See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327920232

Review and Comparison of ASTM and ISO Standards on Sound Transmission in

Buildings

Conference Paper · August 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 2,326

1 author:

Christoph Hoeller
Ostbayerische Technische Hochschule
46 PUBLICATIONS   33 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Apparent Sound Insulation in CFS-Framed Buildings View project

Characterization of structure-borne sound source View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christoph Hoeller on 27 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Review and Comparison of ASTM and ISO Standards
on Sound Transmission in Buildings
C. HÖLLER1
1
National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT
Many of the commonly used measurement methods in room and building acoustics are standardized in inter-
national standards published by ASTM International or the International Standardization Organization (ISO).
This paper will provide an overview of the ASTM standards on sound transmission in buildings (developed by
ASTM committee E33.03) and their ISO counterparts (developed by ISO/TC 43/SC 2), highlighting similari-
ties and notable differences. The need for ASTM standards equivalent to the ISO 12354 series for estimating
the acoustic performance of buildings from the performance of elements is discussed. For laboratory sound
insulation tests, the analysis is carried further. Based on a large database of sound insulation tests conducted
at the National Research Council Canada, the single-number ratings for airborne sound insulation of walls
and floors are compared.
Keywords: sound insulation, standards, laboratory measurement, single-number rating

1. INTRODUCTION

The measurement of airborne and impact sound insulation in the laboratory is standardized in a series of
international standards. Depending on the geographic region, one of two common sets of standards is used:
in North America, standards published by ASTM International are used. In Europe, Asia, and most other parts
of the world, standards published by the International Standardization Organization (ISO) are used. Other
sets of standards exist as well, but this paper will focus on the standards published by ASTM International
and ISO, due to their wide-spread use.
Since the different sets of standards essentially address the same problems (e.g. how to measure and
rate the airborne sound insulation of building elements), it is instructive to compare the differences between
the measurement methods and rating schemes. This is particularly of interest when manufacturers market
their materials and products in different regions of the world. For example, a manufacturer may distribute a
product in North America and in Europe. Since the two regions use different standards, this usually means
that the manufacturer has to show compliance with both sets of standards before the product can be marketed
and distributed.
The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the most relevant standards on sound transmission
in buildings, and to provide an analysis of the similarities and differences between the different metrics. Due
to space constraints, the focus will be on measurements and ratings of the airborne sound insulation of interior
building elements.

2. OVERVIEW OF BUILDING ACOUSTICS STANDARDS

Within ASTM International, standards on airborne sound transmission in buildings are developed by com-
mittee E33 “Building and Environmental Acoustics” [1], subcommittee E33.03 “Sound Transmission.” Stan-
dards on impact sound transmission in buildings are developed by subcommittee E33.10 “Structural Acous-
tics and Vibration.” A comprehensive list of the currently active standards developed by these subcommittees
1
email: christoph.hoeller@nrc.ca
 ASTM Year Title ISO
Standard Test Method for Laboratory Measurement of Airborne Sound Transmission Loss of
ASTM E90 2016 ISO 10140-2
Building Partitions and Elements
Standard Test Method for Measurement of Airborne Sound Attenuation between Rooms in
ASTM E336 2017 ISO 16283-1
Buildings
ASTM E413 2016 Classification for Rating Sound Insulation ISO 717-1
Standard Test Method for Laboratory Measurement of Noise Reduction of Sound-Isolating ISO 15667
ASTM E596 2016
Enclosures ISO 11546
Standard Guide for Field Measurements of Airborne Sound Attenuation of Building Facades
ASTM E966 2018 ISO 16283-3
and Facade Elements
ASTM E1289 2016 Standard Specification for Reference Specimen for Sound Transmission Loss ISO 10140-5
ASTM E1332 2016 Standard Classification for Rating Outdoor-Indoor Sound Attenuation ISO 717-1
Standard Test Method for Airborne Sound Attenuation Between Rooms Sharing a Common
ASTM E1414 2016 ISO 10848-2
Ceiling Plenum
ISO 15667
ASTM E1704 2010 Standard Guide for Specifying Acoustical Performance of Sound-Isolating Enclosures
ISO 11546
Standard Test Method for Laboratory Measurement of Airborne Transmission Loss of Build-
ASTM E2249 2016 ISO 15186-1
ing Partitions and Elements Using Sound Intensity
ASTM E2964 2014 Standard Test Method for Measurement of the Normalized Insertion Loss of Doors ISO 16283-1

