Sound insulation of Finnish building boards

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


SUMMARY OF PUBLICATION Publication:

Work Environmental Research Report Series 22, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland, 2006. ISBN 951-802-713-7, ISSN 1458-9311

Authors:

Larm P, Hakala J, Hongisto V

Title:

Sound insulation of Finnish building boards

PROJECT 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 140-3 and ISO 717-1. 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/m2. The weighted sound reduction indices, Rw, 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.


JULKAISUTIEDOT Julkaisu:

Kirjoittajat: Otsikko:

Työympäristötutkimuksen raporttisarja 22, Työterveyslaitos, Helsinki, 2006 ISBN 951-802-713-7, ISSN 1458-9311 Larm P, Hakala J, Hongisto V Rakennuslevyjen ääneneristävyys

PROJEKTITIEDOT Tutkimusprojekti: Vastuullinen osasto: Rahoittaja: Projektin kesto: Painopäivämäärä: Sivuja:

Ääneneristävyys vaativissa rakennuksissa - dBuilding Työterveyslaitos, Laadukas sisäympäristö -teema, Ilmastointi- ja akustiikkalaboratorio, Turku Tekes, Työterveyslaitos, 6 rakennusalan yritystä 1/2003 –12/2006 TTL:n projektinumero: 305017 23.8.2006 Julkaisuvapaa: heti 34 Painos: 1

TIIVISTELMÄ Tutkimuksessa selvitettiin 27 suomalaisen rakennuslevyn ilmaääneneristävyys laboratorio-olosuhteissa. Tarkoituksena oli aikaansaada mahdollisimman vertailukelpoisia mittaustuloksia. Jokaisen mittauksen yhteydessä käytettiin samoja mittausjärjestelmiä eikä näytteen asennustapaa muutettu näytteiden välillä. Ilmaääneneristävyys määritettiin ISO 140-3 ja ISO 717-1 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/m2 välillä. Ilmaääneneristysluvun Rw 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.


FOREWORD This investigation was a part of dBuilding project which was carried out during 2003-2006 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, SaintGobain Isover, Antti-Teollisuus, 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


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 7 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS..................................................................................... 8 3. MOUNTING ........................................................................................................... 10 4. THEORY IN BRIEF ................................................................................................. 12 5. RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 14 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

The dependence of RW on the surface mass ........................................................ 15 Predicted RW versus measured RW ...................................................................... 15 Sound insulation as a function of frequency ....................................................... 15 The total loss factor............................................................................................ 20

6. DISCUSSION......................................................................................................... 21 REFERENCES............................................................................................................. 22 A1. DESCRIPTIONS OF THE BUILDING BOARDS........................................................ 23 A2. METHODS IN DETAIL .......................................................................................... 24 A2.1 A2.2 A2.3 A2.4

Sound reduction index...................................................................................... 24 The uncertainty of the sound insulation measurement..................................... 25 Young's modulus .............................................................................................. 29 The total loss factor of the board...................................................................... 30

A3. SOUND REDUCTION INDICES AND TOTAL LOSS FACTORS .................................. 32


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 Rw 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 inter-laboratory differences, which have been reported to be even several decibels at certain frequencies and 1 to 2 dB for Rw. 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


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 No.

Specimen

Thickness [mm]

Size [mm]

Surface mass 2 [kg/m ]

