specimen groups reveal a more complicated behaviour around the
critical frequency. It is expected that these boards have orthotropic
properties, i.e., their bending stiffness varies considerably in vertical and
horizontal directions.
5.2 Predicted R W versus measured R W
The mass law is theoretically the maximum limit for the sound insulation of
a construction board. An optimal board has R W close to the value predicted
by the mass law. Thus, the ratio of the measured R W to the predicted R W can
be considered as an indicator of the mass optimality of the sound insulation.
In Table 5.2.1, the predicted R W values, as calculated by Eq. (2), and the
ratios of the measured R W to the predicted R W are presented for all the
specimens. The higher the ratio "Measured R w / Predicted R w " is, the better
sound insulation the board gives relative to its surface mass. Boards having
a high critical frequency give the highest mass optimality.
5.3 Sound insulation as a function of frequency
The sound reduction indices as a function of frequency are presented in
Figures 5.3.1 –5.3.7. The specimens are grouped according to Table 5.1.
Sound reduction indices are tabulated in Appendix 3.
If the same material but different thicknesses are compared, it becomes
evident that the thinner the board is, the higher is the critical frequency. As
a consequence of high critical frequency, the mass optimality is high in
Table 5.2.1. In general, it is more optimal to use thin boards instead of thick
boards because they lead to higher sound insulation with lower mass.
Some boards have a gentle coincidence dip, such as Aquapanel outdoor and
UniCo board. This is probably due to their different stiffnesses in vertical and
horizontal directions, which results in two critical frequencies of the board. If
the critical frequencies are close enough, they can not be distinguished, but
together they form a wider coincidence gap.
15

Larm P, Hakala J, Hongisto V
Sound insulation of Finnish building boards
42
40
23
38
36
22
Rw [dB]
34
32
30
28
1
12
6
2
26
8
19 24
7
10
25
4
3 13
15
9
20
21
16
17
5
11
27
26
14
24
22
18
1 10 100
Surface mass [kg/m 2 ]
Fig. 5.1.1. The dependence of measured R W on the surface mass. For the
specimen numbers, see Table 5.1.
16

Work Environmental Research Report Series 22
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, 2006
Table 5.2.1. Optimality of the sound insulation of the specimens.
Specimen Specimen Predicted R w Measured R w /
number [dB] Predicted R w
Plasterboard
1 KS6 28 1.00
2 KTS9 30 0.93
3 KN13 31 0.90
4 KEK13 33 0.88
5 DG15 37 0.84
Minerit
6 WS4 30 1.00
7 LW 32 0.94
8 WS8 35 0.89
9 HD8 35 0.94
10 Pastel8 36 0.89
11 HD10 37 0.86
Wood based
12 Chip11 29 1.00
13 MDF12 31 0.90
14 Ply15 32 0.81
15 MDF19 35 0.80
16 Chip22 35 0.83
17 Ply21 36 0.78
Wood fiber board
18 LION12 22 1.05
19 LION25 30 1.00
Aquapanel
20 AqID13 35 0.86
21 AqOD13 36 0.92
Steel
22 Steel2 36 1.00
23 Steel4 42 0.95
Others
24 MultiCo8 31 0.97
25 Master10 32 0.91
26 UniCo12.5 32 1.00
27 SXL18 39 0.85
17

Larm P, Hakala J, Hongisto V
Sound insulation of Finnish building boards
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
10
0
100
160
250
400
630
1000
1600
2500
4000
6300
10000
R [dB]
20
10
0
100
160
250
400
630
1000
1600
2500
4000
6300
10000
R [dB]
Frequency [Hz]
Frequency [Hz]
DG15 16.8 kg/m2
KN13 8.8 kg/m2
KS6 5.9 kg/m2
KEK13 11.7 kg/m2
TS9 7.6 kg/m2
HD10 18.4 kg/m2
HD8 14.7 kg/m2
LW8 9.8 kg/m2
Pastel8 14.8 kg/m2
WS8 13.2 kg/m2
WS4 7.7 kg/m2
Fig. 5.3.1. Plasterboards.
Fig. 5.3.2. Minerit boards.
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
10
0
100
160
250
400
630
1000
1600
2500
4000
6300
10000
R [dB]
20
10
0
100
160
250
400
630
1000
1600
2500
4000
6300
10000
R [dB]
Frequency [Hz]
Frequency [Hz]
Ply21 15.0 kg/m2
MDF19 13.8 kg/m2
MDF12 9.2 kg/m2
Chip22 13.9 kg/m2
Ply15 10.4 kg/m2
Chip12 7.0 kg/m2
LION25 8.0 kg/m2
LION12 3.1 kg/m2
Fig. 5.3.3. Wood based boards.
Fig. 5.3.4. Wood fibre boards.
18