Table 1: ASTM standards developed by subcommittee E33.03 “Sound Transmission” [2], and their ISO counter-
parts. Standards that are discussed in more detail in this paper are emphasized.

is provided in Tables 1 and 2. Also listed are the equivalent ISO standards. “Equivalence” in this context
means that the standards have similar objectives, not that the methods described in them are identical. A
more detailed comparison of selected standards is provided in Section 3. The ASTM subcommittees E33.01
“Sound Absorption” and E33.02 “Speech Privacy” also develop standards that are relevant for room and
building acoustics, but these are not listed here (see [1] for a complete list).
Within ISO, standards on airborne and impact sound transmission in buildings are developed by technical
committee 43, subcommittee 2 (ISO/TC 43/SC 2) [4]. SC 2 is also responsible for various other standards
related to building acoustics, including methods for the measurement of sound absorption (the equivalent stan-
dards published by ASTM International are developed by subcommittee E33.01), measurement of flanking
sound transmission, and prediction of apparent sound insulation from the performance of building elements
(also see Section 4). A comprehensive list of the standards under the responsibility of SC 2 (not including
amendments and corrections) is provided in Table 3. Also listed are the equivalent ASTM standards. As
before, “equivalence” in this context does not imply that the standards are identical.
The information provided in this paper, including in Tables 1, 2, and 3, is up-to-date as of Spring 2018.

3. COMPARISON OF SELECTED STANDARDS

In the following sections, a selected set of standards is compared in more detail. The comparison is limited
to the most common laboratory measurement of airborne sound insulation, and the determination of the
respective single-number ratings.

3.1 Laboratory measurement of airborne sound insulation – ASTM E90 vs. ISO 10140-2
The laboratory measurement of the airborne sound insulation of building elements follows the same princi-
ples in the ASTM and ISO standards. The test specimen is built into an opening between two reverberation
chambers, and the average level difference between source and receiving rooms is determined by sampling
the sound field in both rooms. The underlying assumption is that the sound field in both rooms is sufficiently
diffuse so that the measured sound pressure levels can be related to the incident and radiated sound power
levels. The measured level difference is then normalized with respect to the specimen area S and the equiva-
lent absorption area AR in the receiving room to determine the transmission loss TL (in ASTM terminology)
 ASTM Year Title ISO
Standard Test Method for Laboratory Measurement of Impact Sound Transmission Through
ASTM E492 2016 ISO 10140-3
Floor-Ceiling Assemblies Using the Tapping Machine
ASTM E756 2017 Standard Test Method for Measuring Vibration-Damping Properties of Materials ISO 18437-3
ASTM E989 2012 Standard Classification for Determination of Impact Insulation Class (IIC) ISO 717-2
Standard Test Method for Field Measurement of Tapping Machine Impact Sound Transmis-
ASTM E1007 2016 ISO 16283-2
sion Through Floor-Ceiling Assemblies and Associated Support Structures
Standard Practices for Mounting Test Specimens for Sound Transmission Loss Testing of
ASTM E1123 2016 –
Naval and Marine Ship Bulkhead Treatment Materials
Standard Test Method for Laboratory Measurement of the Effectiveness of Floor Coverings in
ASTM E2179 2016 ISO 16251-1
Reducing Impact Sound Transmission Through Concrete Floors
Standard Test Method for Laboratory Measurement of Acoustical Effectiveness of Ship Noise
ASTM E2963 2016 Treatments Laboratory Measurement of Acoustical Effectiveness for Marine Bulkhead and –
Deck Treatments
Standard Test Method for Laboratory Measurement of Floor Impact Sound Radiation Using
ASTM E3133 2018 –
the Tapping Machine

Table 2: ASTM standards developed by subcommittee E33.10 “Structural Acoustics and Vibration” [3], and their
ISO counterparts. Standards that are discussed in more detail in this paper are emphasized.

or the sound reduction index R (in ISO terminology):

S
TL(f ) = LS (f ) − LR (f ) + 10 log10 ( ) (1)
AR
S
R(f ) = LS (f ) − LR (f ) + 10 log10 ( ) (2)
AR
While the basic principles are the same, there are some differences in the laboratory requirements between
the two standards. For ASTM E90, the requirements for the laboratory and the test method are provided in
the standard itself. For ISO 10140-2, these requirements are given in two separate standards, ISO 10140-4
and ISO 10140-5. The list below does not purport to be a complete description of the differences between the
ISO and ASTM standards. Rather, a selected set of differences are highlighted.

