Cross-Laminated Timber Floor Analysis of The Acoustic Properties and Radiation Efficiency

applied
sciences
Article
Cross-Laminated Timber Floor: Analysis of the Acoustic
Properties and Radiation Efficiency
Nicola Granzotto , Arianna Marzi * and Andrea Gasparella
Faculty of Science and Technology, Free University of Bozen, 39100 Bolzano, Italy;
nicolagranzotto74@gmail.com (N.G.); andrea.gasparella@unibz.it (A.G.)
* Correspondence: arianna.marzi@unibz.it
Abstract: Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) is a building technology that is becoming increasingly

popular due to its sustainable and eco-friendly nature, as well as its availability. Nevertheless,
CLT presents some challenges, especially in terms of impact noise and airborne sound insulation.
For this reason, many studies focus on the vibro-acoustic behavior of CLT building elements, to
understand their performance, advantages and limitations. In this paper, a 200 mm CLT floor has been
characterized in the laboratory, according to ISO standards, by three noise sources: dodecahedron,
standard tapping machine and rubber ball. In order to understand the vibro-acoustic behavior of the
CLT floor, measurements through the analysis of sound pressure levels and velocity levels, measured
by dedicated sensors, were performed. Analysis was carried out in order to understand what is
prescribed by the prediction methods available in the literature and by the simulation software. Then,
a specific prediction law for the CLT floor under investigation was derived. Finally, an analysis on
sound radiation index is provided to complete the vibro-acoustic study.

Keywords: CLT; acoustic characterization; sound radiation efficiency

Citation: Granzotto, N.; Marzi, A.;
Gasparella, A. Cross-Laminated
Timber Floor: Analysis of the 1. Introduction
Acoustic Properties and Radiation
Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) has increasingly become a timber product of global
Efficiency. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233.
interest [1]. On the one hand, this is due to (i) the many merits of eco-sustainable wooden
https://doi.org/10.3390/
building elements, characterized by wide availability in nature, (ii) relative ease of handling
app12073233
and (iii) its environmental friendliness and wide range of end uses [2]. On the other hand,
Academic Editor: César M. CLT is well known for its suitability [3] in the construction sector and its structural behav-
A. Vasques ior [4]. However, due to their lightweight characteristics, CLT structures are characterized
Received: 24 January 2022
by poor acoustic performance [5]. Many studies were developed to determine if timber
Accepted: 17 March 2022
component properties are well known among users and the scientific community. The
Published: 22 March 2022
results demonstrate that there is no agreement on this topic [6].
For these reasons, there have been several recent experimental studies to determine the
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
acoustic performance of CLT, with particular attention to its impact on noise behavior [7],
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
and also for comfort perspective on users [8].
published maps and institutional affil-
For example, Hoeller et al. [9] published the results of a comprehensive experimental
iations.
study on the sound reduction index of CLT wall and floor systems, and also presented a
method usable for calculating the flanking sound transmission, based on the vibrations
measurement of sound reduction index, related to different types of panel joints. Schoen-
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
wald et al. [10] carried out measurements aimed at quantifying the impact noise of CLT
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. floors, the airborne sound transmission and the lateral transmission, through joints between
This article is an open access article CLT panels, which were used as a starting database to assess the acoustic performance of a
distributed under the terms and large building structure. Homb et al. [11] collected the results of laboratory measurements
conditions of the Creative Commons on the impact insulation of various CLT floor constructions. Other studies on the impact in-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// sulation of different CLT floor systems are presented by Zeitler et al. [12], Di Bella et al. [13]
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ and Caniato et al. [14–16]. Barbaresi et al. [17] presented the results of an experimental
4.0/). campaign on flanking sound transmission.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12073233 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233 2 of 24
In this perspective, further studies are needed to develop and improve prediction
models of CLT floor sound and vibrational behavior [18,19]. In this regard, the sound
radiation index is of paramount importance to understand and simulate the behavior of
these elements [20,21]. Hence, to design CLT structures with good acoustic insulation, there
is a need to characterize the sound radiation of the vibrating elements. Acoustic radiation
has generated increasing interest over the past decades and it has been used in acoustic
calculation models, for example, ISO 12354-1 [22].
Thus, to obtain a complete vibro-acoustic characterization and, in particular, to fully
understand how material properties impact on the acoustic performance of structural
elements, and meet the high quality standards required for CLT floors [23], the sound
radiation of CLT floor is an issue that needs to be deepened and studied.
Atalla and Nicolas, in 1994 [24], presented an extensive and detailed bibliographic
analysis of the prediction models to compute sound radiation in the same decade, while
Nelisse et al. [25] proposed a generalized model for the acoustic radiation from baffled and
unbaffled homogeneous plates, with arbitrary boundary conditions. A similar approach
was also used by Foin et al. [26] and by Hosseinkhani et al. [27,28], to develop a tool to
predict the acoustic and structural vibration response of sandwich plates. More recently,
Mejdi and Atalla [29] presented a semi-analytical model to investigate, numerically, the
vibro-acoustic response of stiffened plates, while Legault et al. [30] analyzed orthogonally
ribbed plates by means of a periodic theory. Rhazi and Atalla [31] used statistical en-
ergy analysis and the transfer matrix method to estimate the vibro-acoustic response of
mechanically excited multilayer structures.
Considering these studies as a reference, analyses on the vibro-acoustic behavior
and radiation efficiency of wooden elements have recently been developed [32]. Fortini
et al. [33] characterized the vibro-acoustic behavior of a composite structure and presented
a comparison between the sound reduction index predictions and measurements in sound
transmission suites, according to ISO 10140-2. Wang et al. [34] compared and validated
simulated results with measurements of a timber joist floor, then analyzing the importance
of the modes of the case study room and the correlation with the behavior of its floor. Conta
and Homb [35] performed experimental investigations to identify the modal properties of
such a system and to gain understanding of the sound radiation properties under impact
excitation, using both experimental modal analysis (EMA) and the integral transform
method (ITM). The results highlight the limitations of standard acoustic laboratories and
show the importance of using advance measurement methods to acquire reliable data.
In addition to the studies mentioned above, there are also numerous works dealing
with the vibro-acoustic characterisation of wooden floors, in particular with the impact
noise [36–40]. Nevertheless, some recent studies have shown the need to study this issue in
more detail [41,42].
A recent study [43] has shown, through a Round Robin Test, how the use of software
and calculation models, currently available for the study of the characteristics of multi-
layer systems, are not reliable when wooden structures are used. For this reason, it is of
paramount importance not only to know the characteristics of the materials, but also their
radiation efficiency.
The study of sound radiation, in relation to the characterization of CLT floors, is still
partially incomplete.
For these reasons, this paper presents: (i) An acoustic investigation of a 200 mm thick
CLT floor, conducted in the laboratory, according to ISO 10140 series standards [44–48],
both using sound pressure and vibration excitation. The systematic use of the rubber ball
as exciting source is included, in order to investigate every above-presented parameter
with this noise source. Indeed, if some research focused on the analysis of the impact noise
produced by the rubber ball for concrete floors [41,42,49–54], only few studies focused on
timber floors [55–58]. (ii) A new mass law for CLT elements in CLT. (iii) In addition to the
comparison of the three sound sources, a detailed study on experimental approaches and
comparison, with the outcomes of two simulation software for the full characterization of
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 25
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233 3 of 24

timber floors [55–58]. (ii) A new mass law for CLT elements in CLT. (iii) In addition to the
comparison of the three sound sources, a detailed study on experimental approaches and
comparison, with the outcomes of two simulation software for the full characterization of
the CLT floors, was provided. (iv) A complete analysis of the radiation efficiency by varying
the CLT floors, was provided. (iv) A complete analysis of the radiation efficiency by varying
the type of source. (v) Some simulation methods were compared with existing models.
the type of source. (v) Some simulation methods were compared with existing models.
The noveltyof
The novelty ofthe
theresearch
researchconsists
consists
of of studying
studying thethe acoustic
acoustic behavior
behavior of a CLT
of a CLT floorfloor
with three different noise sources and deriving equations that best fit the insulation
with three different noise sources and deriving equations that best fit the insulation char‐ charac-
teristics of this type of floor.
acteristics of this type of floor.
The article is
The article isorganized
organizedasasfollows.
follows. Section
Section 2 summarizes
2 summarizes the the physical
physical characteristics
characteristics
of
of the
the CLT
CLT floor, examinedthe
floor, examined thedesign
designofofthe
the laboratory
laboratory used
used for for
the the measurements
measurements and and
the
the equations usedfor
equations used for
thethe measurements
measurements andand the theoretical
the theoretical analysis.
analysis. SectionSection
3 shows3the
shows
the results
results of measurements,
of measurements, relating
relating to airborne
to airborne and vibrational
and vibrational noise. noise.
SectionSection
4 shows4 shows
a
acomparison
comparison between
between simulation
simulation methods
methods and and measurements.
measurements. Conclusions
Conclusions are drawn
are drawn in
in Section
Section 5. 5.
2.
2. Materials andMethods
Materials and Methods
In this study
In this studythe
the impact
impact andand airborne
airborne soundsound insulations
insulations as wellasas well as the radiation
the radiation effi‐
efficiency
ciency areare investigated
investigated using
using sound
sound pressure
pressure and and velocity
velocity sensors
sensors on a onCLTa CLT
floorfloor
in thein the
laboratory
laboratory of thetheFree
FreeUniversity
UniversityofofBolzano,
Bolzano, accordingly
accordingly to ISO
to ISO 10140-5
10140‐5 [48],[48], to minimize
to minimize
flanking transmission.
flanking transmission. The
The laboratory
laboratory consists
consists of
of massive
massive structure
structure lined
linedwithwithdouble
doublelayer
layer
of of gypsum
gypsum boardboard
with awith a cavity
cavity filledfilled
with with
rock rock
woolwool panels.
panels. TheThetest test frame
frame andand
thethe
floor of
floor
the of the receiving
receiving room areroom
madeareofmade of concrete.
concrete. The two The two of
doors doors
the of the laboratory
laboratory have ahave a
weighted
weighted
sound sound reduction
reduction index
index of 42 of 42 dB 1).
dB (Figure (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Laboratory
Laboratoryreceiving
receivingroom
roomand
andCLT
CLTfloor.
floor.
In order
In order to
to minimize
minimizethethevariability
variabilityofof
thethe
measurements
measurements with timetime
with a seasoned woodwood
a seasoned
floor was adopted. Thus, for this reason the measurements were all carried out short
floor was adopted. Thus, for this reason the measurements were all carried out in a in a short
time range
time range (2
(2 consecutive
consecutivedays).
days).
The 5-layer
The 5‐layer CLT
CLT floor
floorhas
hasdimensions
dimensionsofof 4155
4155mm (longer
mm length)
(longer × 3000
length) mm mm
× 3000 (shorter
(shorter
length) with a mass per unit area, m’, of 84 kg/m 2 and a thickness of 200 mm. The shorter
2
length) with a mass per unit area, m’, of 84 kg/m and a thickness of 200 mm. The shorter
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW length consists of three resistant timber layers, while the longer length direction consists
4 of 25
length consists of three resistant timber layers, while the longer length direction consists of
of two resistant wood layers (Figure 2).
two resistant wood layers (Figure 2).
(a) (b)
Figure 2. Wood
Figure 2. Woodfiberfiber
direction. Longer
direction. dimension
Longer (4155 mm)
dimension (4155with
mm)2 with
resistant layers (a).
2 resistant Shorter
layers (a). Shorter
dimension (3000 m) with 3 resistant layers (b).
dimension (3000 m) with 3 resistant layers (b).
The CLT floor is made of spruce and it is classified as a C24 according to the EN 338
[59], with the properties described in Table 1.
Table 1. Mechanical properties of the CLT under consideration.
Em,0,mean Em,90,mean ρmean m’