1 2 3 4 5

Plasterboards KS6 KTS9 KN13 KEK13 DG15

7 9 13 13 15

1200 x 1200 x 1200 x 1200 x 1200 x

2240 2240 2240 2240 2240

5.9 7.6 8.8 11.7 16.8

6 7 8 9 10 11

Minerit WS4 LW WS8 HD8 Pastel8 HD10

5 8 8 8 8 10

1200 x 1200 x 1200 x 1200 x 1200 x 1200 x

2240 2240 2240 2240 2240 2240

7.7 9.8 13.2 14.7 14.8 18.4

12 13 14 15 16 17

Wood based Chip11 MDF12 Ply15 MDF19 Chip22 Ply21

11 12 15 19 22 21

1200 x 1200 x 1200 x 1200 x 1200 x 1200 x

2240 2240 2240 2240 2240 2240

7.0 9.2 10.4 13.8 13.9 15.0

18 19

Wood fiber board LION12 LION25

12 24

1200 x 2240 1200 x 2240

3.1 8.0

20 21

Aquapanel AqID13 AqOD13

13 13

900 x 1200 900 x 1200

14.0 15.6

22 23

Steel Steel2 Steel4

2 4

1240 x 2240 1245 x 2245

15.6 31.2

24 25 26 27

Others MultiCo8 Master10 UniCo12.5 SXL18

8 10 10 18

1200 x 2240 1200 x 2240 1200 x 2240 570 x 2240

8.4 10.1 10.5 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


Sound reduction index R (dB) was measured according to ISO 140-3 [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 RW (dB) was determined according to ISO 717-1 [2] using frequency range from 100 to 3150 Hz. At low frequencies, the measurement was carried out by sound intensity method (ISO 15186-3) [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 140-3) 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/m2] of each specimen was determined using a laboratory scale UWE PM-150. 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 inter-laboratory differences between the values of sound reduction index. The total loss factors of the mounted building elements were measured according to ISO 140-3:1995(E) Annex E. A detailed description of the measurement method for the total loss factor can be found from the Appendix 2.

9


3. MOUNTING The specimens were mounted in a built-in 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 m2. 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.

AS-1

acrylmastic

duct tape

AS-2

200 280

measurement direction

1250 section of the single wall panel Figure 3.1. Mounting of the specimen, seen from above. AS-1 and AS-2 indicate the isolated walls between the test rooms. The specimens were installed in the middle of AS-1 as shown.

10


Figure 3.2. Mounting of the specimen comprised of three pieces of building board (specimen no. 20, AqID13).

11


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 W1 to the sound power transmitted through the board W2 (assuming that there is no flanking transmission through any other component than the board being tested):

R

10 log10

W1 dB W2

(1)

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/m2] of the board according to:

R( f )

20 log10 mf

42 10 log10 ln

2 f c0

S

dB

(2)

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 [m2] of the board and the velocity of sound in air c0 (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 fc of the specimen. At the critical frequency fc, 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

fc

c0 2

2

12 1

2

m Eh 3

(3)

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.

12


60

50

R [dB]

40

30

20

10 fc/2

fc 10000

6300

4000

2500

1600

1000

630

400

250

160

100

0

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/m2.

13


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 RW. 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 RW of the specimens. Specimen

Specimen

Surface mass Critical frequency Young's modulus 2

number

9

Rw

[kg/m ]

[Hz]

[Pa] x 10

1 2 3 4 5

Plasterboard KS6 KTS9 KN13 KEK13 DG15

5.9 7.6 8.8 11.7 16.8

5000 3150 2500 2500 2000

5.4 4.8 3.0 4.5 7.8

28 28 28 29 31

6 7 8 9 10 11


7.7 9.8 13.2 14.7 14.8 18.4

5000 3150 3150 3150 3150 2500

15 9.6 15 16 15 15

30 30 31 33 32 32

12 13 14 15 16 17


7.0 9.2 10.4 13.8 13.9 15.0

4000 2500 1600 1600 2000 1250

2.9 6.3 11 4.8 3.4 11

29 28 26 28 29 28

18 19


3.1 8.0

8000 4000

0.3 0.2

23 30

20 21


14.0 15.6

2000 2500

7.9 3.9

30 33

22 23

Steel Steel2 Steel4

15.6 31.2

8000 3150

213 213

36 40

24 25 26 27


8.4 10.1 10.5 22.4

4000 3150 3150 2000

7.6 7.4 2.3 7.6

30 29 32 33

14

[dB]


5.1 The dependence of RW on the surface mass The measured surface masses and RW values are plotted in Figure 5.1.1 with the designated building board groups according to Table 5.1. RW 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/m2, and the weighted sound reduction indices from 23 to 40 dB. Most of the specimens could not reach the RW value predicted by the mass law. This results from the fact that their critical frequency falls upon the frequency range of RW 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 RW versus measured RW The mass law is theoretically the maximum limit for the sound insulation of a construction board. An optimal board has RW close to the value predicted by the mass law. Thus, the ratio of the measured RW to the predicted RW can be considered as an indicator of the mass optimality of the sound insulation. In Table 5.2.1, the predicted RW values, as calculated by Eq. (2), and the ratios of the measured RW to the predicted RW are presented for all the specimens. The higher the ratio "Measured Rw / Predicted Rw" 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