Room Volume The minimum room volume in ASTM E90 is 80 m3 . In ISO 10140-5 it is 50 m3 . A higher
room volume leads to more eigenmodes at low frequencies, a condition of the underlying assumption
of a diffuse sound field. It is interesting to note that the ISO single-number quantity Rw considers
lower frequency bands than the ASTM single-number quantity STC (see Section 3.2), even though
the ISO test laboratories are smaller. That said, the ISO standard includes several recommendations
for optimal room dimensions (for better mode distribution etc.). It is also recommended that the test
specimen cover one entire wall or floor of the test facility.

Reverberation Time For ISO 10140-2, the reverberation time of the rooms should ideally be between 1 and
2 seconds. If the reverberation time is outside these bounds and the sound reduction index is affected,
the rooms must be modified such that 1 ≤ RT ≤ 2(V /50)2/3 . The measurement of RT is described
in ISO 10140-4. Both the interrupted noise method and impulse response methods are allowed for the
determination of RT . For ASTM E90, only the interrupted noise method is allowed, as described in
ASTM E2235.

Specimen Area In the ISO standards, the test specimen must have a size of approximately 10 m2 for walls
and between 10 m2 and 20 m2 for floors, with the length of the shorter edge not less than 2.3 m. The
ASTM standard does not mandate a specific specimen size, though it is stated that proportions typical
of actual use be used and that the minimum dimension shall be 2.4 m.

Loss Factor For heavyweight test specimens (e.g. concrete walls or floors), ISO 10140 prescribes that the
√
loss factor of the test element should not be less than η = 0.01 + 0.3/ f . ASTM E90 has no
requirement for the loss factor.

Significant Digits The transmission loss TL from ASTM E90 must be reported in integers. The sound
reduction index R from ISO 10140-2 must be reported rounded to the nearest 0.1 dB.
 ISO Year Title ASTM

ISO 354 2003 Acoustics – Measurement of sound absorption in a reverberation room ASTM C423

ISO 717-1 2013 Acoustics – Rating of sound insulation in buildings and of building elements – Part 1: Airborne sound insulation ASTM E413

ISO 717-2 2013 Acoustics – Rating of sound insulation in buildings and of building elements – Part 2: Impact sound insulation ASTM E989

ISO 3382-1 2009 Acoustics – Measurement of room acoustic parameters – Part 1: Performance spaces –

ISO 3382-2 2008 Acoustics – Measurement of room acoustic parameters – Part 2: Reverberation time in ordinary rooms ASTM E2235

ISO 3382-3 2012 Acoustics – Measurement of room acoustic parameters – Part 3: Open plan offices ASTM E1374

Acoustics – Laboratory tests on noise emission from appliances and equipment used in water supply installations – Part 1: Method of
ISO 3822-1 1999 –
measurement

Acoustics – Laboratory tests on noise emission from appliances and equipment used in water supply installations – Part 2: Mounting and
ISO 3822-2 1995 –
operating conditions for draw-off taps and mixing valves

Acoustics – Laboratory tests on noise emission from appliances and equipment used in water supply installations – Part 3: Mounting and
ISO 3822-3 2018 –
operating conditions for in-line valves and appliances

Acoustics – Laboratory tests on noise emission from appliances and equipment used in water supply installations – Part 4: Mounting and
ISO 3822-4 1997 –
operating conditions for special appliances

ISO 9052-1 1989 Acoustics – Determination of dynamic stiffness – Part 1: Materials used under floating floors in dwellings –

ISO 9053 1991 Acoustics – Materials for acoustical applications – Determination of airflow resistance ASTM C522

ISO 10052 2004 Acoustics – Field measurements of airborne and impact sound insulation and of service equipment sound – Survey method –

ISO 10053 1991 Acoustics – Measurement of office screen sound attenuation under specific laboratory conditions ASTM C423

ISO 10140-1 2016 Acoustics – Laboratory measurement of sound insulation of building elements – Part 1: Application rules for specific products –

ISO 10140-2 2010 Acoustics – Laboratory measurement of sound insulation of building elements – Part 2: Measurement of airborne sound insulation ASTM E90

ISO 10140-3 2010 Acoustics – Laboratory measurement of sound insulation of building elements – Part 3: Measurement of impact sound insulation ASTM E492