Work Environmental Research Report Series 22
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, 2006
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
10
0
100
160
250
400
630
1000
1600
2500
4000
6300
10000
R [dB]
20
10
0
100
160
250
400
630
1000
1600
2500
4000
6300
10000
R [dB]
Frequency [Hz]
Frequency [Hz]
AqOD13 15.6 kg/m2
AqID13 14.0 kg/m2
Steel 4 mm 31.2 kg/m2
Steel 2 mm 15.6 kg/m2
Fig. 5.3.5. Aqua panels.
Fig. 5.3.6. Steel plates.
50
40
30
R [dB]
20
10
0
100
160
250
400
630
1000
1600
2500
4000
6300
10000
Frequency [Hz]
SXL18 22.4 kg/m2 UniCo10 10.5 kg/m2
Master10 10.1 kg/m2 MultiCo8 8.4 kg/m2
Fig. 5.3.7. Various other building boards.
19

Larm P, Hakala J, Hongisto V
Sound insulation of Finnish building boards
5.4 The total loss factor
The total loss factors of the mounted specimens are presented Appendix 3.
The total loss factors were quite the same for all the specimens. The
average total loss factor across frequencies from 100 –10000 Hz was 0.02
–0.03 for all the specimens except for the steel, which had an average
value of 0.01. Below the critical frequency, the total loss factors were
around 0.03.
For most of the specimen, there was a dip in the total loss factor curve at
the critical frequency, such as in the Fig. 5.4.1.
1.000
MDF19
MDF12
0.100
0.010
0.001
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
5000
6300
8000
10000
Loss factor
Frequency [dB]
Fig. 5.4.1. The total loss factors of the MDF boards as a function of
frequency.
20

Work Environmental Research Report Series 22
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, 2006
6. DISCUSSION
The results attained in this study provide a reliable comparison between the
specimens studied, which helps the constructor to choose the right board
according to the need. The studied group represents a wide range of the
building boards used in Finland in 2004. However, all possible boards in the
market was not included.
High efforts were made to obtain good accuracy of individual boards and
reliable comparability between boards. The total loss factor and Young's
modulus are advantageous data to be used in the prediction for sound
insulation of building boards.
In the general utilization of the results as such, some points are to
remember:
The specimen size was rather small. A small specimen is more sensitive
to edge constraint conditions. Mounting was the same for every
specimen, so the comparability does not suffer from the small size as
such, however, the results may not exactly be the same for larger
specimen sizes.
The vertical stud spacing was 1200 mm. The results may not be directly
adapted on walls having the common stud spacing of 600 mm.
The values presented in this study are laboratory values (R w ). They are
often not reached in buildings (R' w ) due to flanking and sound leaks.
21

Larm P, Hakala J, Hongisto V
Sound insulation of Finnish building boards
REFERENCES
1. ISO 140­3:1995 (E) Acoustics – Measurement of sound insulation in
buildings and of building elements ­ Part 3: Laboratory measurements of
airborne sound insulation of building elements
2. ISO 717­1:1996 (E) Acoustics –Rating of sound insulation of building
elements ­ Part 1: Airborne sound insulation
3. ISO/DIS 15186­3:2000 ­ Acoustics ­ Measurement of sound insulation in
buildings and of building elements using sound intensity ­ Part 3:
Laboratory measurements at low frequencies
4. Hongisto V, Models for calculating the sound insulation of wall structures
(in Finnish, abstract in English), Työympäristötutkimuksen raporttisarja
2, Työterveyslaitos, Helsinki, Finland, 2003.
22

Appendix A1. Descriptions of the building boards
A1. DESCRIPTIONS OF THE BUILDING BOARDS
Trade name in English Abbreviation Trade name in Finnish Manufacturer / Importer Materials
Plasterboards
Renovation board KS6 Saneerauslevy Oy Knauf Ab gypsum
External Sheathing Board KTS9 Tuulensuojalevy Oy Knauf Ab gypsum
Normal gypsumboard KN13 Normaali sisäverhouslevy Oy Knauf Ab gypsum
Hardboard KEK13 Erikoiskova sisäverhouslevy Oy Knauf Ab gypsum
Floor board DG15 Lattiakipsilevy Oy Knauf Ab gypsum
Minerit
Windstopper WS Windstopper Oy Minerit Ab fibre cement
Light Weight LW Luja A Oy Minerit Ab fibre cement
Heavy Duty HD Luja Classic Oy Minerit Ab fibre cement
Pastel Okra Pastel Luja Pastel Okra Oy Minerit Ab fibre cement
Wood based
Chipboard chip* Lastulevy Schauman sawdust, small chips of wood
Medium Density Board MDF MDF glued wood fibres
Plywood ply* Vaneri cross­banded veneers glued together
Wood fiber board
12 mm LION­Weathershield LION12* Tuulileijona Finnish Fibreboard Ltd. wood fibres, resin, wax
25 mm LION­Weathershield LION25* Runkoleijona Finnish Fibreboard Ltd. wood fibres, resin, wax
Aquapanel
Aquapanel®CementBoard Indoor AqID* Aquapanel®CementBoard Indoor Oy Knauf Ab cement
Aquapanel®CementBoard Outdoor AqOD* Aquapanel®CementBoard Outdoor Oy Knauf Ab cement
Steel
Steel Teräs
Others
MultiCo MultiCo palamaton sisäverhouslevy Eternit N.V. / Innobuild Oy Ab cement, pulp, minerals
Master Master­levy Lemminkäinen Oyj calsium silicate, filling material, fibres
UniCo UniCo verkkovahvistettu märkälevy Innobuild Oy Ab light concrete core, fibre glass coated
Sasmox Flooring board SXL Sasmox Lattialevy Sasmox Oy calcinated gypsum, wood chips
* This abbreviation is not used for commercial purposes.
23