42 23

40 38 22

36 R w [dB]

34

9 26

32 30

8 7

12 1

28

16 17

4 3 13

5 20

25 2

11

10

6 19 24

27

21

15

14

26 24

18

22 1

10 Surface mass [kg/m2]

100

Fig. 5.1.1. The dependence of measured RW on the surface mass. For the specimen numbers, see Table 5.1.

16


Table 5.2.1. Optimality of the sound insulation of the specimens. Specimen number

Specimen

Predicted Rw [dB]

Measured Rw / Predicted Rw

1 2 3 4 5

Plasterboard KS6 KTS9 KN13 KEK13 DG15

28 30 31 33 37

1.00 0.93 0.90 0.88 0.84

6 7 8 9 10 11


30 32 35 35 36 37

1.00 0.94 0.89 0.94 0.89 0.86

12 13 14 15 16 17


29 31 32 35 35 36

1.00 0.90 0.81 0.80 0.83 0.78

18 19


22 30

1.05 1.00

20 21


35 36

0.86 0.92

22 23

Steel Steel2 Steel4

36 42

1.00 0.95

24 25 26 27


31 32 32 39

0.97 0.91 1.00 0.85

17


50

40

40

30

30

Frequency [Hz] DG15 16.8 kg/m2 KN13 8.8 kg/m2 KS6 5.9 kg/m2

10000

6300

4000

2500

1600

1000

630

400

250

100

10000

6300

4000

2500

1600

1000

0

630

0 400

10

250

10

160

20

100

20

160

R [dB]

R [dB]

50

Frequency [Hz]

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

Fig. 5.3.1. Plasterboards.

Pastel8 14.8 kg/m2 WS8 13.2 kg/m2 WS4 7.7 kg/m2

Fig. 5.3.2. Minerit boards. 50

40

40

30

30

Frequency [Hz] Ply21 15.0 kg/m2 MDF19 13.8 kg/m2 MDF12 9.2 kg/m2

Frequency [Hz]

Chip22 13.9 kg/m2 Ply15 10.4 kg/m2 Chip12 7.0 kg/m2

LION25 8.0 kg/m2

Fig. 5.3.3. Wood based boards.

18

LION12 3.1 kg/m2

Fig. 5.3.4. Wood fibre boards.

10000

6300

4000

2500

1600

1000

630

400

250

100

10000

6300

4000

2500

1600

1000

0 630

0 400

10

250

10

160

20

100

20

160

R [dB]

R [dB]

50


50

40

40

30

30

Frequency [Hz] AqOD13 15.6 kg/m2

R [dB]

30

20

10

10000

6300

4000

2500

1600

1000

630

0 400

10000

6300

4000

2500

1000

1600

Steel 2 mm 15.6 kg/m2

Fig. 5.3.6. Steel plates.

40

250

630

Steel 4 mm 31.2 kg/m2

AqID13 14.0 kg/m2

50

160

400

Frequency [Hz]

Fig. 5.3.5. Aqua panels.

100

250

160

10000

6300

4000

2500

1600

1000

0

630

0 400

10

250

10

160

20

100

20

100

R [dB]

R [dB]

50

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


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

Loss factor

0.100

0.010

10000

8000

6300

5000

4000

3150

2500

2000

1600

1250

1000

800

630

500

400

315

250

200

160

125

100

0.001

Frequency [dB]

Fig. 5.4.1. The total loss factors of the MDF boards as a function of frequency.

20


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 (Rw). They are often not reached in buildings (R'w) due to flanking and sound leaks.