ISO 10140-4 2010 Acoustics – Laboratory measurement of sound insulation of building elements – Part 4: Measurement procedures and requirements –

ISO 10140-5 2010 Acoustics – Laboratory measurement of sound insulation of building elements – Part 5: Requirements for test facilities and equipment –

ISO 10534-1 1996 Acoustics – Determination of sound absorption coefficient and impedance in impedance tubes – Part 1: Method using standing wave ratio ASTM C384

ISO 10534-2 1998 Acoustics – Determination of sound absorption coefficient and impedance in impedance tubes – Part 2: Transfer-function method ASTM E1050

Acoustics – Laboratory and field measurement of flanking transmission for airborne, impact and building service equipment sound
ISO 10848-1 2017 –
between adjoining rooms – Part 1: Frame document

Acoustics – Laboratory and field measurement of flanking transmission for airborne, impact and building service equipment sound
ISO 10848-2 2017 –
between adjoining rooms – Part 2: Application to Type B elements when the junction has a small influence

Acoustics – Laboratory and field measurement of flanking transmission for airborne, impact and building service equipment sound
ISO 10848-3 2017 –
between adjoining rooms – Part 3: Application to Type B elements when the junction has a substantial influence

Acoustics – Laboratory and field measurement of flanking transmission for airborne, impact and building service equipment sound
ISO 10848-4 2017 –
between adjoining rooms – Part 4: Application to junctions with at least one Type A element

ISO 11654 1997 Acoustics – Sound absorbers for use in buildings – Rating of sound absorption –

Building acoustics – Estimation of acoustic performance of buildings from the performance of elements – Part 1: Airborne sound
ISO 12354-1 2017 –
insulation between rooms

Building acoustics – Estimation of acoustic performance of buildings from the performance of elements – Part 2: Impact sound insulation
ISO 12354-2 2017 –
between rooms

Building acoustics – Estimation of acoustic performance of buildings from the performance of elements – Part 3: Airborne sound
ISO 12354-3 2017 –
insulation against outdoor sound

Building acoustics – Estimation of acoustic performance of buildings from the performance of elements – Part 4: Transmission of indoor
ISO 12354-4 2017 –
sound to the outside

ISO 12999-1 2014 Acoustics – Determination and application of measurement uncertainties in building acoustics – Part 1: Sound insulation –

Acoustics – Measurement of sound insulation in buildings and of building elements using sound intensity – Part 1: Laboratory measure-
ISO 15186-1 2000 ASTM E2249
ments

ISO 15186-2 2003 Acoustics – Measurement of sound insulation in buildings and of building elements using sound intensity – Part 2: Field measurements –

Acoustics – Measurement of sound insulation in buildings and of building elements using sound intensity – Part 3: Laboratory measure-
ISO 15186-3 2002 –
ments at low frequencies

ISO 16032 2004 Acoustics – Measurement of sound pressure level from service equipment in buildings – Engineering method –

Acoustics – Laboratory measurement of the reduction of transmitted impact noise by floor coverings on a small floor mock-up – Part 1:
ISO 16251-1 2014 ASTM E2179
Heavyweight compact floor

ISO 16283-1 2014 Acoustics – Field measurement of sound insulation in buildings and of building elements – Part 1: Airborne sound insulation ASTM E336

ISO 16283-2 2018 Acoustics – Field measurement of sound insulation in buildings and of building elements – Part 2: Impact sound insulation ASTM E1007

ISO 16283-3 2016 Acoustics – Field measurement of sound insulation in buildings and of building elements – Part 3: Façade sound insulation ASTM E966

Acoustics – Sound-scattering properties of surfaces – Part 1: Measurement of the random-incidence scattering coefficient in a reverbera-
ISO 17497-1 2004 –
tion room

ISO 17497-2 2012 Acoustics – Sound-scattering properties of surfaces – Part 2: Measurement of the directional diffusion coefficient in a free field –

ISO 18233 2006 Acoustics – Application of new measurement methods in building and room acoustics –

Table 3: ISO standards developed by ISO/TC 43/SC 2 “Building Acoustics” [5], and their ASTM counterparts.
Standards that are discussed in more detail in this paper are emphasized.
 80 80

Transmission Loss [dB]

STC - Max deficiency: 8

Transmission Loss [dB]

STC - Sum of deficiencies: 29
60 60 Rw - Max deficiency: 12.1
STC 48 Rw - Sum of deficiencies: 28.2

40 40

20 20 Transmission Loss
Transmission Loss STC Contour
STC Contour Rw Contour
0 0
63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k
Deficiency [dB]

8 16

Deficiency [dB]
12
4 8
4

63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k

Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]

Figure 1: The left plot illustrates the procedure to determine the STC rating. The right plot illustrates the differences
in the frequency regions and the fitting procedure between ASTM E413 and ISO 717-1.