Larm P, Hakala J, Hongisto V
Sound insulation of Finnish building boards
A2. METHODS IN DETAIL
A2.1 Sound reduction index
The sound reduction index R [dB] of the building boards was measured
according to ISO 140­3:1995 in an accredited test laboratory T193 (Finasaccreditation).
The sound was produced with three uncorrelated pink noise generators
(Behringer Ultra Curve DSP 8000, Brüel&Kjær 2133, Neutrik MR­1) using
three different sound sources in the source room. The loudspeaker signals
were amplified with a terminal amplifier (QSC 1300 W USA) and with an
active subwoofer (Yorkville Pulse).
The sound levels in the source room and in the receiving room were
measured simultaneously using rotating microphone booms (B&K 3923) and
condenser microphones (B&K 4165 with the pre­amplifier B&K 2669). The
radius of the rotation was 100 cm. The averaging time was 64 seconds.
Microphone booms and their positions and rotation angles were fixed to
achieve a good repeatability. The microphones and the measurement
channels were calibrated before the measurements with a pistonphone
calibrator (B&K 4231).
The reverberation time was measured in the receiving room using
interrupted noise method (a test signal of pink noise produced with the real
time analyzer and amplified with a terminal amplifier (Eagle PA)). Two fixed
loudspeaker positions were used with three microphone positions resulting
in six sound decays. The reverberation time was determined in conformance
with ISO 354:2003 using two averaged decay signals from the decay range
of ­5 to ­25 dB. The sound analysis was made with the two­channel real
time analyzer (B&K 2133).
The acoustical measurement equipment fulfilled the following IEC standards
and grades of accuracy:
IEC 60651 Sound level meters, type 1
IEC 60804 Integrating sound level meters, type 1
IEC 61260 Octave­band and fractional­octave­band filters, class 1
IEC 60942 Sound level calibrators, class 1
The temperature and the relative humidity of the measurement rooms were
measured with a psykrometer (Casella London 5200). The specimen was
weighed with a 150 kg precision weighing machine (PM 150). The
dimensions of the specimen were measured with a roll meter (K­Prof).
At low frequencies, from 50 –200 Hz, the measurement accuracy was
improved using intensity measurement, applying ISO/DIS 15186­3. The
measurement equipment consisted of B&K Investigator 2260 with a sound
intensity probe (B&K 3595) and an intensity microphone pair (B&K 4197)
using a 50 mm spacer between the microphones. The amplitude and phase
responses were calibrated prior to measurement (B&K 4297).
The intensity in front of the building board at the receiving room was
measured by scanning the area with a steady pace holding the measuring
equipment in hand. The scanning distance from the specimen was 44 cm.
The scanning was made twice and the two results averaged. The individual
scanning paths were perpendicular to each other. The distance between the
scanning lines was 30 cm. The sound pressure levels at the source room
measured with ISO 140­3 method were used in calculation.
24

Appendix A2. Methods in detail
60
50
40
R, RI [dB]
30
20
10
0
R
RI
Result
ISO 717­1
100
160
250
400
630
1000
1600
2500
4000
6300
10000
Frequency [Hz]
Figure A1. The combination of the results from the intensity (RI) and
pressure (R) method. The value of the ISO 717­1 reference curve at 500 Hz
is the weighted sound reduction index R W (indicated with a cross).
A2.2 The uncertainty of the sound insulation measurement
The uncertainty of the test is defined in ISO 140­2:1991(E) Annex A. The
uncertainty of reproducibility expresses the range within which the test
results between laboratories should lie with a probability of 95 %.
Reproducibility can be determined by Inter­Laboratory tests where the same
test specimen is tested in, at least, 5 different laboratories. The laboratory
participated in an Inter­Laboratory test of Nordtest 2001 together with four
other Nordic laboratories. The round­robin specimen was a window, which
was tested in the same test opening as used in this study. The uncertainty
of the sound reduction index R W was ± 1.7 dB while ISO 140­2:1991
expected an uncertainty of ± 2 dB. The test results of this laboratory were
in good agreement with the average over all laboratories. The uncertainty in
third­octave bands is presented in Fig. A2.
25