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233 4 of 24
(a) (b)
Figure 2. Wood fiber direction. Longer dimension (4155 mm) with 2 resistant layers (a). Shorter
dimension
The (3000
CLT m) with
floor is3made
resistant
oflayers (b). and it is classified as a C24 according to the EN
spruce
338 [59], with the properties described in Table 1.
The CLT floor is made of spruce and it is classified as a C24 according to the EN 338
[59], with the properties described in Table 1.
Table 1. Mechanical properties of the CLT under consideration.
Table 1. EMechanical properties of E
the CLT under consideration.ρ m’
m,0,mean m,90,mean mean
11 E m,0,mean 2
kN/mm Em,90,mean2
0.37 kN/mm ρmean3
420 kg/m m’kg/m2
84
11 kN/mm2 0.37 kN/mm2 420 kg/m3 84 kg/m2
The CLT floor was laid on an anti-vibration material, 30 mm thick, with a density of
The CLT floor was laid on an anti‐vibration material, 30 mm thick, with a density of
500 kg/m3 . The perimeter of the specimen is therefore not bound to the structure.
500 kg/m³. The perimeter of the specimen is therefore not bound to the structure.
To characterize the acoustic behavior of the CLT floor’s airborne and impact noise,
To characterize the acoustic behavior of the CLT floor’s airborne and impact noise,
some acoustic indices were determined. With sound pressure levels measurements, the
some acoustic indices were determined. With sound pressure levels measurements, the
normalizedimpact
normalized impactsound
soundpressure
pressure level
level with
with tapping
tapping machine,
machine, the sound
the sound reduction
reduction indexindex
and the
and the impact
impactsound
soundpressure
pressure with
with rubber
rubber ballball
have have been
been determined.
determined. Velocity
Velocity levelslevels
and radiation efficiency levels are then determined combining the vibration and
and radiation efficiency levels are then determined combining the vibration and acoustic acoustic
measurements.
measurements.
For the
For the measurements,
measurements,an anairborne
airbornesource
sourceand
and two
two impact
impact noise
noise sources
sources according to
according
to ISO 10140‐5 were used (Figure 3). A Svantek 958 four‐channel analyzer to acquire soundsound
ISO 10140-5 were used (Figure 3). A Svantek 958 four-channel analyzer to acquire
pressure and
pressure andvibration
vibrationdata
datawas
was used.
used.
Dodecahedron Brüel and

Kjær
Tapping machine Brüel and
Type 4292‐L, Rubber ball Norsonic
Kjær
Power amplifier Brüel and Nor279
Type 3207
Kjær
Type 2734
(a) (b) (c)

Figure
Figure 3.3.Airborne
Airbornenoise
noisesource (a),(a),
source tapping machine
tapping (b) (b)
machine andand
rubber ball ball
rubber (c). (c).
An
An omnidirectional
omnidirectionalsource
sourcewith
withtwelve
twelveloudspeakers
loudspeakers (airborne source)
(airborne driven
source) withwith a
driven
apink
pinknoise
noisesignal,
signal, a
a standard tapping machine and a rubber ball have been used,
standard tapping machine and a rubber ball have been used, respec- respec‐
tively.
tively. In
In particular,
particular,the
therubber
rubberball is is
ball useful forfor
useful a low frequency
a low frequencyanalysis.
analysis.
The tapping machine is the one most used both in the
The tapping machine is the one most used both in the studybare study of structures
of bare and inand in
structures
the case of the application of additional layers [60]. The three sources above described
the case of the application of additional layers [60]. The three sources above described are are
illustrated in Figure
illustrated in Figure 3.3.
2.1. Acoustic and Vibration Parameters Determined from Measurements

The normalized impact sound pressure level, Ln , measured with a standard tapping
machine and the energy average maximum impact sound pressure level measured with
rubber ball, Li,Fmax , are determined according to ISO 10140-3 [46]. Weighted indices, Ln,w ,
evaluated from 100 Hz to 3150 Hz, and LiA,Fmax , evaluated from 50 Hz to 630 Hz, have
been derived according to ISO 717-2 standard [61]. For the measurements with the tapping
machine and with the rubber ball, 4 positions of the source (A, B, C, D) and 5 fixed positions
of the microphone (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5) have been used as depicted in Figure 4.
The normalized impact sound pressure level, Ln, measured with a standard tapping
The normalized
machine and the energy impact soundmaximum
average pressure level,
impactLn,sound
measured with level
pressure a standard
measuredtapping
with
machine
rubber ball, Li,Fmax, are determined according to ISO 10140‐3 [46]. Weighted indices,with
and the energy average maximum impact sound pressure level measured Ln,w,
rubber ball,from
evaluated Li,Fmax100
, are
Hzdetermined
to 3150 Hz,according
and LiA,Fmaxto, evaluated
ISO 10140‐3from[46].
50 Weighted indices,
Hz to 630 Hz, haveLbeen
n,w,
evaluated from 100 Hz to 3150 Hz, and L , evaluated from 50 Hz to 630

derived according to ISO 717‐2 standard [61]. For the measurements with the tapping ma‐
iA,Fmax Hz, have been
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233 derived according
chine and with the torubber
ISO 717‐2
ball,standard [61].ofFor
4 positions thethe measurements
source (A, B, C, D)with
andthe tapping
5 fixed ma‐ 5 of 24
positions
chine and with the rubber ball, 4 positions of the source (A, B, C,
of the microphone (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5) have been used as depicted in Figure 4. D) and 5 fixed positions
of the microphone (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5) have been used as depicted in Figure 4.
(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)
Figure 4.
Figure 4. CLT
CLT floor
floor and
and sources
sources positions
positions (a);
(a); microphone
microphone positions
positionsin
inthe
thetransmitting
transmittingroom
room(b)
(b) and
Figure
and in4.the
CLT floor and
receiving roomsources
(c). positions (a); microphone positions in the transmitting room (b)
in the receiving room (c).
and in the receiving room (c).
The sound reduction index, R, is calculated according to ISO 10140‐2 [45]. The
The sound reduction index, R, is calculated according to ISO 10140-2 [45]. The
The sound
weighted soundreduction
reduction index,
index, R R,w, is calculatedinaccording
is evaluated to ISO
the frequency range10140‐2 [45]. The
100 Hz–3150 Hz
weighted sound reduction index, Rw , is evaluated in the frequency range 100–3150 Hz
weighted sound reduction index, R , is evaluated in the frequency
and is calculated according to ISO 717‐1 [62]. For the measurement of the sound reduction
w range 100 Hz–3150 Hz
andisiscalculated
and calculated according
according to ISO 717-1 [62]. For the measurement of theofsound
the sound reduction
index two positions (A, C) to
of ISO 717‐1
the source [62].
and For the measurement
5 positions of the microphone havereduction
been used
index
index two4).positions (A, C) of the source and 5 positions of the microphone have been used been
two positions (A, C) of the source and 5 positions of the microphone have
(Figure
used
(Figure (Figure 4).
4). all the
For measurements, the microphones have been positioned in a range of
For all the measurements,
all
For between
heights
the measurements,
1 and 1.5 metres
the
the microphones
in microphones
order to avoidhave
have been
beenon
positions
positioned
positioned inina arange
the same plane. rangeofofheights
between
heights 1 andlevels
between
Velocity 1.5
1 andmetres in
1.5 metres
were order
measured to with
in order avoid anpositions
to avoid on the
positions
accelerometer same
on fixed plane.
the same
in 9plane.
positions with
screws. A reference velocity value, v0, of 10 m/s has been considered. positionswith
Velocity
Velocity levels
levels were
were measured
measured with
with an
an
−9 accelerometer
accelerometer fixed
fixed inin9 positions
9 withscrews.
A reference velocity value, v , of 10 −9 m/s has been considered.
screws. A reference velocity value,
0 v , of 10 −9 m/s has been considered.
The noise sources (tapping machine, dodecahedron and rubber ball) were positioned at
0
Thenoise
The
3 points (A,noise C)sources
B,sources (tapping
for a(tapping
total machine,
of 27machine,
measurements, dodecahedron
dodecahedron
according and10848‐1
andtorubber
ISO rubber
ball) wereball)
[63] were 5).
positioned
positioned
(Figure at
3atpoints
3 points
(A, B,(A,
C)B,forC)a for
totalaof
total of 27 measurements,
27 measurements, accordingaccording to ISO[63]
to ISO 10848‐1 10848-1
(Figure[63]
5). (Figure 5).
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 5. General scheme of the positioning of the sound sources (a) and the accelerometer (b) for
Figure 5.5.General
the determination
Figure Generalscheme
of of of
thethe
positioning
the velocity
scheme levels. of the
positioning of sound sources
the sound (a) and
sources (a)the
andaccelerometer (b) for (b) for
the accelerometer
the determination of the velocity levels.
the determination of the velocity levels.
Radiation power, W rad , radiation efficiency, σrad and radiation index, Lσrad , are derived
by the Equations (1)–(3) [64]:
p2 S,t

S T λ0
Wrad =A 1+ , (1)
4ρ0 c0 8V
Wrad
σrad = (2)
S(v2 )S,t ρ0 c0
Lσrad = 10lg(σrad ) (3)
where A is the equivalent absorption area of the receiving room, p2 S,t , is the average
sound pressure (with tapping machine, dodecahedron or rubber ball), ρ0 is the air density,
c0 is the speed of sound, ST is the room surface, λ0 is the wavelength and V is the room
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233 6 of 24
volume, S is the floor surface and v2 S,t is the average square vibration velocity (with
tapping machine, dodecahedron or rubber ball).
The sound pressure level can be obtained with Equation (4):
S
Li = Lv + Lσrad − 28 + 10lg (4)
A
The normalized impact sound pressure level is obtained by the following Equation (5):