3.2 Single-number ratings for airborne sound – ASTM E413 vs. ISO 717-1
The procedures to determine the single-number ratings for airborne sound insulation – Sound Transmission
Class (STC) and Weighted Sound Reduction Index Rw – are essentially the same, with a few notable excep-
tions. In both cases, the calculation procedure employs a reference contour, shown in Figure 1. The ASTM
contour has the same shape as the ISO contour, but it occupies a slightly different set of frequency bands.
The ISO procedure described in ISO 717-1 to determine the Rw rating is as follows:

1. The sound reduction index R is rounded to the nearest 0.1 dB.

2. The reference contour (100 Hz to 3150 Hz) is shifted in 1 dB increments, and the positive differences
between the contour and the sound reduction index are counted. These are called “deficiencies.”
3. The procedure in step 2 is repeated as long as the sum of deficiencies does not exceed 32 dB.
4. The Rw rating is determined as the value of the shifted reference contour at 500 Hz.
5. Additional spectrum adaptation terms (such as C and Ctr ) can be calculated for various frequency
bands, e.g. for low-frequency adaptation terms.

The ASTM procedure described in ASTM E413 to determine the STC rating is as follows:

1. The transmission loss TL is rounded to the nearest 1 dB.

2. The reference contour (125 Hz to 4000 Hz) is shifted in 1 dB increments, and the positive differences
between the contour and the transmission loss are counted. These are called “deficiencies.”
3. The procedure in step 2 is repeated as long as the sum of the deficiencies does not exceed 32 dB, and
as long as the deficiency in any one frequency band does not exceed 8 dB.
4. The STC rating is determined as the value of the shifted reference contour at 500 Hz.
5. There are no additional spectrum adaptation terms for the STC rating.

Hence there are three differences between the two rating procedures:

Parameter ASTM ISO

Significant digits Round TL to 1 dB Round R to 0.1 dB
Frequency range 125 Hz – 4000 Hz 100 Hz – 3150 Hz
Deficiencies Sum ≤ 32 and Max ≤ 8 Sum ≤ 32
Spectrum adaptation terms No Yes

Table 4. Differences between the STC and Rw rating procedures.

 100

90 R2=0.98974
Mean Difference: STC - R w = 0.23213
80 Standard Deviation = 1.2459

70

60
STC

50

40

30

20

10
Regression: y = 0.99593*x + 0.44856
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Rw

Figure 2: STC and Rw ratings for more than 2000 wall and floor assemblies tested at the National Research Council
Canada. The left figure shows a scatter plot, indicating one marker for each tested assembly. The right figure shows
a histogram of the differences between the STC and Rw ratings.