Larm P, Hakala J, Hongisto V
Sound insulation of Finnish building boards
30
Reproducibility (dB)
25
20
15
10
5
0
50
80
125
200
315
500
800
1250
2000
3150
5000
Frequency (Hz)
Nordtest 2001
ISO 140­2 Annex A
Figure A2. The maximum permitted reproducibility value of airborne sound
reduction index R W as suggested by ISO 140­2, and obtained in Nordtest
project 2001.
Fig. A3 represents the reliability of independent tests in this laboratory. It
contains annual measurement results of 4 mm steel plate during 2000 and
2006. The tests were carried out in the same test opening as used in this
study. During every test, the specimen was installed to the same location
using same sealing and support bars every time. R W value was 37 dB in
every test.
Figs. A2 and A3 give good evidence that the comparability of building boards
should be very reliable especially above 100 Hz. However, the reliability of
the results is worsened considerably in the range 50 ... 100 Hz when
pressure method is used (ISO 140­3). Therefore, sound intensity method
was used instead.
The laboratory layout is presented in Fig. A4.
26

Appendix A2. Methods in detail
Airborne sound reduction index R [dB]
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
average
0
50
80
125
200
315
500
800
1250
2000
3150
5000
Frequency [Hz]
Figure A3. The accuracy of independent tests in the laboratory. The data
contains seven individual test results (R1­R7) during years 2000­2006 for
the same 4 mm thick steel plate. The tests were carried out by ISO 140­3
using the same mounting practice, same apparatus but different operators.
27

Larm P, Hakala J, Hongisto V
Sound insulation of Finnish building boards
source room
7650 x 2950 h = 3600
receiving room
6900 x 4500 h = 3650
Neutrik MR1
noise generator
C
QSC 1300 W USA
amplifier (2ch)
1
2
test opening
2250 x 1250
a
a
Behringer DSP 8000
signal processor
microphone
E
B
microphone
Eagle PA 4060E
amplifier
B&K 2133
real time analyzer
D
test opening
2650 x 3840
Focal 1
Focal 2
A
Y1
X1
Y2
X2
Ch A
Ch B
source room
receiving room
microphone
1
2
microphone
rotating
microphone boom
3600
r=1000
h=1800
test opening
2
2.8 m
r=1000
h=1550
3650
480
vibration isolator
section a­a
Figure A4. The laboratory layout and the equipment for measuring the
sound reduction index.
28

Appendix A2. Methods in detail
A2.3 Young's modulus
The Young's modulus was measured with a custom­made bending machine
(Fig. A5). A building board was placed on two support beams made of steel.
The board was bended by adding load masses. The bending force from the
load masses was transmitted to the board from two points at the median
line of the board using two push rods. The deflection of the board was
measured with a dial measuring gauge having an accuracy of 0.01 mm.
The Young's modulus can be calculated from
3
Fl
E ;
48Ix
where
3
bh
I ; F mg
12
(A1)
E = Young's modulus
[Pa]
F = the force applied to the board
[N]
l = the length of the board between the support beams [m]
I = the moment of the board [m 4 ]
x = the maximum deflection of the board
[m]
b = the width of the board
[m]
h = the thickness of the board
[m]
m = the load mass
[kg]
g = the gravitational acceleration constant = 9.81 [m/s 2 ]
The deflection of the board was measured with various load masses. The
measured deflection was plotted against the applied force and fitted linearly
with the least squares fitting. With the fitted slope, the Young's modulus was
determined.
In the derivation of the Eq. (A1), the specimen is assumed to be a beam.
The width of the board is large compared to its thickness so the assumption
is not totally true. The value measured for steel with this method was 213
GPa. In the literature 210 GPa is given for steel, which is close to the value
gained with this method [4]. Therefore, the measurement method seems to
be reliable.
The reliability of the measurement method can be evaluated also by
comparing the measured and predicted critical frequencies. According to Eq.
(3), the critical frequency can be calculated by
f c
2
0
12 1
2 m
3
c
2
Eh
The measured critical frequency is plotted against the above square root
expression in Fig. 5.5.1. It was expected that the Poisson's ratio was =0.28
for all specimens. Because the surface mass and the thickness of the board
can be measured with a rather good accuracy, it can be assumed that the
variation of the data points from the fitted line results mainly from the
inaccuracy of the measurement method for Young's modulus and also the
detection of the critical frequency with a 1/3 octave band resolution. The
fitting is satisfactory for most of the specimen.
Two specimens are quite far from the fitting curve, namely Unico12.5 and
Lion12. This is not surprising because Young's modulus was quite difficult to
measure reliably for these boards. Not much weight could be put on the
boards, because UniCo12.5 is very flexible and its Young's modulus depends
29