A
Ln = Li + 10lg (5)
A0
The normalized impact sound pressure level in one-third octave bands emitted by
the impact of the hammers of the tapping machine is expressed by Equation (6) from ISO
12354-2 [22]:
Ln = LF + 10lg( Re(Y )) + 10lg(σrad ) − 10lg m0 + 10lg( Ts ) + 10.6

(6)
where LF is the force level of the tapping machine (reference 10−6 N), Re(Y) is the real part
of the floor mobility Y = v/F, σrad is the radiation efficiency for free bending waves, m0 is
the mass per unit area, Ts is the structural reverberation time, considered in accordance
with the relation expressed by Barbaresi et al. [17] in their study.
For the examined CLT floor the following equation was found which best fit the curve
of the measured values:
Ln_pr = LF + 10lg( Re(Y )) + 12lg(σrad ) − 10lg m0 + 10lg( Ts ) + 6.8

(7)
p
As regards the tapping machine, a force value in 1/3 octave band of 0.91 f [64]
was considered.
In this research, Equation (6) was also used in the case of the rubber ball, considering

A
the maximum force values measured and subtracting the normalization term 10lg A0 , as
depicted by Equation (8):

0
A
Li,Fmax = LFmax + 10lg( Re( Ymax )) + 10lg(σrad ) − 10lg m + 10lg( Ts ) + 10.6 − 10lg (8)
A0
where LFmax is the maximum force level of the rubber ball, Re(Ymax ) is the real part of the
floor mobility.
For the examined CLT floor the following equation was found which best fit the curve
of the measured values:

0
A
Li,Fmax_pr = LFmax + 10lg( Re( Ymax )) + 10lg(σrad ) − 10lg m + 2lg( Ts ) + 5 − 10lg (9)
A0
The impact force exposure levels generated by the rubber ball LFE with a reference
period of 1 s are reported in Table 2 according to ISO 10140-5 [48].
Table 2. Impact force exposure level in each octave band of the rubber ball.
1/1 Oct. Band Freq.

31.5 63 125 250 500
[Hz]
Impact force
exposure level 39.0 ± 1.0 31.0 ± 1.5 23.0 ± 1.5 17.0 ± 2.0 12.5 ± 2.0
[dB re 1 N]
Since the reported values in Table 2 are not maximum values nor in 1/3 octave bands,
the equivalent curve, LF (1/3 oct) was obtained [13]. To obtain the value correspondent to
the reference time of 1 s and then considering the maximum difference in level between
1/1 Oct. Band Freq. [Hz] 31.5 63 125 250 500
Impact force
exposure level 39.0 ± 1.0 31.0 ± 1.5 23.0 ± 1.5 17.0 ± 2.0 12.5 ± 2.0
[dB re 1 N]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233 7 of 24
Since the reported values in Table 2 are not maximum values nor in 1/3 octave bands,
the equivalent curve, LF (1/3 oct) was obtained [13]. To obtain the value correspondent to
the reference time of 1 s and then considering the maximum difference in level between
themeasured
the measured and
and evaluated
evaluated ones
ones thethe conversion
conversion values
values werewere obtained
obtained according
according to the to the
formulaLFL_max‐L
formula F _max-L F (1/3
F (1/3 oct) oct) (Figure
(Figure 6). 6).
50
LF_max (1/3 oct)

40
LF (1/1 oct ISO 10140)

30
Force level [dB]
20
LF (1/3 oct)
10
LF_max-LF (1/3 oct)
0
25
31.5
40
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
Frequency [Hz]
Comparison
Figure6.6.Comparison
Figure of L LF _max
ofF_max (1/3(1/3
oct), oct), LFoctave),
LF (1/1 LF (1/3 L
(1/1 octave), LF_max‐LLFF(1/3
F (1/3 octave),
octave), _max-L
oct).F (1/3 oct).
2.2.Simulations
2.2. Simulations and
and Analytical
Analytical Models
Models
Firstly,two
Firstly, two commercial
commercial software
software both both
basedbased on traditional
on traditional mass lawmass law and
and Sewell cor‐Sewell
correlation [65] were used to compare the simulated versus the measured
relation [65] were used to compare the simulated versus the measured sound reduction sound reduction
index for the analyzed CLT floor. The elastic properties of the material,
index for the analyzed CLT floor. The elastic properties of the material, such as Young’s such as Young’s
modulus and the loss factor, were varied, while the real dimensions of the tested slab were were
modulus and the loss factor, were varied, while the real dimensions of the tested slab
consideredforfor
considered the
the geometry.
geometry.
Secondly,a anumerical
Secondly, numerical model
model with
with multi-quadratic
multi‐quadratic interpolation
interpolation function
function waswas
usedused to
tomap
mapthe
thesound
sound radiation indexfor
radiation index forthe
thethree
threesound
sound sources
sources (tapping
(tapping machine,
machine, dodecahe-
dodeca‐
hedron, rubber ball). The
dron, rubber Thesound
soundreduction
reduction index waswas
index determined
determined for the
fornine
the positions of
nine positions of
the
thevibration
vibration measurement
measurement depicted
depictedin Section 3.2 permitting
in Section the characterization
3.2 permitting of the of the
the characterization
average
averagesound
sound pressure
pressurelevel forfor
level thethe
three positions
three of each
positions source.
of each source.
3.3.Results
Resultsand Discussion
and Discussion
3.1.Experimental
3.1. Experimental Results:
Results: Sound
Sound Pressure
Pressure Level-Derived
Level‐Derived Parameters
Parameters
Thenormalized
The normalizedimpact
impactsound
sound pressure
pressure level
level obtained
obtained using
using thethe tapping
tapping machine, the
machine,
the sound
sound
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW reductionindex
reduction indexretrieved
retrievedusing
using a dodecahedron
dodecahedronand
andthe
themaximum
maximumsound pres‐
sound8 pressure
of 25
sure levels
levels measured
measured impinging
impinging thethe rubber
rubber ballball
on on
thethe
200200
mm mm CLT
CLT floor
floor areare shown
shown in
in Figure 7.
Figure 7.
100 50 100
Normalized impact sound pressulre level Ln [dB]
95 95
Impact sound pressulre level Li,Fmax [dB]
45
90 90
Sound reduction index R [dB]
40
85 85
80 35 80
75 75
30
70 70
25
65 65
60 20 60
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
5000
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
5000
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
Frequency [Hz]
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 7. Normalized impact sound pressure level (a), sound reduction index (b), rubber ball impact
sound pressure level (c) for the 200 mm CLT floor.
For normalized impact sound pressure level, a resonant frequency of 63 Hz is clearly
highlighted. Above 800 Hz, the impact of the sound pressure level decreases, as the sur‐
face dampens the impact of the hammers by attenuating the impact force. This is due to
the fact that the wooden surface of the floor is much less rigid than, for example, a concrete
floor, for which this phenomenon is much less noticeable [66] (Figure 8).
70 70
Normalize
Impa
25
65 65
60 20 60
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
5000
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
5000
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
Frequency [Hz]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233

(a) (b) (c) 8 of 24
Fornormalized
For normalizedimpact
impact sound
sound pressure
pressure level,
level, a resonant
a resonant frequency
frequency of 63of
Hz63isHz is clearly
clearly
highlighted. Above 800 Hz, the impact of the sound pressure level decreases,
highlighted. Above 800 Hz, the impact of the sound pressure level decreases, as the sur‐ as the surface
face dampens the impact of the hammers by attenuating the impact force. This is due to fact
dampens the impact of the hammers by attenuating the impact force. This is due to the
thatfact
the thethat
wooden surface
the wooden of theoffloor
surface is much
the floor lessless
is much rigid than,
rigid forfor
than, example,
example,aaconcrete
concrete floor,
for which this phenomenon is much less noticeable [66] (Figure
floor, for which this phenomenon is much less noticeable [66] (Figure 8). 8).
100
CLT-Ln,w=88(-5) dB
95 CLS 14-Ln,w=81(-12) dB
Normalized impact sound pressulre level Ln [dB]
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
5000
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
Frequency [Hz]
Figure
Figure 8.8.Normalized
Normalizedimpact sound
impact pressure
sound level
pressure for CLT
level floorfloor
for CLT (200 (200
mm)mm)
and for
andconcrete floor floor
for concrete
(140
(140 mm).
mm).
Due
Due to to this
this important
important aspect,
aspect, itit is
is not
not possible,
possible, for
for example,
example, toto use
use the
the attenuation
attenuation data
data of the impact sound pressure level, obtained on a normalized
of the impact sound pressure level, obtained on a normalized concrete floor, concrete floor, on
on wooden
wooden floors. The ∆𝐿 at high frequency, obtained on the normalized concrete
floors. The ∆Ln at high frequency, obtained on the normalized concrete floor of a lining, floor of a is
lining, is greater than the same lining applied on a wooden floor, because floating
greater than the same lining applied on a wooden floor, because floating floors are effective floors
are effective
above above high frequencies,
high frequencies, where the
where the wooden wooden
floor has a floor
goodhas a good
impact impactbehavior,
acoustic acoustic with
behavior, with
respect to mass. respect to mass.
When
Whenlooking
lookingatatthe
thesound
sound reduction
reduction index, R, (Figure
index, 7b) a7b)
R, (Figure resonant frequency
a resonant at
frequency at
63 Hz is also determined. It can be noted that a mass‐law‐like trend, starting from 315 Hz,
63 Hz is also determined. It can be noted that a mass-law-like trend, starting from 315 Hz,
is present.
is present.
From the comparison of the impact sound pressure level produced by the standard
From the comparison of the impact sound pressure level produced by the standard
tapping machine (Figure 7c), and the sound reduction index (Figure 7b), it is clear that the
tapping machine (Figure 7c), and the sound reduction index (Figure 7b), it is clear that
peak of R, at 80 Hz, corresponds to the minimum impact sound pressure level, as expected
the peak of R, at 80 Hz, corresponds to the minimum impact sound pressure level, as
[67,68]. Then, in the case of the impact sound pressure level and the rubber ball trends,
expected
the resonance[67,68]. Then, is
frequency inalso
the at
case of the impact sound pressure level and the rubber ball
63 Hz.
trends, the resonance frequency is also at 63 Hz.
The weighted index values are depicted in Table 3.
Table 3. Weighted normalized impact sound pressure level, Ln,w , weighted sound reduction index,
Rw , and A-weighted energy average maximum impact sound pressure level measured with rubber
ball according to the standard, LiA,Fmax .
Ln,w [dB] Rw [dB] LiA,Fmax [dB(A)]