3.3 Comparison of STC vs Rw ratings

Since the measurement procedures for airborne sound insulation are very similar between the ASTM and
the ISO standards, and since the determination of the respective single-number ratings (STC and Rw ) is also
similar (with some notable differences), it is instructive to compare the single-number ratings. To this end,
a statistical analysis was performed on a data set containing more than 2000 laboratory-tested wall and floor
assemblies and their corresponding single-number ratings.
The specimens include walls and floors of varying construction types – concrete walls and floors, framed
walls and floors, and also composite assemblies (e.g. doors with a filler wall). A more detailed analysis could
be performed for the separate construction types but is beyond the scope of this overview paper.
The left plot in Figure 2 shows the results in a scatter plot. The horizontal axis denotes the Rw values of the
assemblies, while the vertical axis denotes the STC values. The black solid line indicates perfect agreement
between the two ratings. The mean difference for all assemblies is 0.23 dB, and the standard variation is
1.25 dB. The R2 value between the two parameters is 0.989. The red line is a linear regression line through
the population, with the regression equation as indicated in the figure. The right plot of Figure 2 shows a
histogram of the differences (STC - Rw ). Of the more than 2000 cases considered, the two single-number
ratings for more than 1600 are within ±1 dB. Due to the measurement uncertainty associated with airborne
sound insulation measurements, differences of 1 dB in the single-number rating are usually not considered
significant.
Of particular interest are those cases where the difference between STC and Rw is large, for example 3 dB
or more. In the population of over 2000 assemblies, there are 57 cases where the difference is 3 dB, 21 cases
where the difference is 4 dB, 4 cases where the difference is 5 dB, 4 cases where the difference is 6 dB, and
one case each where the difference is 7 dB or 8 dB. Upon closer inspection, it is found that in all except three
cases where the difference is 3 dB or higher, the STC rating is lower and the reason for the large deviation
is the 8 dB-rule in the STC calculation. An example of this situation is provided in Figure 3 in the left plot.
This case is for a 175 mm thick cross-laminated timber wall with wood furring and gypsum board on both
sides. A dip in the transmission loss curve leads to a concentration of the deficiencies at a few frequencies,
in this case mainly at 125 Hz and 160 Hz. While the deficiencies for the calculation of the Rw rating at these
frequencies reach values of up to 16, the deficiencies for the STC calculation are limited at 8 dB. The issue of
wall linings with closely spaced supporting members is also discussed in the NRC Research Report RR-335,
“Apparent Sound Insulation in Cross-Laminated Timber Buildings” [8].
In the three cases where the STC rating is higher than the Rw rating, this is due to the different frequency
range that is taken into consideration for the calculation of the single-number quantity. An example is pro-
vided in Figure 3 in the right plot. This case is for a 92 mm steel stud wall with one layer of 15.9 mm gypsum
board on each side and fibrous insulation in the cavity. The transmission loss curve shows a pronounced
dip in the 100 Hz band, due to the mass-air-mass resonance of the double-leaf wall. This dip significantly
affects the Rw rating – the deficiencies in the 100 Hz frequency band are 12.4 dB. Since the STC rating only
 100 100
STC - Max deficiency: 8 Transmission Loss STC - Max deficiency: 8 Transmission Loss
STC - Sum of deficiencies: 9 STC - Sum of deficiencies: 30

Transmission Loss [dB]

Transmission Loss [dB]

80 Rw - Max deficiency: 16
80 Rw - Max deficiency: 12.4
Rw - Sum of deficiencies: 30 Rw - Sum of deficiencies: 27.7

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k
Deficiencies [dB]

Deficiencies [dB]
20 20
16 STC 37 16 STC 46
12 Rw 45 12 Rw 43
8 8
4 4

63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k

Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]

Figure 3: Examples of transmission loss curves for assemblies where the difference between STC and Rw ratings
is particularly large. The upper plots show the transmission loss over frequency, and the lower plots show the
corresponding deficiencies. The left curve is for a cross-laminated timber assembly with gypsum board on wood
furring. The STC rating is lower than the Rw rating due to the 8 dB-rule. The right curve is for a steel stud wall
with one layer of gypsum board on each side and fibrous insulation in the cavity. The STC rating is higher than the
Rw rating due to the different frequency ranges of evaluation.

considers frequency bands above 100 Hz, the effect of the dip is reduced for the ASTM metric.
The plots in Figure 3 illustrate the significance of transmission loss dips in the calculation of the single-
number quantities. Particularly for the STC rating, deep dips and sharp gradients in the transmission loss
curve can limit the STC rating, which leads to lower numerical values than the corresponding Rw ratings. On
the other hand, dips in the transmission loss curve that occur below 125 Hz but that have a major influence
on the 100 Hz band can lead to lower Rw ratings, since the STC rating only considers frequencies above (and
including) 125 Hz.
Of course, a purely statistical and descriptive analysis as presented in this paper does not solve the under-
lying issue of which single-number quantity best describes the sound insulation of a given construction. The
appropriateness of the 8 dB-rule and the search for the best and most representative single-number rating is
the subject of ongoing research and debate [6, 7]. The discussion whether the STC rating or the Rw rating are
better descriptors for the sound insulation depicted in the plots in Figure 3 is beyond the scope of this paper.

3.3.1 Influence of the 8 dB-rule

To further study the influence of the 8 dB-rule on the STC calculation, it is possible to determine the STC
rating without using the 8 dB-rule. This was done for the 2000 assemblies, and the results are shown in
Figure 4. The left histogram shows the improvement in the single-number rating when the 8 dB rule is
omitted from the calculation procedure. For about 1400 of the approximately 2000 assemblies, this does not
change the STC rating. However, for some assemblies, omitting the 8 dB-rule increases the single-number
rating by up to 10 dB.
The right plot in Figure 4 shows a histogram similar to Figure 2, comparing the STC rating (calculated
without the 8 dB-rule) with the Rw ratings. It is obvious that omitting the 8 dB-rule significantly changes the
correlation between the two ratings and also introduces a bias – the histogram is centered around 1 dB, the
mean difference between the two ratings is now 1.1 dB (compared to 0.2 dB in Figure 2).