Larm P, Hakala J, Hongisto V
Sound insulation of Finnish building boards
on the measurement direction, whereas Lion12 is porous and breaks very
easily.
Critical frequency f c , Hz
9000
8000
7000
Measured
Predicted
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
Sqrt(m/(E*h3))
Fig. A5. The comparison of measured and predicted critical frequency. The
closer the measured values are to the line, the better was the agreement
between the theory and measurement.
A2.4 The total loss factor of the board
The total loss factors were measured according to ISO 140­3:1995(E)
Annex E. The loss factor can be calculated by
2.2
, (A2)
fT
where
= the total loss factor
f = frequency [Hz]
T = reverberation time
[s]
The determination of loss factor requires only the determination of the
reverberation time of the board when the board was mounted to the test
opening. The board was shaken with an electromagnetic shaker (B&K 4813).
The excitation was transmitted to the mass plate through a push rod. The
reverberation times were determined using the MLS method. The MLS
excitation signal was generated with a real­time analyzer (Norsonic RTA
840) and amplified with a power amplifier (B&K 2707). The measurements
were made using three excitation points and two receiver points. The
reverberation time was, thus, calculated as an average of six
measurements. The measurement was made with the analyzer. In the
calculation, the reverberation time was determined between ­5...­25 dB
below the maximum level, and backwards integration was used.
30

Appendix A2. Methods in detail
The vibration of the plate was detected with two accelerometers (B&K
4370). They were attached to the board with a thin layer of bee wax. The
accelerometer signals were handled with the real­time analyzator. The
sensitivity of the transducer and cable chain was checked before and after
the measurements with an accelerometer calibrator (B&K 4291). The
measurement arrangement is given in Fig. A6.
Figure A6. left) The equipment for measuring Young's modulus.
right) The measurement of the total loss factors.
31

Larm P, Hakala J, Hongisto V
Sound insulation of Finnish building boards
A3. SOUND REDUCTION INDICES AND TOTAL LOSS
FACTORS
Table A1. Sound reduction index R [dB] in 1/3 octave bands for frequencies 100 –
10000 Hz. R W values and the spectrum adaptation terms C [dB] and C tr [dB]. The
specimens were listed in Table 2.1.
Specimen
Freq. [Hz] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
100 15.1 15.6 14.2 16.9 26.3 16.8 17.5 17.8 19.7 19.9 21.1 12.5 14.2
125 14.5 16.9 14.0 17.8 21.3 16.7 17.5 20.6 21.1 21.2 21.5 14.0 13.2
160 18.6 20.6 19.4 21.3 25.6 20.0 22.9 24.7 26.1 26.0 24.1 19.5 18.1
200 16.8 19.4 21.2 22.8 24.4 19.7 22.2 25.2 26.6 26.1 26.9 20.3 19.1
250 19.2 21.9 22.9 24.2 27.2 21.7 24.0 26.0 27.3 26.9 28.1 21.3 23.0
315 21.2 22.4 23.4 25.7 26.9 23.3 24.6 26.9 28.0 27.9 29.4 22.3 23.3