88 35 80
The weighted impact sound pressure level and weighted sound reduction index
are consistent with the literature [12], confirming the possibility of extending the results
obtained in this research to other CLT floors.
In Figure 9, the standard deviations associated to the sound pressure levels and
measured for the three sources in the receiving room are compared. Due to the greater
variability in the positioning of the source, the rubber ball results are characterized by
higher values of standard deviation than the other sources.
The weighted impact sound pressure level and weighted sound reduction index are
consistent with the literature [12], confirming the possibility of extending the results ob‐
tained in this research to other CLT floors.
In Figure 9, the standard deviations associated to the sound pressure levels and meas‐
ured for the three sources in the receiving room are compared. Due to the greater varia‐
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233
bility in the positioning of the source, the rubber ball results are characterized by higher 9 of 24
values of standard deviation than the other sources.
5 Tapping
Standard deviation [dB]

4
3 Dodecahedron
1 Rubber ball
0
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
5000
Frequency [Hz]
Standard
Figure9.9.Standard
Figure deviation
deviation of sound
of the the sound pressure
pressure levels levels of thesources,
of the three three sources, measured
measured in the re‐ in the
ceiving room.
receiving room.
Inthe
In thecase
caseofofthe
theimpact
impactmeasurements,
measurements,it itcan canbebenoted
noted that
that due
due toto the
the non-homogeneous
non‐homoge‐
neous
contactcontact surface,
surface, the standard
the standard deviation
deviation is greater
is greater thanthan
withwith the airborne
the airborne measure‐
measurements. In
ments. In the literature,
the literature, the difference
the difference is less evident,
is less evident, probably probably
due toduethe to the analysis
analysis of ho‐
of homogeneous
mogeneous
heavy weight heavy weight
floors [69].floors [69].
Then,
Then,bybycomparing
comparing thethe
measured
measured sound reduction
sound index
reduction withwith
index the ones derived
the ones from from
derived
the
themass
masslawlawR =R20lg(mf) − 47) [70],
= 20lg(mf − 47a [70],
new correlation was retrieved
a new correlation was experimentally, start‐
retrieved experimentally,
ing from from
starting 315 Hz,
315according also to
Hz, according thetorange
also frequency
the range of theof
frequency mass law. The
the mass law.proposed
The proposed
mass law for the 200 mm CLT timber floor analyzed here is expressed
mass law for the 200 mm CLT timber floor analyzed here is expressed in Equation in Equation (10). (10).
𝑅 17.5𝑙𝑔 𝑚𝑓 50 (10)
R = 17.5lg(m f ) − 50 (10)
Then, a comparison of the here‐proposed mass law versus the traditional one [70] and
the measured sound reduction
Then, a comparison of theindex is proponedmass
here-proposed to focus on its reliability.
law versus From one
the traditional the re‐
[70] and
sults
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW depicted in
the measured Figure
sound 10, the following
reduction highlights can
index is proponed be drawn:
to focus 10 of
on its reliability. From the25results
depicted
1. in Figure
Starting 10,Hz,
from 315 thethere
following highlightstrend
is an increasing can be drawn:
with mass law R = 17.5lg(mf) − 50,
so between 50 Hz and 315 Hz, the equation R = 17.5lg(m’) − 6.3 can be used (𝑅
70 0.93);
2. The trend of the mass law (Equation (11)) is significantly different from the theoreti‐
CLT-Rw=35(0;-3)
cal one [70].
60
R=20lg(mf)-47
50
40 R=17.5lg(mf)-50
(315 Hz-5000 Hz)
30
R=17.5lg(m)-6.3
(50 Hz-315 Hz)
20
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
5000
Frequency [Hz]
Figure10.
Figure Measurements
10.Measurements of sound
of sound reduction
reduction index
index for200
for the themm
200 CLT
mm floor
CLT and
floorcomparison
and comparison
with with
proposed mass law and R = 20lg(mf) − 47.
proposed mass law and R = 20lg(mf ) − 47.
1. Therefore,
Starting from 315 Hz,mass
the classical therelaw
is an increasing
seems not to trend with mass
be suitable law R = 17.5lg(mf
to characterize ) − 50, so
the acoustic
insulation to the50airborne
between Hz andnoise of athe
315 Hz, CLT floor. The
equation R =possible − 6.3 cancould
explanation
17.5lg(m’) (R2 = 0.93);
be related
be used
to
2.the fact
The that theofclassical
trend the mass law of (Equation
law mass is obtained
(11)) isfor thin panels,different
significantly with a density greater
from the theoretical
than that of wood.
one [70].
Figure 11 shows the results of a calculation performed, variating the modulus of elas‐
ticity and the loss factor, while input data, such as geometrical dimensions, were kept fix.
The results of the simulations are then compared with the measured sound reduction in‐
dex. Even by means of these software simulations, it is possible to observe an overestima‐
tion of the results, particularly in the medium‐high frequencies. It seems, quite clearly,
30
R=17.5lg(m)-6.3
(50 Hz-315 Hz)
20
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
5000
Frequency [Hz]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233 10 of 24
Figure 10. Measurements of sound reduction index for the 200 mm CLT floor and comparison with
proposed mass law and R = 20lg(mf) − 47.
Therefore, the classical mass law seems not to be suitable to characterize the acoustic
Therefore, the classical mass law seems not to be suitable to characterize the acoustic
insulation to the airborne noise of a CLT floor. The possible explanation could be related
insulation to the airborne noise of a CLT floor. The possible explanation could be related
to the fact that the classical law of mass is obtained for thin panels, with a density greater
to the fact that the classical law of mass is obtained for thin panels, with a density greater
than that of wood.
than that of wood.
Figure 11 shows the results of a calculation performed, variating the modulus of
Figure 11 shows the results of a calculation performed, variating the modulus of elas‐
elasticity and the loss factor, while input data, such as geometrical dimensions, were
ticity and the loss factor, while input data, such as geometrical dimensions, were kept fix.
kept
The fix. The
results of results of the simulations
the simulations are then
are then compared compared
with withsound
the measured the measured
reduction sound
in‐
reduction index. Even by means of these software simulations, it is possible to observe an
dex. Even by means of these software simulations, it is possible to observe an overestima‐
overestimation of the
tion of the results, results, particularly
particularly in the medium-high
in the medium‐high frequencies.frequencies. It seems,
It seems, quite quite
clearly,
clearly,
that a dedicated study for CLT is necessary, since none of the models manage to fairly to
that a dedicated study for CLT is necessary, since none of the models manage
fairly calculate
calculate the requested
the requested characteristics.
characteristics.
80 80
70 70
60 60
Sound reduction index, R [dB]
Sound reduction index, R [dB]

50 50
eta=0.01 - E=2 Gpa eta=0.01 - E=2 Gpa
eta=0.01 - E=4 Gpa eta=0.01 - E=4 Gpa
40 eta=0.01 - E=8 Gpa 40 eta=0.01 - E=8 Gpa
eta=0.05 - E=2 Gpa eta=0.05 - E=2 Gpa
30 eta=0.05 - E=4 Gpa 30 eta=0.05 - E=4 Gpa
eta=0.05 - E=8 Gpa eta=0.05 - E=8 Gpa
20 R measured 20 R measured
10 10
0 0
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
5000
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
5000
Figure11.
Figure 11.Comparison
Comparison of
of measurement
measurement and
andsimulation
simulationwith
withtwo different
two commercial
different software.
commercial software.
Finally,the
Finally, theISO
ISO12354-2
12354‐2 [71] standard
standardreports
reportsthe
thefollowing equation
following equationthatthat
correlates
correlates
the sound reduction index,
the sound reduction index, R, to the normalized impact sound pressure level, L
the normalized impact sound pressure level, Ln :n :
𝑅 𝐿 38 30𝑙𝑔 𝑓 (11)
R + Ln = 38 + 30lg( f ) (11)
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
where both R + Ln and the equation 38 + 30lg(f) are reported in Figure 12. 11 of 25
where both R + Ln and the equation 38 + 30lg(f ) are reported in Figure 12.
150
140
R+Ln meas
130
R+Ln [dB]
120
110
100
38+30lg(f)
90
80
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
5000
Frequency [Hz]
Figure12.
Figure Measurements
12.Measurements of normalized
of normalized impact
impact soundsound pressure
pressure level forlevel for mm
the 200 the CLT
200 mm
floor,CLT floor,
comparison with R + 𝐿 =38 + 30lg(f) equation
comparison with R + Ln = 38 + 30lg(f ) equation.
Fromthe
From theresults
resultsininFigure
Figure
12,12, it can
it can be be seen
seen thatthat a poor
a poor correlation
correlation index
index (R2 =(R 2 = is
0.72) 0.72) is
obtained
obtainedininthe
the100–3150
100–3150Hz frequency
Hz frequency range, while
range, whilea good correlation
a good index
correlation (R2 = (R
index 2 = 0.95)
0.95)
can
canbe
benoted
notedininthe
the100–2000
100–2000 HzHzfrequency
frequency range.
range.
3.2. Experimental Results: Vibration‐Derived Parameters

