Register Dashboard
Search
75
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0
shares
    • Review: found
    Is Open Access

    Review of 'Basic considerations on the practical method for predicting sound insulation performance of a single-leaf window'

    Bookmark
    3
    Basic considerations on the practical method for predicting sound insulation performance of a single-leaf windowCrossref
    Average rating:
        Rated 3 of 5.
    Level of importance:
        Rated 3 of 5.
    Level of validity:
        Rated 3 of 5.
    Level of completeness:
        Rated 3 of 5.
    Level of comprehensibility:
        Rated 3 of 5.
    Competing interests:
    None

    Reviewed article

    • Record: found
    • Abstract: found
    • Article: found
    Is Open Access

    Basic considerations on the practical method for predicting sound insulation performance of a single-leaf window

     Yohei Tsukamoto (corresponding) ,  Kimihiro Sakagami,  Takeshi Okuzono (2021)
    As a basic study of a practical method for predicting sound insulation performance of windows, this report presents a study of the sound reduction index of windows with single glazing below a critical frequency. First, results calculated by an existing theory for a single plate for the sound reduction indices are compared with measured results of actual windows to assess the theory’s applicability for evaluating the sound insulation performance of windows. Next, a regression analysis is employed to measured results of a certain number of actual windows to explore a further development of a more practical prediction. The following findings were obtained: (1) Sound reduction indices of actual fixed windows are predictable using Sewell’s transmission theory for a single plate. However, sound reduction indices of openable windows, especially those of sliding windows, are affected strongly by window frame gaps. Therefore, predicting sound reduction indices of all windows accurately is difficult if using only one theory. (2) The frequency slope of the window reduction index is much lower than that of the mass law. Regression analyses indicate that the frequency slope of the reduction index of all examined windows is 3.0 dB per octave, on average.
      Bookmark

      Review information

      10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-ARCH.A1HX5Y.v1.RXFSND

      This work has been published open access under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Conditions, terms of use and publishing policy can be found at www.scienceopen.com.

      Keywords:

      Review text

      Dear authors, the article treats an interesting topic about sound reduction of glasses; however, some integrations are necessary for clarifications of statements.

       

      Paragraph 2.2

      Can you please specify if the tested windows are of the same manufacturer? Otherwise, can you specify them in type A, B C...?

       

      Paragraph 2.3

      Please include how many samples for each category have been tested, if the number of samples is equal for all the 3 thicknesses and the 3 'F' categories. The statement "up to three measured results..." is vague.

       

      Paragraph 2.3.2

      It is clear why the sliding window's surface area is bigger than the other 2 types but is there any reason why the surface area of the projected window is different from the fixed type? The comparison would be more affordable. Please integrate any comments.

       

      Paragraph 2.3.3

      Please change "sliding window tends to create gaps structurally to a greater degree than..." with "sliding window tends to create gaps structurally of a greater size than..."

       

      Figure 2, 3, 4

      Please add the legend related to the different types of curves and the axes' names. There is an explanation of the solid lines and the dash-dotted lines in the caption, but not for the empty dotted line. Please include this as well.

       

      Paragraph 2.4

      The sentence "..assuming the window has no gaps.." gets assumptions. Why not testing the windows by sealing all the gaps? In this way, the comparison would be more focused on the thickness and surface area of the specimens 

       

      Paragraph 3.2

      The variations are attributed to the "structural differences or other window features" in relation to the regression analysis. How about the concept of measurement repeatability? Please include comments on how it can affect the results

       

      Figure 6 - caption

      ".. represent values.." Please specify which type of values (e.g. measured, averaged..).

      Please change "...of single glass only.." with "of single glass without frame.."

       

      Paragraph 3.3

      "the solid line shows the regression equation" please specify which equation it is referring to

       

      Figure 7 - caption

      Please change "broken line" with "dashed line"

      Comments

      Response to the review by Antonella Bevilacqua

       

      Dear authors, the article treats an interesting topic about sound reduction of glasses; however, some integrations are necessary for clarifications of statements.

      We appreciate your constructive and detailed review. Below the responses and the current revision are summarized as follows:

       

      Paragraph 2.2

      Can you please specify if the tested windows are of the same manufacturer? Otherwise, can you specify them in type A, B C...?

      Many thanks for your question. Yes, all window’s data used in the present study are taken from different products of one manufacturer. Therefore, we consider that the specification of the type is not necessary. However, we did not clarify this point as you commented. In order to clarify the source of used data, we revised paragraph 2.2. as follows:

      2.2. Measurement data

      The data used in this study are existing test data accumulated in a manufacturer's database, in which all data were taken from the product of one manufacturer. All measurements were performed according to JIS A 1416 [12], which is compatible with ISO 10140-2 [13]. Although the configurations of the measurement samples are not necessarily the same, the sizes of the sample windows are based on typical use. By using the measured data of several different product samples in every window type and every glass thickness, the number of data in each category was collected as many as possible. We considered that the multiple measured data reduce the uncertainty as possible and improves the reliability of the measurement.