21


REFERENCES 1. ISO 140-3:1995 (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 717-1:1996 (E) Acoustics – Rating of sound insulation of building elements - Part 1: Airborne sound insulation 3. ISO/DIS 15186-3:2000 - 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

23

WS LW HD Pastel

chip* MDF ply*

LION12* LION25*

AqID* AqOD*

Minerit Windstopper Light Weight Heavy Duty Pastel Okra

Wood based Chipboard Medium Density Board Plywood

Wood fiber board 12 mm LION-Weathershield 25 mm LION-Weathershield

Aquapanel Aquapanel®CementBoard Indoor Aquapanel®CementBoard Outdoor

MultiCo palamaton sisäverhouslevy Master-levy UniCo verkkovahvistettu märkälevy Sasmox Lattialevy

Others MultiCo Master UniCo Sasmox Flooring board

Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab

Eternit N.V. / Innobuild Oy Ab Lemminkäinen Oyj Innobuild Oy Ab Sasmox Oy

Oy Knauf Ab Oy Knauf Ab

Finnish Fibreboard Ltd. Finnish Fibreboard Ltd.

Schauman

Oy Minerit Ab Oy Minerit Ab Oy Minerit Ab Oy Minerit Ab

Oy Knauf Oy Knauf Oy Knauf Oy Knauf Oy Knauf

Manufacturer / Importer

* This abbreviation is not used for commercial purposes.

Teräs

Aquapanel®CementBoard Indoor Aquapanel®CementBoard Outdoor

Tuulileijona Runkoleijona

Lastulevy MDF Vaneri

Windstopper Luja A Luja Classic Luja Pastel Okra

Steel Steel

SXL

KS6 KTS9 KN13 KEK13 DG15

Plasterboards Renovation board External Sheathing Board Normal gypsumboard Hardboard Floor board Saneerauslevy Tuulensuojalevy Normaali sisäverhouslevy Erikoiskova sisäverhouslevy Lattiakipsilevy

Abbreviation Trade name in Finnish

Trade name in English

cement, pulp, minerals calsium silicate, filling material, fibres light concrete core, fibre glass coated calcinated gypsum, wood chips

cement cement

wood fibres, resin, wax wood fibres, resin, wax

sawdust, small chips of wood glued wood fibres cross-banded veneers glued together

fibre cement fibre cement fibre cement fibre cement

gypsum gypsum gypsum gypsum gypsum

Materials

Appendix A1. Descriptions of the building boards

A1. DESCRIPTIONS OF THE 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 140-3:1995 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 MR-1) 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 pre-amplifier 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 two-channel real time analyzer (B&K 2133). The acoustical measurement equipment fulfilled the following IEC standards and grades of accuracy: IEC IEC IEC IEC

60651 60804 61260 60942

Sound level meters, type 1 Integrating sound level meters, type 1 Octave-band and fractional-octave-band filters, class 1 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 (K-Prof). At low frequencies, from 50 – 200 Hz, the measurement accuracy was improved using intensity measurement, applying ISO/DIS 15186-3. 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 140-3 method were used in calculation.

24

Appendix A2. Methods in detail

60

50

R, RI [dB]

40

30

20

R 10

RI Result ISO 717-1 10000

6300

4000

2500

1600

1000

630

400

250

160

100

0

Frequency [Hz]

Figure A1. The combination of the results from the intensity (RI) and pressure (R) method. The value of the ISO 717-1 reference curve at 500 Hz is the weighted sound reduction index RW (indicated with a cross).

A2.2 The uncertainty of the sound insulation measurement The uncertainty of the test is defined in ISO 140-2:1991(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 Inter-Laboratory tests where the same test specimen is tested in, at least, 5 different laboratories. The laboratory participated in an Inter-Laboratory test of Nordtest 2001 together with four other Nordic laboratories. The round-robin specimen was a window, which was tested in the same test opening as used in this study. The uncertainty of the sound reduction index RW was ± 1.7 dB while ISO 140-2:1991 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 third-octave bands is presented in Fig. A2.

25


Reproducibility (dB)

30 25 20 15 10 5 5000

3150

2000

1250

800

500

315

200

125

80

50

0

Frequency (Hz) Nordtest 2001

ISO 140-2 Annex A

Figure A2. The maximum permitted reproducibility value of airborne sound reduction index RW as suggested by ISO 140-2, 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. RW 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 140-3). Therefore, sound intensity method was used instead. The laboratory layout is presented in Fig. A4.