A grid of accelerometer measurement positions is used to evaluate the vibration ve‐
locity of the CLT slab. Firstly, the frequency trends are plotted to investigate the velocity
levels. From the velocity levels in Figure 13, it is possible to observe how those produced
by the rubber ball, for frequencies below 125 Hz, are higher than those produced by the
1
1
1
2
2
3
4
5
Frequency [Hz]
Figure 12. Measurements of normalized impact sound pressure level for the 200 mm CLT floor,
comparison with R + 𝐿 =38 + 30lg(f) equation
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233 From the results in Figure 12, it can be seen that a poor correlation index (R2 = 0.72) is11 of 24
obtained in the 100–3150 Hz frequency range, while a good correlation index (R2 = 0.95)
can be noted in the 100–2000 Hz frequency range.
3.2. Experimental Results: Vibration-Derived Parameters
3.2. Experimental Results: Vibration‐Derived Parameters
A grid of accelerometer measurement positions is used to evaluate the vibration
A grid of accelerometer measurement positions is used to evaluate the vibration ve‐
velocity of the CLT slab. Firstly, the frequency trends are plotted to investigate the velocity
locity of the CLT slab. Firstly, the frequency trends are plotted to investigate the velocity
tapping machine and the dodecahedron. Conversely, the velocity level’s trend of the
tapping machine and the dodecahedron. Conversely, the velocity level’s trend of the
standardtapping
standard tappingmachine
machineandandofofthe
the rubber
rubber ball
ball are
are partially
partially overlapped, only in
overlapped, only in the
the range
range between 160–250 Hz. For frequencies below 80 Hz, however, the levels recorded are lower
between 160–250 Hz. For frequencies below 80 Hz, however, the levels recorded are
than those
lower of theofrubber
than those ball, ball,
the rubber but higher thanthan
but higher those of the
those dodecahedron.
of the dodecahedron.ForFor
frequencies
fre‐
above 250
quencies Hz,250
above theHz,velocity levelslevels
the velocity of theofstandard tapping
the standard tappingmachine
machineare
arethe
thehighest
highest of the
three
of sources
the three presented
sources here.here.
presented
130
120 Lv_tapping
110
Velocity level Lv [dB]
100 Lv_dodecahedron
90
80 Lv_rubber ball
70
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
5000
Frequency [Hz]
Figure13.13.
Figure Measurements
Measurements of velocity
of velocity level: machine
level: tapping tapping(50–5000
machineHz),(50–5000 Hz), (50–5000
dodecahedron dodecahedron
Hz) and rubber
(50–5000 ball (50–630
Hz) and Hz).(50–630 Hz).
rubber ball
Figure 14 shows the radiation indices of the CLT for each exciting source (tapping
machine, airborne,
Figure 14 shows noiseindices
the radiation and rubber
of the CLTball). It can
for each be clearly
exciting seen that, between 50 Hz and
source (tapping
80 Hz,
machine, the radiation
airborne, indices
noise and rubber ofItthe
ball). can two impactive
be clearly seen that,sources
between 50 are
Hzalmost
and superimposed, while
80 Hz, the 80
after radiation
Hz, indices of the of
the value twothe
impactive
tappingsources are almostissuperimposed,
machine far higher,while not only than the radiation
after 80 Hz, the value of the tapping machine is far higher, not only than the radiation
index of the rubber ball, but also than that of the dodecahedron. From this analysis, it
index of the rubber ball, but also than that of the dodecahedron. From this analysis, it is
is evident
evident how eachhowsound each
sourcesound
producessource produces
a different type of a different
excitation. It is,type of excitation. It is, therefore,
therefore,
important that allthat
important three all
sources
three are sources
considered, when
are analyzing thewhen
considered, behavior of a CLT the behavior of a CLT
analyzing
building element.
building element.
20
15
Tapping machine
10
5
L_rad [dB]
0 Dodecahedron
-5
-10
Rubber ball
-15
-20
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
5000
Frequency [Hz]
Figure 14. Measurements of radiation index: tapping machine (50–5000 Hz), dodecahedron (50–5000
Figure 14. Measurements of radiation index: tapping machine (50–5000
Hz) and rubber ball (50–630 Hz).
Hz), dodecahedron
(50–5000 Hz) and rubber ball (50–630 Hz).
Finally, by looking at the average of the nine measurements and at the variability of
values for the nine measurements of the radiation indices, for each of the three sources
(Figure 15), some considerations can follow.
20 20 20
10 10 10
Rubber ball
-15
-20
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
5000
Frequency [Hz]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233 12 of 24
Figure 14. Measurements of radiation index: tapping machine (50–5000 Hz), dodecahedron (50–5000
Hz) and rubber ball (50–630 Hz).
Finally,
Finally,bybylooking
lookingat
atthe
the average of the
average of thenine
ninemeasurements
measurements and
and at at
thethe variability
variability of of
values
valuesfor
forthe
thenine
ninemeasurements
measurements ofof the
the radiation
radiationindices,
indices,forfor each
each of of
thethe three
three sources
sources
(Figure
(Figure15),
15),some
someconsiderations
considerations can
can follow.
20 20 20
10 10 10
L_rad [dB]
L_rad [dB]
L_rad [dB]
0 0 0
-10 -10 -10
-20 -20 -20

50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
5000
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
5000
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]
(a) (b) (c)

Figure
Figure 15.15.9 9points
pointsreceiving
receivingmeasurement
measurement radiation
radiationindices
indicesand
andaverage
averagerespectively of: of:
respectively tapping
tapping
machine (a), dodecahedron (b), rubber ball (c).
machine (a), dodecahedron (b), rubber ball (c).
Firstly,looking
Firstly, lookingatatthe
the tapping
tapping machine
machine measurements,
measurements,it itis isclear that,
clear especially
that, in in
especially
the range between 50–80 Hz, all nine measurements are quite close to each
the range between 50–80 Hz, all nine measurements are quite close to each other and to other and to
theaverage
the averagevalues.
values. From
From100 100HzHzto 200 Hz, Hz,
to 200 theythey
are rather scattered,
are rather then especially
scattered, from
then especially
250 Hz onwards, the nine measurements seem quite different from each other, rarely over‐
from 250 Hz onwards, the nine measurements seem quite different from each other, rarely
lapping the average curve.
overlapping the average curve.
Then, when looking at the measurements performed with the dodecahedron, it can
be noted how the trends of each of the nine positions are quite dissimilar for almost all
the frequencies. A more similar behavior of the nine curves, on the other hand, can be
observed in the proximity of high frequencies (3150–5000 Hz).
Finally, by looking at the rubber ball trends, it is possible to note that (i) the trends are
more similar to that of the averaged values at low frequencies (50–100 Hz) and that (ii) the
differences between the nine positions, at high frequencies, are much more evident than at
low frequencies.
Using the vibration data as a baseline, it was possible to derive and study the radiation
index caused by each individual source at different receiver positions. This resulted in map-
ping, useful to better understand how the entire CLT floor surface behaves (Appendix A).
Looking at the maps produced by the impact of the tapping machine, some considera-
tions can be made for the radiation index. The resonance peak of the normalized impact
sound pressure level at 63 Hz is the same as the one of the corresponding radiation index.
The negative peak at 80 Hz is also found in both Ln and in Lσrad .
As in the case of the tapping machine, and also for the airborne noise, the peak
at 63 Hz is clearly shown in Figure A2. Then, in accordance with the trend found in
Figures 14 and 15, the minimum is reached at 80 Hz. Conversely to the tapping machine
case, a fluctuation between negative and positive values of the radiation index can be seen.
Then, if the overall average value is around −4 dB (dark green), a level of 3.0 dB is found
in the centre-right part of the floor. Next, from 100 Hz to 2500 Hz, the surface maps always
show a positive behavior. Then, some negative trends are found at 3150 Hz and 4000 Hz.
Focusing on 3150 Hz, a negative trend of the radiation index is found in the centre-right
part of the floor, while at 4000 Hz, the negative behavior of the radiation index characterizes
the upper-right, together with centre-right area, and the low-centre area of the CLT flooring.
Finally, looking at the radiation index of the rubber ball (Figure A3), two down peaks
characterize the impact source behavior on the CLT floors, at 50 and 80 Hz, in accordance
with the trends of Figures 12 and 13. While the maximum level is found at 63 Hz, from
100 Hz onwards, an increasingly positive trend of the radiation index is always found.
For the impact noise produced by the tapping machine and the rubber ball, Equations
(7) and (9) are proposed. These equations have been obtained by modifying those reported in
the floor, while at 4000 Hz, the negative behavior of the radiation index characterizes the
upper‐right, together with centre‐right area, and the low‐centre area of the CLT flooring.
Finally, looking at the radiation index of the rubber ball (Figure A3), two down peaks
characterize the impact source behavior on the CLT floors, at 50 and 80 Hz, in accordance
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233
with the trends of Figures 12 and 13. While the maximum level is found at 63 Hz, from 13 of 24
100 Hz onwards, an increasingly positive trend of the radiation index is always found.
For the impact noise produced by the tapping machine and the rubber ball, Equations
(7) and (9) are proposed. These equations have been obtained by modifying those reported
theISO
in the ISO12354‐2
12354-2standard,
standard,minimizing
minimizingthe thesum
sumofof the
the absolute
absolute value
value of of
thethe differences in the
differences
measured
in the measured and theoretical
and levels.
theoretical The
levels. results
The areare
results shown
showninin
Figure 16.16.
Figure
100 100
Normalized impact sound pressure level, Ln [dB]

90
90
80
Li,Fmax [dB]
80
70
70
60
50 60
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
5000
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
Figure 16. Simulated

Figure normalized
16. Simulated sound
normalized reduction
sound indexindex
reduction (Equation (7)) and
(Equation (7)) energy average
and energy maxi‐maximum
average
mum impactsound
impact soundpressure
pressurelevel
level(Equation
(Equation (9)).
(9)).
4. Comparison
4. Comparison
between
between Measured
Measured and Calculated
and Calculated ValuesValues 14 of 25
It isItnow possible
is now to use
possible to the
use sound radiation
the sound and velocity
radiation level, level,
and velocity experimentally de‐ deter-
experimentally
termined,
mined,together
togetherwith
withthe
thegeometrical
geometricalfeatures, to predict
features, the the
to predict impact
impactnoisenoise
by means of of the
by means
literature
the literature and proposed
and proposed methods
methods(equations
(equations presented
presented ininSections
Sections2.12.1
andand 2.2),
2.2), in order to
in order
compare them with the measured
to compare them with the measured one. one.
InFigure
In Figure17, 17,the
thenormalized
normalized impact
impact sound
sound pressure
pressure levellevel measured
measured in theinlaboratory
the laboratory
(Ln_meas.
(𝐿 _
), the expected level according to the reference curve (L
. ), the expected level according to the reference curve (𝐿 _ . n_ref.curve ) [13],) [13], the level
the level
derivedfrom
derived fromthethevelocity
velocitylevels
levels
(𝐿 (L_ ) ) according
according
n_Lv to to Equation
Equation (5) (5)
and and
the the expected
expected level level
using the
using themodelmodelininISO ISO12354‐2
12354-2(𝐿 (L
_ n_12354 ),
− ),
using
2 using Equation
Equation (6), (6),
and and
the the expected
expected level level
(Ln_pr
(𝐿 _ ),),usingusingthe
theproposed
proposed Equation
Equation (7) (7)
areare shown.
shown.
100
Ln_meas.
Normalized impact sound pressure level, Ln [dB]
90
Ln_ref. curve
80
Ln_Lv
70
Ln_12354-2
60
Ln_pr
50
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
5000
Frequency [Hz]
Figure17.
Figure Measuredand
17.Measured and predicted
predicted normalized
normalized impact
impact sound
sound pressure
pressure level.level.
Table 44 shows
Table showsthe
theweighted
weightednormalized
normalizedimpact
impactsound
sound pressure
pressure levels
levels forfor
thethe measure-
meas‐
ments and
urements models
and used.
models used.
Table 4.
Table Weightednormalized
4. Weighted normalizedimpact
impact sound
sound pressure
pressure 𝐿 , L.n,w .
level,
level,
Ln,w_meas
n,w_meas [dB]
[dB] Ln,w_ref.
Ln,w_ref. [dB][dB] Ln,w_Lv
curvecurve [dB] [dB] Ln,w_12354‐2
Ln,w_Lv [dB] [dB] Ln,w_prL[dB]
Ln,w_12354-2 n,w_pr [dB]
88
88 86 86 89 89 90 90 88 88
ItItcan
canbe
benoted
notedthat
thatfor
forall
allthe
themodels,
models,thethecalculated
calculatedvalues
valuesfall within
fall withina range
a rangeof of
2 2 dB.
dB. The result obtained using the velocity levels is more accurate, as it is derived from
The result obtained using the velocity levels is more accurate, as it is derived from an actual an
actual measurement made on the floor. It can be noted that the shape of the measured
spectrum is similar to the reference curve [13], while the measured values are 2 dB higher
than the reference curve.
Figure 18 shows the sound reduction index measured in the laboratory 𝑅 ), ac‐
cording to the reference curve (𝑅 . ), derived from the velocity levels and the levels
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233 14 of 24
measurement made on the floor. It can be noted that the shape of the measured spectrum
is similar to the reference curve [13], while the measured values are 2 dB higher than the
reference curve.
Figure 18 shows the sound reduction index measured in the laboratory ( Rmeas ), ac-
cording to the reference curve (Rref.curve ), derived from the velocity levels and the levels
measured in the transmitting room (RLv ), in which A ed L1 are the measured values, while
L2 is evaluated according to Equation (4), and the predicted level using the model in ISO
12354-1 annex B (R12354−1 ) and predicted with proposed equations R = 17.5lg(mf 15 of 25) − 50,
between 315 Hz and 5000 Hz and R = 17.5lg(m’) − 6.3, between 50 Hz and 315 Hz.
80
R meas
70
60
R_ref. curve
50
R_Lv
40
30 R_12354-1
20
R_pr
10
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
5000
Frequency [Hz]
Figure18.
Figure Measured
18.Measured and
and predicted
predicted sound
sound reduction
reduction index.
index.
Table55shows
Table showsthe theweighted
weighted sound
sound reduction
reduction indices
indices forfor
thethe measurements
measurements andand
mod‐ models
used.
els used. The
Theprediction
predictionmade
madeby by velocity level and
velocity level andsound
soundpressure
pressure level
level measurements in
measurements
in thetransmitting
the transmitting room
room is quite
quiteaccurate,
accurate,because
becauseactual measurements
actual measurements are used on theon the
are used
floor.
floor.The
Thereference
referencecurve overestimates
curve overestimates the performance
the performanceby 4 dB,
by 4while the ISOthe
dB, while 12354‐1
ISO 12354-
model
1 model (as from the equations
(as from in paragraph
the equations 2.1) overestimates
in paragraph (above 1600(above
2.1) overestimates Hz) and under‐
1600 Hz) and
estimates (between
underestimates 80 and 1000
(between Hz)1000
80 and the performance of the floor,
Hz) the performance of significantly. The pro‐ The
the floor, significantly.
posed equations
proposed lead to
equations theto
lead same
the index 𝑅 and
same index Rwspectrum adaptation
and spectrum terms 𝐶terms
adaptation and 𝐶C and
. Ctr .
Table 5. Weighted sound reduction indices, 𝑅 (𝐶;𝐶 ).