3.3.2 Influence of the frequency range

To analyze the influence of the different frequency ranges, it was evaluated how often the Rw rating is strongly
influenced by the 100 Hz band. This was defined as deficiencies in the 100 Hz band of 8 dB or more. At the
same time, it was evaluated how often the STC rating is limited by the 8 dB-rule. Further, those assemblies
were identified where the Rw rating is strongly influenced by the 100 Hz band and the STC rating is limited
by the 8 dB-rule, and where neither is the case. The results are shown in Figure 5 on the left. It is observed
that for most cases, neither conditions are fulfilled. The 8 dB-rule applies mainly where the STC rating is
lower than the Rw rating, though interestingly there are also cases where the STC rating is higher in spite
Figure 4: The left plot shows a histogram of the changes that are found if the STC rating is calculated without the
8 dB-rule. While for the majority of assemblies this does not have an influence on the single-number rating, there
are some assemblies where the single-number rating increases by up to 10 dB. The right plot shows a histogram of
the differences between the STC values calculated without the 8 dB-rule and the corresponding Rw rating, similar
to Figure 2.

1000
Neither
900 8dB-rule
100Hz band
800
Both
700

600
Count

500

400

300

200

100

0
-10 -5 0 5
STC - R w

Figure 5: The left plot a stacked histogram of the difference between STC and Rw ratings, similar to Figure 2. The
different colors indicate if the STC rating was limited by the 8 dB-rule and if the Rw rating was strongly influenced
by the 100 Hz band. The right plot shows a histogram of the changes that are found if the sound reduction index R
is rounded to the nearest 1 dB instead of the nearest 0.1 dB before the calculation of the Rw rating. The maximum
change is 1 dB, and for most assemblies the rounding does not have an effect on the single-number quantity.

of the 8 dB-rule. The influence of the 100 Hz band leads to higher STC ratings than Rw ratings. Finally, it
appears that the different frequency regions used for the calculation and the 8 dB-rule in the STC calculation
cancel each other out in many cases – the first leads to higher STC ratings, and the second leads to lower STC
ratings. Unfortunately, the relationship is not linear or predictable – it strongly depends on the transmission
loss curve (see Section 3.3 and Figure 3).

3.3.3 Influence of the decimal places

As described in Section 3.2, the frequency-dependent transmission loss is rounded to integers for the calcu-
lation of the STC rating, while it is rounded to the nearest 0.1 dB for the calculation of the Rw rating. While
this is another potential source of deviations between the two ratings, the largest deviation that can occur due
to rounding in this way is 1 dB. Figure 5 shows a histogram with the changes due to rounding.