400 23.0 24.8 26.6 27.5 30.3 25.7 25.9 29.3 30.3 30.4 31.5 25.6 26.6
500 24.3 26.1 26.9 28.6 30.7 26.8 27.8 30.2 31.6 31.6 32.3 26.0 27.4
630 25.3 26.8 27.3 29.0 31.1 27.7 28.7 30.5 31.9 32.0 32.8 26.3 27.8
800 26.8 28.0 28.7 30.5 32.5 28.7 29.9 32.0 33.1 33.2 33.9 27.9 29.3
1000 28.1 29.5 30.2 32.0 33.2 30.3 31.0 33.5 34.5 34.1 35.0 29.2 30.3
1250 29.6 30.8 31.4 32.7 32.9 31.6 32.8 34.7 35.8 35.2 35.5 30.5 31.2
1600 30.9 31.7 31.7 32.5 29.4 32.7 33.6 35.2 36.4 35.6 34.6 31.3 31.1
2000 32.0 31.9 30.2 28.7 26.2 34.0 33.9 34.6 36.2 35.2 30.3 31.8 29.2
2500 32.5 30.6 23.2 22.9 28.2 34.8 32.6 28.8 31.4 29.2 26.2 30.9 23.2
3150 31.6 23.5 23.2 26.0 31.4 35.2 24.5 25.1 26.4 26.9 30.0 27.3 23.7
4000 25.1 23.4 27.5 29.2 33.6 33.2 24.5 29.0 30.4 31.3 32.6 23.8 27.5
5000 23.5 26.9 27.9 30.6 36.8 25.0 27.7 30.7 32.6 32.6 35.3 25.9 29.0
6300 26.7 27.1 32.4 34.7 41.1 26.3 27.9 33.7 35.4 36.7 39.0 28.7 31.4
8000 26.5 31.5 36.8 39.6 44.4 29.5 32.4 37.8 40.0 41.1 44.4 30.9 35.2
10000 34.3 38.5 42.8 44.6 47.4 34.5 38.8 44.5 46.9 47.7 48.7 33.6 39.9
R W 28 28 28 29 31 30 30 31 33 32 32 29 28
C ­1 ­1 ­2 ­2 ­2 ­1 ­1 ­1 ­2 ­1 ­1 ­1 ­2
Ctr ­4 ­2 ­3 ­2 ­2 ­3 ­2 ­2 ­2 ­1 ­1 ­4 ­3
Specimen
Freq. [Hz] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
100 15.3 17.9 17.9 19.7 10.6 14.0 21.1 21.5 19.7 25.2 16.8 16.7 17.6 22.3
125 19.9 20.2 21.6 19.3 7.9 15.9 16.9 21.2 21.2 25.3 17.5 17.4 18.4 23.9
160 20.2 22.1 25.6 25.9 12.7 20.1 25.1 26.0 26.1 30.6 21.0 22.6 22.6 26.4
200 22.5 24.2 25.6 23.4 13.3 21.2 23.2 26.3 25.8 30.8 21.0 22.6 22.3 28.4
250 22.4 25.4 26.2 24.9 14.8 22.6 26.6 27.0 27.1 32.2 23.5 23.8 24.8 30.1
315 24.5 26.5 25.9 24.8 15.4 23.3 26.3 27.5 28.2 32.8 23.2 24.9 25.2 29.3
400 25.9 29.4 28.4 28.6 18.2 26.1 30.0 30.4 31.7 36.3 26.6 27.4 28.7 33.7
500 27.7 30.0 29.8 29.0 18.9 27.2 30.6 31.7 31.8 38.0 27.1 28.3 29.3 34.3
630 27.6 30.1 29.9 28.6 19.7 27.5 30.8 32.2 32.6 38.2 27.7 28.9 29.4 34.5
800 28.2 30.8 31.0 27.6 21.5 29.0 32.1 33.2 33.9 40.0 29.2 30.3 30.9 35.3
1000 28.7 30.6 31.4 24.8 23.2 30.2 32.6 34.5 35.5 41.6 30.7 31.4 32.1 35.7
1250 26.2 28.2 31.1 24.1 25.2 31.4 32.6 35.2 37.3 42.9 31.9 32.6 33.5 34.1
1600 22.5 24.0 27.5 26.3 27.1 32.1 29.9 34.8 38.6 44.0 33.0 33.0 34.5 29.7
2000 22.5 23.8 24.5 29.5 28.9 32.5 25.8 32.4 40.2 44.5 33.9 32.3 34.9 28.8
2500 25.6 26.9 25.1 31.8 30.0 31.9 26.6 30.7 41.3 42.6 33.1 25.8 33.8 31.1
3150 28.2 29.6 27.6 34.0 30.5 28.2 29.7 30.9 42.7 31.2 25.9 23.5 31.4 32.8
4000 29.3 31.3 30.5 36.4 30.6 18.0 32.0 32.6 44.0 33.5 23.6 27.0 31.8 34.6
5000 32.0 33.8 32.1 39.9 29.6 21.1 35.2 33.9 44.4 35.8 27.5 28.1 32.0 38.0
6300 35.3 36.7 32.9 43.2 23.5 30.6 39.6 36.2 33.8 37.7 28.2 31.5 33.5 41.8
8000 38.7 40.7 34.0 45.5 17.0 26.1 43.2 40.0 31.4 41.9 31.9 35.8 34.9 45.6
10000 43.5 45.0 39.0 46.2 31.6 32.2 46.9 46.3 33.9 49.3 39.6 42.4 39.6 49.2
R W 26 28 29 28 23 30 30 33 36 40 30 29 32 33
C ­1 ­1 ­2 ­1 ­1 ­1 ­1 ­1 ­1 ­3 ­1 ­1 ­1 ­1
Ctr ­1 ­1 ­1 ­2 ­4 ­4 ­2 ­2 ­4 ­4 ­3 ­2 ­3 ­2
32