Table 5. Weighted sound reduction indices, Rw (C;Ctr ).
Rw [dB] Rw_ref. Curve [dB] Rw_Lv [dB] Rw_12354‐1 [dB] Rw_pr [dB]
Rw [dB] Rw_ref. Curve [dB] Rw_Lv [dB] Rw_12354-1 [dB] Rw_pr [dB]
35(0; −3) 39(−1; −4) 35(0; −3) 32(−1; −4) 35(0; −3)
35(0; −3) 39(−1; −4) 35(0; −3) 32(−1; −4) 35(0; −3)
Figure 19 shows the maximum sound pressure level measured in the laboratory
(𝐿 , Figure
_
19 shows
), the the maximum
level derived soundlevels
from the velocity pressure level
(Li,Fmax_Lv measured
) according to in the laboratory
Equation (4)
(L ), the level derived from the velocity levels (L ) according
and the predicted level using the model in ISO 12354‐2 (Li,Fmax_12354-2), using Equation
i, Fmax_meas i,Fmax_Lv to Equation
(8) (4)
and the predicted level
and the expected level (𝐿 , using the model in ISO 12354-2 (L
_ ), using the proposed Equation (7).
i,Fmax_12354-2 ), using Equation (8)
and the expected level (Li,Fmax_pr ), using the proposed Equation (7).
100 Table 6 shows the A-weighted sound pressure levels for the measurements and models
used. The results show that looking at the weighted indices, the prediction made with the
Li,Fmax_meas.
model derived from ISO 12354-2 gives a better value (+1 dB difference) than the model
90 on measured velocity levels (−2 dB difference). This results from the fact that the
based
A-weighting gives an increasing weighting, as the frequency increases from 50 Hz to
Li,Fmax_12354-2
630 Hz. When analyzing the frequency trend, it can be seen that the model derived from
Li,Fmax [dB]
the80measured velocity values is significantly more accurate. The average absolute value of
the differences is 1.7 dB, using Lv and 3.6 dB, using the model derived from 12354-2. The
proposed equations lead to the same weighted index LLi,Fmax_Lv
i, AFmax .
70
Li,Fmax_pr
60
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
Frequency [Hz]
Rw [dB] Rw_ref. Curve [dB] Rw_Lv [dB] Rw_12354‐1 [dB] Rw_pr [dB]
35(0; −3) 39(−1; −4) 35(0; −3) 32(−1; −4) 35(0; −3)
Figure 19 shows the maximum sound pressure level measured in the laboratory
(𝐿 , _ ), the level derived from the velocity levels (Li,Fmax_Lv) according to Equation (4)
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233 15 of 24
and the predicted level using the model in ISO 12354‐2 (Li,Fmax_12354-2), using Equation (8)
and the expected level (𝐿 , _ ), using the proposed Equation (7).
100
Li,Fmax_meas.
90
Li,Fmax_12354-2
Li,Fmax [dB]
80
Li,Fmax_Lv
70
Li,Fmax_pr
60
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
Frequency [Hz]
Figure19.
Figure Measuredand
19.Measured and predicted
predicted energy
energy average
average maximum
maximum impact
impact sound
sound pressure
pressure level with
level with
rubber ball.
rubber ball.
Table 6. Weighted sound pressure levels.
LiA,Fmax_meas LiA,Fmax_Lv LiA,Fmax_12354-2 LiA,Fmax_pr

[dB(A)] [dB(A)] [dB(A)] [dB(A)]
80 78 81 80
5. Conclusions
This work presents the experimental results of acoustic measurements, carried out
on a CLT floor, consisting of five layers of 200 mm thickness, according to the ISO 10140
series standards.
1. Firstly, three different types of sources were used in the laboratory of the Free Uni-
versity of Bolzano: tapping machine, dodecahedron and rubber ball. Furthermore,
vibration measurements were carried out for each source. The results make it possible
to derive the impact sound pressure level obtained from the tapping machine and
the rubber ball, the sound reduction index obtained with the dodecahedron, velocity
levels and consequent radiation index for each of the sources. For all three sources,
the use of velocity level measurements to derive the acoustic parameters has led to
excellent results, in comparison to the experimental data. This is not a predictive
method and could not be fully verified in in-situ measurements, due to lateral trans-
missions, which are not trivial, to be determined., As regards the measurement of the
radiation index, it can be noted that at the frequency of 63 Hz, the higher value can be
found in correspondence with the resonance frequency of the floor for each type of
sound source. The same maximum can be found in the sound pressure measurements.
Furthermore, the radiation indices of the two impact sources (tapping machine and
rubber ball), at low frequency (50–80 Hz), provided results significantly similar, while
after 80 Hz, the values of the tapping machine far exceed not only the radiation index
of the rubber ball, but also that of the dodecahedron.
2. Then, it was observed that the predicted sound reduction index, evaluated with the
mass law R = 20lg(mf ) − 47, was not suitable for the CLT floor examined, and a new
proposed law was introduced for CLT floors. Furthermore, a correlation between the
normalized impact pressure level and the impact sound pressure level of the rubber
ball was detected.
3. Finally, for all three types of sources, the use of velocity level measurements to derive
the acoustic parameters has led to good results, in comparison to the experimental data.
This could not be fully verified in in-situ measurements due to lateral transmissions,
which are not trivial, to be determined.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233 16 of 24
As for the impact sound pressure level, good correlations (within 2 dB) can be seen,
both with the use of the reference curve, and by using the formula provided by the ISO
12354-2 standard, using, in any case, the measured radiation index and the structural rever-
beration time. As for the sound reduction index, the standard model leads to an underesti-
mation at medium-low frequencies and to a considerable overestimation at medium-high
frequencies. From the results obtained, it was possible to see how traditional analytical
models do not provide good approximations of the measurements. Good correlations are
obtained using the proposed equations; however, these correlations can be used with floors
having characteristics similar to those used in laboratory tests.
A future development of this work will concern the study of the CLT floor with
coverings consisting of acoustic mats, with a concrete screed and the influence of the
physical characteristics of the materials, with respect to the acoustic performance.
correlations are obtained using the proposed equations; however, these correlations can
Author Contributions: Conceptualization,
be used with floors havingN.G.; software,
characteristics N.G.;
similar to project
those usedadministration, N.G.; valida-
in laboratory tests.
tion, N.G. and A.M.; methodology, N.G. and A.M.;
A future development formal
of this work analysis,
will N.G.
concern the andofA.M.;
study investigation,
the CLT floor with cov‐N.G.
erings
and A.M.; data curation, consisting
N.G. and A.M.;of acoustic mats, with a concrete
writing—original screed and the N.G.
draft preparation, influence
andofA.M.;
the physical
writing—
characteristics of the materials, with respect to the acoustic performance.
review and editing, N.G. and A.M.; visualization, A.M.; supervision, A.G.; funding acquisition, N.G.
and A.M. All authorsAuthor
have Contributions:
read and agreed to the published
Conceptualization, version
N.G.; software, N.G.;of the manuscript.
project administration, N.G.; vali‐
dation, N.G. and A.M.; methodology, N.G. and A.M.; formal analysis, N.G. and A.M.; investigation,
Funding: This research
N.G.received
and A.M.; no
dataexternal funding.
curation, N.G. and A.M.; writing—original draft preparation, N.G. and A.M.;
writing—review and editing, N.G. and A.M.; visualization, A.M.; supervision, A.G.; funding acqui‐
Institutional Reviewsition,
Board N.G.Statement: Not applicable.
and A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: This work was financed by the European Interreg BIGWOOD project, ITAT 1081
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
CUP: I54I18000300006.
Acknowledgments: This work was financed by the European Interreg BIGWOOD project, ITAT
Conflicts of Interest:1081
TheCUP: I54I18000300006.
authors declare no conflict of interest.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A Appendix A
Appendix A.1 Tapping Machine Radiation Index Mapping
Appendix A.1. Tapping Machine Radiation Index Mapping
50 Hz 63 Hz 80 Hz
100 Hz 125 Hz 160 Hz
Figure A1. Cont.

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233 17 of 24
200 Hz 250 Hz 315 Hz
400 Hz 500 Hz 630 Hz
800 Hz 1000 Hz 1250 Hz
Figure A1. Cont.