4. STANDARDS FOR FLANKING SOUND TRANSMISSION

As can be observed from Tables 1, 2, and 3, there are numerous ASTM and ISO standards that do not
have obvious counterparts in the ISO and ASTM world, respectively. Among the ISO standards that do not
currently have counterparts in the ASTM world are documents related to the measurement of flanking sound
transmission, and to the prediction of apparent sound insulation from the performance of building elements.
Sound insulation values measured in the laboratory are only accurate in the laboratory, i.e. when the sound
travels through the separating wall or floor only. In reality, sound also travels via other paths, for example
through gaps and leaks in the partition, through a common ceiling plenum, via ducts and pipes between the
rooms, or via vibrating adjoining constructions. This is called airborne and structure-borne flanking sound
transmission, respectively. To measure the airborne sound insulation in a real building, the ASTM standard
E336 or the ISO standard 16283-1 for field measurements can be employed. For impact sound insulation
in the field, ASTM E1007 and ISO 16283-2 are used. The disadvantage of these field measurements is that
the sound insulation of the building can only be assessed once the building construction has been completed.
However, architects and designers need to know at the design stage how good the sound insulation in the
finished building will be.
To this end, the ISO 12354 set of standards (formerly known as EN 12354 or ISO 15712) describes
methods to estimate the performance of buildings from the performance of building elements. The prediction
model in ISO 12354 is based on a simple first-order Statistical Energy Analysis model [9]. To predict the
apparent sound insulation between two rooms in a building, the sound insulation of the separating partition
and the adjoining construction elements is determined in the laboratory (as described in Section 3.1). In
addition, the attenuation that structural vibrations undergo at the junction is also determined, using methods
described in ISO 10848. Based on these measured values and geometrical correction factors, the apparent
sound insulation of the complete building system can be estimated. While the ISO 12354 standards were
originally developed for heavy homogeneous constructions such as concrete and masonry, they can also be
adopted to other building systems such as massive timber constructions and lightweight framed constructions.
At the current time, there are no ASTM counterparts to the ISO 12354 and ISO 10848 series of stan-
dards. This poses a problem for the Canadian construction industry. The National Building Code of Canada
(NBCC) has recently switched to using apparent sound transmission class (ASTC) values as parameter for
demonstrating compliance. The ASTC rating is the counterpart of the apparent weighted sound reduction
index R0w . It describes the apparent sound insulation in a finished building, i.e. the combination of direct
and flanking sound transmission. The NBCC offers several compliance paths, including measurements in the
finished building (according to ASTM E336), following a set of prescribed building solutions, and prediction
of the ASTC rating [10]. Construction codes in Canada have historically used ASTM standards and met-
rics, but since there is no standardized prediction model for the ASTC rating, the NBCC currently uses the
ISO standards ISO 12354 and ISO 10848 and “translates” them to ASTM metrics. A detailed description of
the procedure and numerous examples of the calculation are provided in the NRC Research Report RR-331,
“Guide to Calculating Airborne Sound Transmission in Buildings” [11].
To simplify the use of prediction models to estimate the ASTC rating, and to use standards and metrics
familiar to Canadian (and North American) construction professionals, it would be beneficial to develop
counterparts for ISO 12354 and ISO 10848 in the ASTM committees on sound transmission in buildings.
A harmonized set of standards on flanking sound transmission for all of North America would increase
collaboration and market access for manufacturers.

5. CONCLUSIONS

The objective of this paper was to give a brief overview of the current ASTM and ISO standards on room
and building acoustics, with a particular focus on laboratory sound insulation measurements. It was shown
that there are many similarities between the two worlds, but also notable differences that make it difficult to
compare results and that complicate market access. For single-number ratings, it was illustrated that while for
many building elements the STC and Rw ratings are equal or very similar, there can also be large deviations
due to the 8 dB-rule in the STC calculation and due to the different frequency regions used for the STC and
Rw determination. In the last section, it was argued that ASTM standards similar to the ISO 12354 and
ISO 10848 set of standards would be very beneficial to increase the use of prediction models for apparent
sound insulation in North America and to increase collaboration and market access between North American
industry partners.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The assistance of Mr. David Klein from HFT Stuttgart University in creating the list of ASTM and ISO
standards and in evaluating the single-number ratings is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

[1] https://www.astm.org/COMMIT/SUBCOMMIT/E33.htm

[2] https://www.astm.org/COMMIT/SUBCOMMIT/E3303.htm

[3] https://www.astm.org/COMMIT/SUBCOMMIT/E3310.htm

[4] https://www.iso.org/committee/48558.html

[5] https://www.iso.org/committee/48558/x/catalogue/p/1/u/0/w/0/d/0

[6] P. Virjonen, V. Hongisto, D. Oliva: “Optimized single-number quantity for rating the airborne sound
insulation of constructions: Living sounds”, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 140(6), 4428–
4436, 2016.

[7] J. H. Rindel: “A Comment on the Importance of Low Frequency Airborne Sound Insulation between
Dwellings”, Acta Acustica united with Acustica, 103(1), 164–168, 2017.

[8] C. Höller, D. Quirt, J. Mahn, B. Zeitler, S. Schoenwald: Apparent Sound Insulation in Cross-Laminated
Timber Buildings. NRC Research Report RR-335. National Research Council Canada. 2017.

[9] C. Hopkins: Sound Insulation, Elsevier, 2007.

[10] C. Höller, J. Mahn, M. Mueller-Trapet: “From STC to ASTC – What you need to know about the
paradigm shift in acoustic regulations”, Construction Canada, accepted for publication, 2018.

[11] C. Höller, D. Quirt, J. Mahn: Guide to Calculating Airborne Sound Transmission in Buildings. NRC
Research Report RR-331, 3rd edition. National Research Council Canada. 2017.

View publication stats