       

      Paragraph 2.3

      Please include how many samples for each category have been tested, if the number of samples is equal for all the 3 thicknesses and the 3 'F' categories. The statement "up to three measured results..." is vague.

      Thank you very much for your pointing out for our shortage of explanation. We added the number of samples in each graph.

       

      Paragraph 2.3.2

      It is clear why the sliding window's surface area is bigger than the other 2 types but is there any reason why the surface area of the projected window is different from the fixed type? The comparison would be more affordable. Please integrate any comments.

      Thank you very much for your question. We used existing measured data from a database in the manufacturer. The size of the sample window has been determined by each test according to the actual use. Although the typical sizes of the fixed window and the projected window are usually almost similar, a little smaller windows were included as a typical fixed window in the present study. Again, we consider that it should be clearly stated that the data used in this study is test data accumulated in a company's database. Therefore, we revised paragraph 2.2. as mentioned above. This circumstance is now also explained in paragraph 2.3.1.

       

      Paragraph 2.3.3

      Please change "sliding window tends to create gaps structurally to a greater degree than..." with "sliding window tends to create gaps structurally of a greater size than..."

      Many thanks for your constructive advice. We realized that the sentence was complicated, having read your comment. We revised the sentence as follows: the sliding window tends to create greater gaps structurally than windows of other types.

       

      Figure 2, 3, 4

      Please add the legend related to the different types of curves and the axes' names. There is an explanation of the solid lines and the dash-dotted lines in the caption, but not for the empty dotted line. Please include this as well.

      Thank you very much for pointing out the lack of those necessary information. The points like a dotted line are the plot of the measured data. We added the legend and the axes’ name, and revise the three captions as follows:

      Reduction indices of sliding window with theories. Solid lines and dash–dotted lines respectively represent values by Sewell’s theory and values by the mass law. Plots show measured data of windows in the 1/3 octave. ‘F’ and ‘n’ represent the window area and the number of the samples respectively.

       

      Paragraph 2.4

      The sentence "..assuming the window has no gaps.." gets assumptions. Why not testing thewindows by sealing all the gaps? In this way, the comparison would be more focused on the thickness and surface area of the specimens

      Thank you very much for your recommendation. We understand that it is the best way to clarify this point. On the other hands, the present study used only existing data in order to grasp the performance of actual window products. Therefore, we will try an experiment with sealing gaps in a future study. In any case, the sentence seems misleading, and now we revised it as follows:

      The theory can be interpreted as describes the sound insulation performance in the ideal condition, e.g., perfectly airtight without any gap, etc.

       

      Paragraph 3.2

      The variations are attributed to the "structural differences or other window features" in relation to the regression analysis. How about the concept of measurement repeatability? Please include comments on how it can affect the results

      Many thanks for your suggestion for the measurement repeatability. Because only one measurement was conducted for each sample, the ‘repeatability’ was not confirmed in this study. However, the measurements were conducted as perfectly in accordance as possible with the standard mentioned in paragraph 2.2. Moreover, by using measured data of several different product samples in every window type and every glass thickness, the number of data in the each category is increased as possible. This was intended to decrease the uncertainty as possible and to improve the reliability of the measurement. Therefore, we consider that the results shown here reflect the difference in the characteristics of the window structures. These contents are included in paragraph 2.2.

       

      Figure 6 - caption

      ".. represent values.." Please specify which type of values (e.g. measured, averaged..).

      Please change "...of single glass only.." with "of single glass without frame.."

      Thank you very much for your advice. We have corrected it as you suggested, because we think your expression is more accurate.

       

      Paragraph 3.3

      "the solid line shows the regression equation" please specify which equation it is referring to

      Thank you very much for your suggestion. We reconsider the sentence structure as follows:

      As an example, the case of a sliding window with 5-mm-thick glass is demonstrated as follows: According to Fig. 6, in the case of sliding window with 5-mm-thick glass, the regression equation is a straight line that increases by 0.9 dB every 1/3 octave. Expressed as an equation, it becomes R = 9 log f + 3.1 [dB]. This result is depicted in Fig. 7. The solid line shows this regression equation; The dashed line shows the field incidence mass law for reference; The plots demonstrate other measured data of the window in the same category.

       

      Figure 7 - caption

      Please change "broken line" with "dashed line"

      Many thanks for your kind advice. We have corrected it.

      2021-04-08 23:56 UTC
      +1

      Comment on this review