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233 18 of 24
1600 Hz 2000 Hz 2500 Hz

1600 Hz 2000 Hz 2500 Hz
150 Hz 4000 Hz 5000 Hz

150 Hz 4000 Hz 5000 Hz
Figure A1. Tapping machine radiation index maps. Average between the three source positions.
FigureA1.
Figure A1.Tapping
Tappingmachine
machine radiation
radiation index
index maps.
maps.Average
Averagebetween
betweenthe three
the source
three positions.
source positions.
Appendix A.2. Airborne Noise Source Radiation Index Mapping
AppendixA.2.
Appendix A.2.Airborne
Airborne Noise
Noise Source
Source Radiation
RadiationIndex
IndexMapping
Mapping
50 Hz 63 Hz 80 Hz
50 Hz 63 Hz 80 Hz
Figure A2. Cont.
Appl.Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Sci. 2022, 12, 3233 20 of 25
19 of 24
100 Hz 125 Hz 160 Hz
200 Hz 250 Hz 315 Hz
400 Hz 500 Hz 630 Hz
800 Hz 1000 Hz 1250 Hz
Figure A2. Cont.

Appl.Appl. Sci. 2022,
Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
12, 3233 21 of2025of 24
1600 Hz 2000 Hz 2500 Hz

1600 Hz 2000 Hz 2500 Hz
3150 Hz 4000 Hz 5000 Hz

3150 Hz 4000 Hz 5000 Hz
Figure A2. Air‐borne source radiation index maps. Average between the three source positions.
Figure A2. Air‐borne source radiation index maps. Average between the three source positions.
Figure A2. Air-borne source radiation index maps. Average between the three source positions.
Appendix A.3. Rubber Ball Radiation Efficiency Mapping
AppendixA.3.
Appendix A.3.Rubber
RubberBall
BallRadiation
Radiation Efficiency
EfficiencyMapping
Mapping
50 Hz 63 Hz 80 Hz
50 Hz 63 Hz 80 Hz
Figure A3. Cont.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233 21 of 24
100 Hz 125 Hz 160 Hz
200 Hz 250 Hz 315 Hz
400 Hz 500 Hz 630 Hz

Figure A3. Rubber ball radiation index maps. Average between the three source positions.
Figure A3. Rubber ball radiation index maps. Average between the three source positions.
References
References
1. 1.Brandner,
Brandner,R.; Flatscher, G.;G.;
R.; Flatscher, Ringhofer,
Ringhofer, A.;
A.;Schickhofer,
Schickhofer,G.;
G.;Thiel,
Thiel, A. Crosslaminated
A. Cross laminatedtimber
timber (CLT):
(CLT): Overview
Overview andand development.
development.
Eur.Eur.
J. Wood Wood Prod. 2016, 74, 331–351.
J. Wood Wood Prod. 2016, 74, 331–351. [CrossRef]
2. 2.Caniato, M.;M.;
Caniato, Marzi, A.;A.;
Marzi, dada Silva, S.M.;
Silva, S.M.;Gasparella,
Gasparella,A.A.A A review
review of the
the thermal
thermaland andacoustic
acousticproperties
propertiesof of materials
materials for for timber
timber
building construction.
building construction.J. Build. Eng.
J. Build. 2021,43,
Eng.2021, 43,103066.
103066. [CrossRef]
3. 3.Caniato,
Caniato,
M.;M.; Cozzarini,
Cozzarini, L.;L.; Schmid,C.;
Schmid, C.;Gasparella,
Gasparella,A. A. Acoustic
Acoustic and
and thermal
thermalcharacterization
characterization ofof
a novel
a novelsustainable material
sustainable material
incorporating
incorporating recycled
recycled microplastic
microplastic waste.Sustain.
waste. Sustain. Mater. Technol.
Technol.2021,
2021,28,
28,e00274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2021.e00274.
e00274. [CrossRef]
4. 4.Brandner,
Brandner, R. Production
R. Production andand Technology
Technology of Cross
of Cross Laminated
Laminated Timber
Timber (CLT):
(CLT): A state‐of‐the‐art
A state-of-the-art Report.
Report. In Proceedings
In Proceedings of the
of the Focus
Focus Solid Timber Solutions‐European Conference on Cross Laminated Timber (CLT), Graz, Austria,
Solid Timber Solutions-European Conference on Cross Laminated Timber (CLT), Graz, Austria, 21–22 May 2013; Volume 21, 21–22 May 2013; Volume
pp. 21, pp. 3–36.
3–36.
5. Öqvist, R.; Ljunggren, F.; Ågren, A. On the uncertainty of building acoustic measurements—Case study of a cross-laminated
timber construction. Appl. Acoust. 2012, 73, 904–912. [CrossRef]
6. Caniato, M.; Bettarello, F.; Ferluga, A.; Marsich, L.; Schmid, C.; Fausti, P. Thermal and acoustic performance expectations on
timber buildings. Build. Acoust. 2017, 24, 219–237. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233 22 of 24
7. Caniato, M.; Bettarello, F.; Ferluga, A.; Marsich, L.; Schmid, C.; Fausti, P. Acoustic of lightweight timber buildings: A review.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 80, 585–596. [CrossRef]
8. Bettarello, F.; Caniato, M.; Scavuzzo, G.; Gasparella, A. Indoor Acoustic Requirements for Autism-Friendly Spaces. Appl. Sci.
2021, 11, 3942. [CrossRef]
9. Hoeller, C.; Mahn, J.; Quirt, D.; Schoenwald, S.; Zeitler, B. Apparent sound insulation in cross-laminated timber buildings. J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 2017, 141, 3479. [CrossRef]
10. Schoenwald, S.; Zeitler, B.; Sabourin, I.; King, F. Sound insulation performance of cross laminated timber building systems. In
Proceedings of the INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, Innsbruck, Austria, 15–18 September
2013; Volume 247, pp. 4337–4346.
11. Homb, A.; Guigou-Carter, C.; Rabold, A. Impact sound insulation of cross-laminated timber/massive wood floor constructions:
Collection of laboratory measurements and result evaluation. Build. Acoust. 2017, 24, 35–52. [CrossRef]
12. Zeitler, B.; Schoenwald, S.; Sabourin, I. Direct impact sound insulation of cross laminate timber floors with and without toppings.
In Proceedings of the INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, Melbourne, Australia, 16–19
November 2014; Volume 249, pp. 5742–5747.
13. Di Bella, A.; Granzotto, N.; Barbaresi, L. Analysis of acoustic behavior of bare CLT floors for the evaluation of impact sound
insulation improvement. In Proceedings of the Meetings on Acoustics 22ICA, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 5–9 September 2016;
Volume 28, p. 015016.
14. Caniato, M.; Bettarello, F.; Fausti, P.; Ferluga, A.; Marsich, L.; Schmid, C. Impact sound of timber floors in sustainable buildings.
Build. Environ. 2017, 120, 110–122. [CrossRef]
15. Caniato, M.; Favretto, S.; Bettarello, F.; Schmid, C. Acoustic characterization of resonance wood. Acta Acust. United Acust. 2018,
104, 1030–1040. [CrossRef]
16. Bettarello, F.; Gasparella, A.; Caniato, M. The Influence of Floor Layering on Airborne Sound Insulation and Impact Noise
Reduction: A Study on Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) Structures. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5938. [CrossRef]
17. Barbaresi, L.; Morandi, F.; Garai, M.; Speranza, A. Experimental measurements of flanking transmission in CLT structures. In
Proceedings of the Meetings on Acoustics 22ICA, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 5–9 September 2016; Volume 28, p. 015015.
18. Zhang, X.; Hu, X.; Gong, H.; Zhang, J.; Lv, Z.; Hong, W. Experimental study on the impact sound insulation of cross laminated
timber and timber-concrete composite floors. Appl. Acoust. 2020, 161, 107173. [CrossRef]
19. Yang, Y.; Fenemore, C.; Kingan, M.J.; Mace, B.R. Analysis of the vibroacoustic characteristics of cross laminated timber panels
using a wave and finite element method. J. Sound Vib. 2021, 494, 115842. [CrossRef]
20. Kohrmann, M. Numerical Methods for the Vibro-Acoustic Assessment of Timber Floor Constructions; Technische Universität München:
München, Germany, 2017.
21. Jansson, L. Estimating Impact Noise through Cross Laminated Timber Floors Using the Transfer Matrix Method. In Proceedings
of the INTER-NOISE 2021, Washington, DC, USA, 1–5 August 2021.
22. ISO 12354-1:2017; Building Acoustics—Estimation of Acoustic Performance of Buildings from the Performance of Elements—Part
1: Airborne Sound Insulation between Rooms. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
23. Caniato, M.; Schmid, C.; Gasparella, A. A comprehensive analysis of time influence on floating floors: Effects on acoustic
performance and occupants’ comfort. Appl. Acoust. 2020, 166, 107339. [CrossRef]
24. Atalla, N.; Nicolas, J. A new tool for predicting rapidly and rigorously the radiation efficiency of plate-like structures. J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 1994, 95, 3369–3378. [CrossRef]
25. Nelisse, H.; Beslin, O.; Nicolas, J. A generalized approach for the acoustic radiation from a baffled or unbaffled plate with arbitrary
boundary conditions, immersed in a light or heavy fluid. J. Sound Vib. 1998, 211, 207–225. [CrossRef]
26. Foin, O.; Nicolas, J.; Atalla, N. An efficient tool for predicting the structural acoustic and vibration response of sandwich plates in
light or heavy fluid. Appl. Acoust. 1999, 57, 213–242. [CrossRef]
27. Hosseinkhani, A.; Younesian, D.; Krushynska, A.O.; Ranjbar, M.; Scarpa, F. Full-gradient optimization of the vibroacoustic
performance of (non-) auxetic sandwich panels. Transp. Porous Media 2021, 1–18. [CrossRef]
28. Hosseinkhani, A.; Younesian, D.; Ranjbar, M.; Scarpa, F. Enhancement of the vibro-acoustic performance of anti-tetra-chiral
auxetic sandwich panels using topologically optimized local resonators. Appl. Acoust. 2021, 177, 107930. [CrossRef]
29. Mejdi, A.; Atalla, N. Dynamic and acoustic response of bidirectionally stiffened plates with eccentric stiffeners subject to airborne
and structure-borne excitations. J. Sound Vib. 2010, 329, 4422–4439. [CrossRef]
30. Legault, J.; Mejdi, A.; Atalla, N. Vibro-acoustic response of orthogonally stiffened panels: The effects of finite dimensions. J. Sound
Vib. 2011, 330, 5928–5948. [CrossRef]
31. Rhazi, D.; Atalla, N. Transfer matrix modeling of the vibroacoustic response of multi-materials structures under mechanical
excitation. J. Sound Vib. 2010, 329, 2532–2546. [CrossRef]
32. Caniato, M.; Bettarello, F.; Bonfiglio, P.; Gasparella, A. Extensive investigation of multiphysics approaches in simulation of
complex periodic structures. Appl. Acoust. 2020, 166, 107356. [CrossRef]
33. Fortini, M.; Granzotto, N.; Piana, E.A. Vibro-acoustic characterization of a composite structure featuring an innovative phenolic
foam core. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1276. [CrossRef]
34. Wang, P.; Lombaert, G.; Reynders, E. Numerical prediction and experimental validation of impact sound radiation by timber joist
floors. Appl. Acoust. 2020, 162, 107182. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233 23 of 24
35. Conta, S.; Homb, A. Sound radiation of hollow box timber floors under impact excitation: An experimental parameter study.
Appl. Acoust. 2020, 161, 107190. [CrossRef]
36. Coguenanff, C.; Guigou-Carter, C. Multi-Criteria Optimization of a Wood-Based Floor. In Proceedings of the 24th International
Congress on Sound and Vibration, ICSV24, London, UK, 23–27 July 2017.
37. Guigou-Carter, C.; Coguenanff, C. Prediction of the acoustic performance of lightweight wood-based floor. In Proceedings of the
INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 23–26 August 2009.
38. Coguenanff, C.; Guigou-Carter, C.; Späh, M. Lightweight Floor: Step by Step Comparisons between Measured and Simulated
Quantities. In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress on Sound and Vibration, ICSV24, London, UK, 23–27 July 2017.
39. Hiramitsu, A.; Tomita, R.; Susumu, H.; Sato, M. Floor Impact Sound Insulation of the Six-Story Wood-Frame Model Building. In
Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress on Acoustics, Aachen, Germany, 9–13 September 2019; pp. 5007–5012.
40. Hiramitsu, A.; Tsuchimoto, T.; Kurumada, S. Floor impact sound insulation and airborne sound insulation on CLT model building.
In Proceedings of the INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, Chicago, IL, USA, 26–29 August
2018; pp. 5014–5022.
41. Van Damme, B.; Schoenwald, S.; Blanco, M.A.; Zemp, A. Limitations to the use of homogenized material parameters of cross
laminated timber plates for vibration and sound transmission modelling. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress on
Sound and Vibration, Florence, Italy, 12–16 July 2015; pp. 12–16.
42. Jayalath, A.; Navaratnam, S.; Gunawardena, T.; Mendis, P.; Aye, L. Airborne and impact sound performance of modern
lightweight timber buildings in the Australian construction industry. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2021, 15, e00632. [CrossRef]
43. Caniato, M.; Gasparella, A.; Bettarello, F.; Santoni, A.; Fausti, P.; Granzotto, N.; Bécot, F.-X.; Chevillotte, F.; Jaouen, L.;
Borello, G.; et al. A reliability study concerning the acoustic simulations of timber elements for buildings. Constr. Build. Mater.
2021, 315, 125765. [CrossRef]
44. ISO 10140-1:2021; Acoustics—Laboratory Measurement of Sound Insulation of Building Elements Application Rules for Specific
Products. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
45. ISO 10140-2:2021; Acoustics—Laboratory Measurement of Sound Insulation of Building Elements Measurement of Airborne
Sound Insulation. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
46. ISO 10140-3:2021; Acoustics—Laboratory Measurement of Sound Insulation of Building Elements—Part 3: Measurement of
Impact Sound Insulation. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
47. ISO 10140-4:2021; Acoustics—Laboratory Measurement of Sound Insulation of Building Elements—Part 4: Measurement
Procedures and Requirements. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
48. ISO 10140-5:2021; Acoustics—Laboratory Measurement of Sound Insulation of Building Elements—Part 5: Requirements for Test
Facilities and Equipment. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
49. Caniato, M.; Bettarello, F.; Gasparella, A. Indoor and outdoor noise changes due to the COVID-19 lockdown and their effects on
individuals’ expectations and preferences. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 16533. [CrossRef]
50. Robinson, M.; Hopkins, C. Prediction of maximum fast time-weighted sound pressure levels due to transient excitation from the
rubber ball and human footsteps. Build. Environ. 2015, 94, 810–820. [CrossRef]
51. Caniato, M. Sound insulation of complex façades: A complete study combining different numerical approaches. Appl. Acoust.
2020, 169, 107484. [CrossRef]
52. Jeon, J.Y.; Lee, P.J.; Sato, S. Use of the standard rubber ball as an impact source with heavyweight concrete floors. J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 2009, 126, 167–178. [CrossRef]
53. Ryu, J.; Song, H.; Kim, Y. Effect of the suspended ceiling with low-frequency resonant panel absorber on heavyweight floor
impact sound in the building. Build. Environ. 2018, 139, 1–7. [CrossRef]
54. Shin, H.; Kim, K. Sound absorbing ceiling to reduce heavy weight floor impact sound. Build. Environ. 2020, 180, 107058. [CrossRef]
55. Sato, H.; Yoshimura, J. Classification scheme of floor impact sounds with the standard rubber ball in dwellings. In Proceedings of
the INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 16–19 November 2014;
Volume 249, pp. 6166–6172.
56. Shen, X.; Hopkins, C. Prediction of Maximum Fast Time-Weighted Velocity Levels from a Rubber Ball Impact on a Timber Floor.
In Proceedings of the Forum Acusticum, Lyon, France, 7–11 December 2020.
57. Olsson, J.; Linderholt, A. Measurements of low frequency impact sound frequency response functions and vibrational properties
of light weight timber floors utilizing the ISO rubber ball. Appl. Acoust. 2020, 166, 107313. [CrossRef]
58. Jeong, J.H.; Kim, Y.H.; Ryu, J.K.; Kim, K.H. Just noticeable difference of rubber ball impact sound. In Proceedings of the
Baltic-Nordic Acoustic Meeting, Reykjavík, Iceland, 15–18 April 2018.
59. EN, B. 338 (2016). Available online: https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/492c108d-268a-4cbd-9b59-3f31792887c5
/en-338-2016 (accessed on 22 December 2021).
60. Vér, I.L. Impact noise isolation of composite floors. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1971, 50, 1043–1050. [CrossRef]
61. 61. ISO 717-2:2020; Acoustics—Rating of Sound Insulation in Buildings and of Building Elements—Part 2: Impact Sound
Insulation. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
62. ISO 717-1:2020; Acoustics—Rating of Sound Insulation in Buildings and of Building Elements—Part 1: Airborne Sound Insulation.
International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233 24 of 24
63. ISO 10848-1:2017; Acoustics—Laboratory and Field Measurement of Flanking Transmission for Airborne, Impact and Building
Service Equipment Sound between Adjoining Rooms Frame Document. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2017.
64. Kristensen, J.; Rindel, J.H. Bygningsakustik: Teori og Praksis; Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut (SBI): Aalborg, Denmark, 1989.
65. Sewell, E.C. Transmission of reverberant sound through a single-leaf partition surrounded by an infinite rigid baffle. J. Sound Vib.
1970, 12, 21–32. [CrossRef]
66. Patrício, J.; da Silva, P.M.; da Piedade, A.C. The Influence of Concrete Elastic Characteristics on the Impact Noise Insulation of
Concrete Floors. Build. Acoust. 1997, 4, 259–274. [CrossRef]
67. Heckl, M.; Rathe, E.J. Relationship between the Transmission Loss and the Impact-Noise Isolation of Floor Structures. J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 1963, 35, 1825–1830. [CrossRef]
68. Bettarello, F.; Fausti, P.; Baccan, V.; Caniato, M. Impact Sound Pressure Level Performances of Basic Beam Floor Structures. Build.
Acoust. 2010, 17, 305–316. [CrossRef]
69. Jeong, J.H.; Park, J.O. Repeatability Evaluation of Rubber Ball Impact Sound in a Reverberation Chamber. In Proceedings of the
INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, Madrid, Spain, 16–19 June 2019.
70. Fahy, F.J.; Gardonio, P. Sound and Structural Vibration: Radiation, Transmission and Response; Academic Press: Oxford, UK, 2006.
71. ISO 12354-2:2017; Building Acoustics—Estimation of Acoustic Performance of Buildings from the Performance of Elements
Impact Sound Insulation between Rooms. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.