26


Airborne sound reduction index R [dB] 50 45 40 35 30 25 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 average

20 15 10 5

5000

3150

2000

1250

800

500

315

200

125

80

50

0

Frequency [Hz]

Figure A3. The accuracy of independent tests in the laboratory. The data contains seven individual test results (R1-R7) during years 2000-2006 for the same 4 mm thick steel plate. The tests were carried out by ISO 140-3 using the same mounting practice, same apparatus but different operators.

27


source room

receiving room

7650 x 2950 h = 3600

6900 x 4500 h = 3650

Neutrik MR1 noise generator

QSC 1300 W USA amplifier (2ch)

C 1 2

test opening 2250 x 1250

a

a Behringer DSP 8000 signal processor microphone Eagle PA 4060E amplifier

E B microphone

B&K 2133 real time analyzer test opening 2650 x 3840 D

Focal 2

Focal 1 X2 X1

A

Y2

Ch A

Ch B

Y1

source room

receiving room

microphone 2

rotating microphone boom

microphone

3650

3600

1

test opening 2 2.8 m r=1000 h=1800

r=1000 h=1550 vibration isolator

480

section a-a

Figure A4. The laboratory layout and the equipment for measuring the sound reduction index.

28


A2.3 Young's modulus The Young's modulus was measured with a custom-made 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

E

Fl 3 ; 48 Ix

I

bh 3 ; 12

F

mg

(A1)

where E F l I x b h m g

= = = = = = = = =

Young's modulus the force applied to the board the length of the board between the support beams the moment of the board the maximum deflection of the board the width of the board the thickness of the board the load mass the gravitational acceleration constant = 9.81

[Pa] [N] [m] [m4] [m] [m] [m] [kg] [m/s2]

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

fc

c0 2

2

12 1

2

m Eh3

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


on the measurement direction, whereas Lion12 is porous and breaks very easily.

Critical frequency fc, Hz 9000 8000

Measured

7000

Predicted

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06 0.08 Sqrt(m/(E*h3))

0.10

0.12

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 140-3:1995(E) Annex E. The loss factor can be calculated by

2.2 , fT

(A2)

where f T

= the total loss factor = frequency = reverberation time

[Hz] [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 real-time 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


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 real-time 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


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. RW values and the spectrum adaptation terms C [dB] and Ctr [dB]. The specimens were listed in Table 2.1. Freq. [Hz] 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 RW C Ctr

Specimen 1 2 15.1 15.6 14.5 16.9 18.6 20.6 16.8 19.4 19.2 21.9 21.2 22.4 23.0 24.8 24.3 26.1 25.3 26.8 26.8 28.0 28.1 29.5 29.6 30.8 30.9 31.7 32.0 31.9 32.5 30.6 31.6 23.5 25.1 23.4 23.5 26.9 26.7 27.1 26.5 31.5 34.3 38.5 28 28 -1 -1 -4 -2

3 14.2 14.0 19.4 21.2 22.9 23.4 26.6 26.9 27.3 28.7 30.2 31.4 31.7 30.2 23.2 23.2 27.5 27.9 32.4 36.8 42.8 28 -2 -3

4 16.9 17.8 21.3 22.8 24.2 25.7 27.5 28.6 29.0 30.5 32.0 32.7 32.5 28.7 22.9 26.0 29.2 30.6 34.7 39.6 44.6 29 -2 -2

5 26.3 21.3 25.6 24.4 27.2 26.9 30.3 30.7 31.1 32.5 33.2 32.9 29.4 26.2 28.2 31.4 33.6 36.8 41.1 44.4 47.4 31 -2 -2

6 16.8 16.7 20.0 19.7 21.7 23.3 25.7 26.8 27.7 28.7 30.3 31.6 32.7 34.0 34.8 35.2 33.2 25.0 26.3 29.5 34.5 30 -1 -3

7 17.5 17.5 22.9 22.2 24.0 24.6 25.9 27.8 28.7 29.9 31.0 32.8 33.6 33.9 32.6 24.5 24.5 27.7 27.9 32.4 38.8 30 -1 -2

8 17.8 20.6 24.7 25.2 26.0 26.9 29.3 30.2 30.5 32.0 33.5 34.7 35.2 34.6 28.8 25.1 29.0 30.7 33.7 37.8 44.5 31 -1 -2