Appendix A3. Sound reduction indices and total loss factors
Table A2. Sound reduction index R [dB] in octave bands for frequencies 63 –8000 Hz.
The specimens were listed in Table 2.1.
Specimen
Freq. [Hz] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
63 20.6 18.9 24.8 29.6 29.1 19.9 22.0 22.5 30.5 25.5 30.5 19.2 25.1
125 16.5 18.3 16.7 19.1 24.9 18.2 20.1 22.0 23.2 23.2 22.5 16.5 15.7
250 19.4 21.4 22.6 24.4 26.3 21.8 23.7 26.1 27.3 27.0 28.2 21.4 22.2
500 24.3 26.0 26.9 28.4 30.7 26.8 27.6 30.0 31.3 31.4 32.2 26.0 27.3
1000 28.3 29.6 30.2 31.8 32.9 30.4 31.4 33.5 34.6 34.2 34.9 29.3 30.3
2000 31.9 31.4 29.6 29.6 28.1 33.9 33.4 33.7 35.2 34.1 31.6 31.3 28.9
4000 28.2 24.9 26.7 29.0 34.5 32.8 25.8 28.8 30.5 30.9 33.2 25.9 27.2
8000 30.8 34.8 39.3 41.3 45.0 31.4 35.2 40.9 43.2 44.1 45.6 31.5 36.8
Freq. [Hz] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
63 22.2 28.3 24.6 22.6 12.2 20.7 26.7 36.8 27.2 28.2 21.6 20.8 25.0 37.2
125 19.0 20.4 22.8 22.8 10.8 17.4 22.2 23.5 23.2 27.8 18.8 19.7 20.1 24.6
250 23.2 25.5 25.9 24.4 14.6 22.5 25.6 27.0 27.1 32.0 22.7 23.9 24.3 29.3
500 27.1 29.8 29.4 28.7 19.0 27.0 30.5 31.5 32.1 37.6 27.2 28.2 29.1 34.2
1000 27.8 30.0 31.2 25.8 23.6 30.3 32.4 34.4 35.8 41.7 30.7 31.5 32.3 35.1
2000 23.8 25.1 25.9 29.7 28.8 32.2 27.8 33.0 40.2 43.8 33.4 31.3 34.4 30.0
4000 30.1 31.9 30.4 37.4 30.3 24.5 32.9 32.6 43.8 33.9 25.9 26.6 31.7 35.7
8000 40.4 42.0 36.2 45.1 27.6 30.3 44.2 42.8 33.2 45.5 35.8 38.8 36.8 46.5
Table A3. The total loss factors in 1/3 octave bands for frequencies 100 –10000 Hz. The
specimens are listed in Table 3.1.1.
Specimen
Freq. [Hz] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
100 0.025 0.017 0.023 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.015 0.020 0.032 0.032 0.026 0.027 0.036
125 0.027 0.016 0.021 0.018 0.026 0.020 0.014 0.019 0.034 0.027 0.024 0.031 0.043
160 0.026 0.018 0.019 0.015 0.025 0.023 0.014 0.018 0.038 0.026 0.019 0.029 0.032
200 0.025 0.016 0.018 0.016 0.024 0.022 0.013 0.018 0.036 0.025 0.023 0.025 0.031
250 0.032 0.016 0.017 0.015 0.020 0.024 0.015 0.018 0.033 0.034 0.021 0.031 0.035
315 0.023 0.016 0.018 0.016 0.022 0.027 0.015 0.021 0.032 0.031 0.022 0.031 0.035
400 0.034 0.018 0.019 0.016 0.020 0.026 0.017 0.018 0.044 0.028 0.022 0.036 0.035
500 0.033 0.019 0.021 0.017 0.023 0.026 0.018 0.022 0.047 0.032 0.024 0.038 0.034
630 0.035 0.023 0.021 0.017 0.024 0.032 0.022 0.021 0.051 0.034 0.030 0.037 0.037
800 0.028 0.022 0.021 0.023 0.024 0.028 0.023 0.023 0.046 0.029 0.024 0.040 0.037
1000 0.033 0.021 0.022 0.023 0.027 0.025 0.026 0.024 0.040 0.032 0.028 0.031 0.042
1250 0.035 0.025 0.026 0.027 0.022 0.026 0.028 0.027 0.034 0.032 0.027 0.014 0.039
1600 0.029 0.027 0.024 0.027 0.010 0.035 0.026 0.031 0.011 0.033 0.029 0.007 0.032
2000 0.030 0.028 0.018 0.010 0.004 0.028 0.023 0.029 0.005 0.029 0.012 0.006 0.010
2500 0.024 0.015 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.026 0.018 0.008 0.010 0.008 0.015 0.028 0.004
3150 0.014 0.002 0.024 0.024 0.016 0.021 0.003 0.017 0.030 0.018 0.031 0.038 0.016
4000 0.005 0.004 0.020 0.020 0.012 0.019 0.005 0.024 0.026 0.018 0.026 0.031 0.025
5000 0.003 0.010 0.015 0.016 0.007 0.004 0.014 0.016 0.013 0.012 0.017 0.015 0.019
6300 0.012 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.004 0.016 0.010 0.017 0.006 0.017 0.014 0.018 0.020
8000 0.005 0.010 0.011 0.011 0.002 0.010 0.010 0.011 0.008 0.007 0.011 0.008 0.008
10000 0.012 0.010 0.011 0.011 0.002 0.011 0.011 0.010 0.007 0.011 0.011 0.008 0.010
Freq. [Hz] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27
100 0.027 0.030 0.032 0.033 0.036 0.032 0.025 0.036 0.011 0.022 0.018 0.042 0.032
125 0.031 0.033 0.034 0.030 0.031 0.030 0.024 0.036 0.010 0.020 0.017 0.038 0.029
160 0.029 0.046 0.038 0.033 0.032 0.031 0.029 0.043 0.010 0.017 0.017 0.038 0.019
200 0.025 0.032 0.036 0.038 0.036 0.032 0.022 0.038 0.011 0.017 0.017 0.040 0.028
250 0.031 0.027 0.033 0.038 0.037 0.032 0.029 0.033 0.011 0.018 0.015 0.043 0.028
315 0.031 0.034 0.032 0.043 0.036 0.032 0.027 0.034 0.012 0.021 0.016 0.041 0.031
400 0.036 0.038 0.044 0.046 0.030 0.028 0.018 0.032 0.015 0.025 0.018 0.046 0.044
500 0.038 0.037 0.047 0.045 0.037 0.029 0.021 0.043 0.014 0.025 0.016 0.038 0.044
630 0.037 0.036 0.051 0.039 0.039 0.030 0.024 0.041 0.013 0.026 0.017 0.043 0.039
800 0.040 0.042 0.046 0.024 0.032 0.026 0.023 0.034 0.015 0.026 0.018 0.049 0.046
1000 0.031 0.028 0.040 0.018 0.033 0.024 0.026 0.040 0.016 0.028 0.026 0.049 0.034
1250 0.014 0.018 0.034 0.012 0.040 0.024 0.024 0.040 0.016 0.029 0.030 0.039 0.030
1600 0.007 0.007 0.011 0.043 0.023 0.017 0.011 0.031 0.017 0.028 0.026 0.036 0.017
2000 0.006 0.011 0.005 0.041 0.018 0.015 0.005 0.022 0.016 0.024 0.025 0.036 0.019
2500 0.028 0.035 0.010 0.040 0.015 0.002 0.020 0.015 0.015 0.022 0.006 0.028 0.018
3150 0.038 0.033 0.030 0.040 0.017 0.018 0.013 0.012 0.003 0.023 0.009 0.018
4000 0.031 0.032 0.026 0.032 0.016 0.007 0.014 0.011 0.004 0.019 0.014 0.014
5000 0.015 0.020 0.013 0.018 0.012 0.013 0.010 0.015 0.015 0.007 0.012
6300 0.018 0.016 0.006 0.020 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.017 0.016 0.007 0.011
8000 0.008 0.010 0.013 0.003 0.001 0.005 0.011 0.010 0.004 0.007
10000 0.008 0.010 0.013 0.006 0.002 0.007 0.013 0.011 0.006 0.011
33