Cross-Laminated Timber Floor Analysis of The Acoustic Properties and Radiation Efficiency

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cross-Laminated Timber Floor Analysis of The Acoustic Properties and Radiation Efficiency

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

applied

Abstract: Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) is a building technology that is becoming increasingly

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12073233 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233 3 of 24

Table 1. Mechanical properties of the CLT under consideration.

Em,0,mean Em,90,mean ρmean m’

Dodecahedron Brüel and

(a) (b) (c)

2.1. Acoustic and Vibration Parameters Determined from Measurements

evaluated from 100 Hz to 3150 Hz, and L , evaluated from 50 Hz to 630

(a) (b) (c)

Ln = LF + 10lg( Re(Y )) + 10lg(σrad ) − 10lg m0 + 10lg( Ts ) + 10.6

Ln_pr = LF + 10lg( Re(Y )) + 12lg(σrad ) − 10lg m0 + 10lg( Ts ) + 6.8

1/1 Oct. Band Freq.

LF_max (1/3 oct)

LF (1/1 oct ISO 10140)

(a) (b) (c)

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3233

Ln,w [dB] Rw [dB] LiA,Fmax [dB(A)]

Standard deviation [dB]

Sound reduction index, R [dB]

3.2. Experimental Results: Vibration‐Derived Parameters

-10 -10 -10

-20 -20 -20

(a) (b) (c)

Normalized impact sound pressure level, Ln [dB]

Figure 16. Simulated

Table 5. Weighted sound reduction indices, 𝑅 (𝐶;𝐶 ).

Table 6. Weighted sound pressure levels.

LiA,Fmax_meas LiA,Fmax_Lv LiA,Fmax_12354-2 LiA,Fmax_pr

100 Hz 125 Hz 160 Hz

Figure A1. Cont.

200 Hz 250 Hz 315 Hz

400 Hz 500 Hz 630 Hz

800 Hz 1000 Hz 1250 Hz

Figure A1. Cont.

1600 Hz 2000 Hz 2500 Hz

150 Hz 4000 Hz 5000 Hz

100 Hz 125 Hz 160 Hz

200 Hz 250 Hz 315 Hz

400 Hz 500 Hz 630 Hz

800 Hz 1000 Hz 1250 Hz

Figure A2. Cont.

1600 Hz 2000 Hz 2500 Hz

3150 Hz 4000 Hz 5000 Hz

100 Hz 125 Hz 160 Hz

200 Hz 250 Hz 315 Hz

400 Hz 500 Hz 630 Hz

You might also like