9 19.7 21.1 26.1 26.6 27.3 28.0 30.3 31.6 31.9 33.1 34.5 35.8 36.4 36.2 31.4 26.4 30.4 32.6 35.4 40.0 46.9 33 -2 -2

10 19.9 21.2 26.0 26.1 26.9 27.9 30.4 31.6 32.0 33.2 34.1 35.2 35.6 35.2 29.2 26.9 31.3 32.6 36.7 41.1 47.7 32 -1 -1

11 21.1 21.5 24.1 26.9 28.1 29.4 31.5 32.3 32.8 33.9 35.0 35.5 34.6 30.3 26.2 30.0 32.6 35.3 39.0 44.4 48.7 32 -1 -1

12 12.5 14.0 19.5 20.3 21.3 22.3 25.6 26.0 26.3 27.9 29.2 30.5 31.3 31.8 30.9 27.3 23.8 25.9 28.7 30.9 33.6 29 -1 -4

13 14.2 13.2 18.1 19.1 23.0 23.3 26.6 27.4 27.8 29.3 30.3 31.2 31.1 29.2 23.2 23.7 27.5 29.0 31.4 35.2 39.9 28 -2 -3

Freq. [Hz] 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 RW C Ctr

Specimen 14 15 15.3 17.9 19.9 20.2 20.2 22.1 22.5 24.2 22.4 25.4 24.5 26.5 25.9 29.4 27.7 30.0 27.6 30.1 28.2 30.8 28.7 30.6 26.2 28.2 22.5 24.0 22.5 23.8 25.6 26.9 28.2 29.6 29.3 31.3 32.0 33.8 35.3 36.7 38.7 40.7 43.5 45.0 26 28 -1 -1 -1 -1

16 17.9 21.6 25.6 25.6 26.2 25.9 28.4 29.8 29.9 31.0 31.4 31.1 27.5 24.5 25.1 27.6 30.5 32.1 32.9 34.0 39.0 29 -2 -1

17 19.7 19.3 25.9 23.4 24.9 24.8 28.6 29.0 28.6 27.6 24.8 24.1 26.3 29.5 31.8 34.0 36.4 39.9 43.2 45.5 46.2 28 -1 -2

18 10.6 7.9 12.7 13.3 14.8 15.4 18.2 18.9 19.7 21.5 23.2 25.2 27.1 28.9 30.0 30.5 30.6 29.6 23.5 17.0 31.6 23 -1 -4

19 14.0 15.9 20.1 21.2 22.6 23.3 26.1 27.2 27.5 29.0 30.2 31.4 32.1 32.5 31.9 28.2 18.0 21.1 30.6 26.1 32.2 30 -1 -4

20 21.1 16.9 25.1 23.2 26.6 26.3 30.0 30.6 30.8 32.1 32.6 32.6 29.9 25.8 26.6 29.7 32.0 35.2 39.6 43.2 46.9 30 -1 -2

21 21.5 21.2 26.0 26.3 27.0 27.5 30.4 31.7 32.2 33.2 34.5 35.2 34.8 32.4 30.7 30.9 32.6 33.9 36.2 40.0 46.3 33 -1 -2

22 19.7 21.2 26.1 25.8 27.1 28.2 31.7 31.8 32.6 33.9 35.5 37.3 38.6 40.2 41.3 42.7 44.0 44.4 33.8 31.4 33.9 36 -1 -4

23 25.2 25.3 30.6 30.8 32.2 32.8 36.3 38.0 38.2 40.0 41.6 42.9 44.0 44.5 42.6 31.2 33.5 35.8 37.7 41.9 49.3 40 -3 -4

24 16.8 17.5 21.0 21.0 23.5 23.2 26.6 27.1 27.7 29.2 30.7 31.9 33.0 33.9 33.1 25.9 23.6 27.5 28.2 31.9 39.6 30 -1 -3

25 16.7 17.4 22.6 22.6 23.8 24.9 27.4 28.3 28.9 30.3 31.4 32.6 33.0 32.3 25.8 23.5 27.0 28.1 31.5 35.8 42.4 29 -1 -2