Larm P, Hakala J, Hongisto V
Sound insulation of Finnish building boards
Previously published in the report series
1. Hongisto V, Helenius R, Lindgren M: Kaksinkertaisen seinärakenteen ääneneristävyys –
laboratoriotutkimus, 2002.
2. Hongisto V: Monikerroksisen seinärakenteen ilmaääneneristävyyden ennustemalli, 2003.
3. Työhygienian koulutuspäivät 2003, Imatra 20.–21.5.2003, 2003.
4. Kaarlela A, Jokitulppo J, Keskinen E, Hongisto V: Toimistojen ääniympäristökysely ­ menetelmän
kehitys, 2003.
5. 6th European Seminar on Personal Equipment Seminar Report. Ed. Eero Korhonen, 2003.
6. Larm P, Keränen J, Hongisto V: Avotoimistojen akustiikka ­ laboratoriotutkimus, 2004.
7. Työhygienian koulutuspäivät 2004. (Helsinki 25.­26.5.2004.) Toim. Mirja Kiilunen, 2004.
8. Valkeapää A, Anttonen H, Niskanen J: Liike­ ja palvelurakennuksien tuulikaappien
vedontorjunta, 2004.
9. Kaarlela A, Jokitulppo J, Helenius R, Keskinen E, Hongisto V: Meluhaitat toimistotyössä –
pilottitutkimus, 2004.
10. Toppila E, Laitinen H, Starck J, Pyykkö I: Klassinen musiikki ja kuulonsuojelu, 2004.
11. Hirvonen A, Kiilunen M, Valkonen S: Biologisen monitoroinnin palveluanalytiikan vuositilasto
2003, 2004.
12. Heikkilä P, Saalo A, Soosaar A: Työpaikkojen ilman epäpuhtausmittaukset 1994–2003, 2005.
13. Työhygienian koulutuspäivät 2005. (Tampere 15.–16.6.2005.) Toim. Starck J ja Laitinen R,
2005.
14. Hietanen M, von Nandelstadh P, Alanko T: Sähkömagneettiset kentät työympäristössä.
Opaskirja työntekijöiden altistumisen arvioimiseksi, 2005.
15. Biologisen monitoroinnin palveluanalytiikan vuositilasto 2004, 2005.
16. Elo A­R, Korhonen E, Starck J (Eds.): 7th European Seminar on Personal Protective Equipment.
Seminar report, Work Environment Research Report Series nro 16, 2005
17. Puuntyöstöpölyn hallinnan kehittäminen (FineWood), 2005.
18. Hautalampi T, Henriks­Eckerman M­L, Engström K, Koskela H, Saarinen P & Välimaa J:
Kemikaalialtistumisen rajoittaminen automaalaamoissa, 2006.
19. Alanko T, Hietanen M, von Nandelstadh P: Työntekijöiden altistuminen tukiasemien
radiotaajuisille kentille. Työterveyslaitos, 2006.
20. Niemelä R: Virtual Space 4D, 2006.
21. Valkonen S: Biologisen monitoroinnin palveluanalytiikan vuositilasto 2005, 2006.
34