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

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.