26 17.6 18.4 22.6 22.3 24.8 25.2 28.7 29.3 29.4 30.9 32.1 33.5 34.5 34.9 33.8 31.4 31.8 32.0 33.5 34.9 39.6 32 -1 -3

32

27 22.3 23.9 26.4 28.4 30.1 29.3 33.7 34.3 34.5 35.3 35.7 34.1 29.7 28.8 31.1 32.8 34.6 38.0 41.8 45.6 49.2 33 -1 -2

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. Freq. [Hz] 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 Freq. [Hz] 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000

Specimen 1 2 20.6 18.9 16.5 18.3 19.4 21.4 24.3 26.0 28.3 29.6 31.9 31.4 28.2 24.9 30.8 34.8 14 22.2 19.0 23.2 27.1 27.8 23.8 30.1 40.4

15 28.3 20.4 25.5 29.8 30.0 25.1 31.9 42.0

3 24.8 16.7 22.6 26.9 30.2 29.6 26.7 39.3

4 29.6 19.1 24.4 28.4 31.8 29.6 29.0 41.3

5 29.1 24.9 26.3 30.7 32.9 28.1 34.5 45.0

6 19.9 18.2 21.8 26.8 30.4 33.9 32.8 31.4

7 22.0 20.1 23.7 27.6 31.4 33.4 25.8 35.2

8 22.5 22.0 26.1 30.0 33.5 33.7 28.8 40.9

9 30.5 23.2 27.3 31.3 34.6 35.2 30.5 43.2

10 25.5 23.2 27.0 31.4 34.2 34.1 30.9 44.1

11 30.5 22.5 28.2 32.2 34.9 31.6 33.2 45.6

12 19.2 16.5 21.4 26.0 29.3 31.3 25.9 31.5

13 25.1 15.7 22.2 27.3 30.3 28.9 27.2 36.8

16 24.6 22.8 25.9 29.4 31.2 25.9 30.4 36.2

17 22.6 22.8 24.4 28.7 25.8 29.7 37.4 45.1

18 12.2 10.8 14.6 19.0 23.6 28.8 30.3 27.6

19 20.7 17.4 22.5 27.0 30.3 32.2 24.5 30.3

20 26.7 22.2 25.6 30.5 32.4 27.8 32.9 44.2

21 36.8 23.5 27.0 31.5 34.4 33.0 32.6 42.8

22 27.2 23.2 27.1 32.1 35.8 40.2 43.8 33.2

23 28.2 27.8 32.0 37.6 41.7 43.8 33.9 45.5

24 21.6 18.8 22.7 27.2 30.7 33.4 25.9 35.8

25 20.8 19.7 23.9 28.2 31.5 31.3 26.6 38.8

26 25.0 20.1 24.3 29.1 32.3 34.4 31.7 36.8

27 37.2 24.6 29.3 34.2 35.1 30.0 35.7 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.

Freq. [Hz] 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 Freq. [Hz] 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000

Specimen 1 2 0.025 0.017 0.027 0.016 0.026 0.018 0.025 0.016 0.032 0.016 0.023 0.016 0.034 0.018 0.033 0.019 0.035 0.023 0.028 0.022 0.033 0.021 0.035 0.025 0.029 0.027 0.030 0.028 0.024 0.015 0.014 0.002 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.005 0.010 0.012 0.010 14 0.027 0.031 0.029 0.025 0.031 0.031 0.036 0.038 0.037 0.040 0.031 0.014 0.007 0.006 0.028 0.038 0.031 0.015 0.018 0.008 0.008

15 0.030 0.033 0.046 0.032 0.027 0.034 0.038 0.037 0.036 0.042 0.028 0.018 0.007 0.011 0.035 0.033 0.032 0.020 0.016 0.010 0.010

3 0.023 0.021 0.019 0.018 0.017 0.018 0.019 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.022 0.026 0.024 0.018 0.006 0.024 0.020 0.015 0.014 0.011 0.011

4 0.021 0.018 0.015 0.016 0.015 0.016 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.023 0.023 0.027 0.027 0.010 0.008 0.024 0.020 0.016 0.014 0.011 0.011

5 0.021 0.026 0.025 0.024 0.020 0.022 0.020 0.023 0.024 0.024 0.027 0.022 0.010 0.004 0.010 0.016 0.012 0.007 0.004 0.002 0.002

6 0.021 0.020 0.023 0.022 0.024 0.027 0.026 0.026 0.032 0.028 0.025 0.026 0.035 0.028 0.026 0.021 0.019 0.004 0.016 0.010 0.011

7 0.015 0.014 0.014 0.013 0.015 0.015 0.017 0.018 0.022 0.023 0.026 0.028 0.026 0.023 0.018 0.003 0.005 0.014 0.010 0.010 0.011

8 0.020 0.019 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.021 0.018 0.022 0.021 0.023 0.024 0.027 0.031 0.029 0.008 0.017 0.024 0.016 0.017 0.011 0.010

9 0.032 0.034 0.038 0.036 0.033 0.032 0.044 0.047 0.051 0.046 0.040 0.034 0.011 0.005 0.010 0.030 0.026 0.013 0.006 0.008 0.007

10 0.032 0.027 0.026 0.025 0.034 0.031 0.028 0.032 0.034 0.029 0.032 0.032 0.033 0.029 0.008 0.018 0.018 0.012 0.017 0.007 0.011

11 0.026 0.024 0.019 0.023 0.021 0.022 0.022 0.024 0.030 0.024 0.028 0.027 0.029 0.012 0.015 0.031 0.026 0.017 0.014 0.011 0.011

12 0.027 0.031 0.029 0.025 0.031 0.031 0.036 0.038 0.037 0.040 0.031 0.014 0.007 0.006 0.028 0.038 0.031 0.015 0.018 0.008 0.008

13 0.036 0.043 0.032 0.031 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.034 0.037 0.037 0.042 0.039 0.032 0.010 0.004 0.016 0.025 0.019 0.020 0.008 0.010

16 0.032 0.034 0.038 0.036 0.033 0.032 0.044 0.047 0.051 0.046 0.040 0.034 0.011 0.005 0.010 0.030 0.026 0.013 0.006

17 0.033 0.030 0.033 0.038 0.038 0.043 0.046 0.045 0.039 0.024 0.018 0.012 0.043 0.041 0.040 0.040 0.032 0.018 0.020 0.013 0.013

18 0.036 0.031 0.032 0.036 0.037 0.036 0.030 0.037 0.039 0.032 0.033 0.040 0.023 0.018 0.015 0.017 0.016

19 0.032 0.030 0.031 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.028 0.029 0.030 0.026 0.024 0.024 0.017 0.015 0.002

20 0.025 0.024 0.029 0.022 0.029 0.027 0.018 0.021 0.024 0.023 0.026 0.024 0.011 0.005 0.020 0.018 0.007 0.012 0.008 0.003 0.006

21 0.036 0.036 0.043 0.038 0.033 0.034 0.032 0.043 0.041 0.034 0.040 0.040 0.031 0.022 0.015 0.013 0.014 0.013 0.007 0.001 0.002

22 0.011 0.010 0.010 0.011 0.011 0.012 0.015 0.014 0.013 0.015 0.016 0.016 0.017 0.016 0.015 0.012 0.011 0.010 0.007 0.005 0.007

24 0.022 0.020 0.017 0.017 0.018 0.021 0.025 0.025 0.026 0.026 0.028 0.029 0.028 0.024 0.022 0.003 0.004 0.015 0.017 0.011 0.013

25 0.018 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.015 0.016 0.018 0.016 0.017 0.018 0.026 0.030 0.026 0.025 0.006 0.023 0.019 0.015 0.016 0.010 0.011

26 0.042 0.038 0.038 0.040 0.043 0.041 0.046 0.038 0.043 0.049 0.049 0.039 0.036 0.036 0.028 0.009 0.014 0.007 0.007 0.004 0.006

27 0.032 0.029 0.019 0.028 0.028 0.031 0.044 0.044 0.039 0.046 0.034 0.030 0.017 0.019 0.018 0.018 0.014 0.012 0.011 0.007 0.011

33


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 A-R, 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, Henriks-Eckerman M-L, 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