Impact Noise - Korea - Residential Building

공학석사 학위논문
Experimental and Numerical

Studies on Floor Impact Sound
Design of Residential Buildings
공동주택 바닥충격음 저감 설계를 위한
실험 및 해석 연구
2016 년 2 월
서울대학교 대학원
건축학과
백 길 옥
Abstract
Experimental and Numerical

Studies on Floor Impact Sound
Design of Residential Buildings
Baek, Gil-Ok
Department of Architecture and Architectural Engineering
College of Engineering
Seoul National University
In Korea, floor impact noise in apartment buildings frequently causes

disputes between the residences, which rise as an important issue in the
society. Main problem of the noise is heavy-weight floor impact sound
which has low-frequency components below 200 Hz. It is induced by
heavy-weight impact source such as children’s jumping or walking.
According to Canada NRC research report (2010), heavy-weight floor
impact sound is mainly influenced by structural system, floor plan type,
thickness of slab, and boundary condition. It indicates that heavy-weight
floor impact sound is a kind of structure-borne sound which is radiated
by slab vibration. Thus, to fundamentally reduce floor impact sound,
structural parameters related to slab vibration should be determined by
designers first. Especially, numerical study for predicting floor impact
vibration and sound is needed because experiments which investigate
such parameters cost a lot of money and time in actual building design.
And it should be considered at initial building design stage to prevent
the plans which show poor floor impact sound insulation performance.
i
Analytical solution for structure-borne sound including heavy-weight
floor impact sound can be proposed with high accuracy if vibration
analysis model predicts the actual behavior well.
This study focused on proposal of total floor impact sound analysis
process for designers in the practical field. The process includes
numerical modeling, analysis, prediction and verification of floor impact
sound. And it proposed several design values and detail process of
numerical analysis for designers who have to perform the analysis with
limited information. For this purpose, floor impact sound and vibration
test in a multi-story residential building was firstly performed. And, to
investigate applicability of the numerical analysis process on actual floor
impact sound design, the test results were compared with corresponding
results of finite element model. Finally parametric study on actual
building design factors was performed to investigate the correlation with
floor impact sound.
The result showed that the proposed process predicts the floor impact
sound within suitable error level range when compared with
experimental deviation. Also, parametric study found that axial stiffness
of resilient materials and section plan design parameters have high
correlation with floor impact sound. Concrete material properties and
floor area, aspect ratio showed relatively low correlation with floor
impact sound.
Keywords : floor impact sound; structural-borne sound; finite element

analysis; residential building
Student Number : 2014-20514
ii
Contents
Abstract ...................................................................... i
Contents.................................................................... iii
List of Tables ............................................................ vi
List of Figures ........................................................ viii
List of Symbols ....................................................... xii
Chapter 1. Introduction ........................................... 1

1.1 Background of Research ............................................................... 1
1.2 Objective of Research................................................................... 3
1.3 Outline of Master’s Thesis............................................................ 4
Chapter 2. Review .................................................... 6

2.1 Code Review ................................................................................ 6
2.1.1 Provisions about Housing Construction Standard .......................... 7
2.1.2 Standard Floor Structure................................................................. 8
2.1.3 KS Code.......................................................................................... 9
2.2 Literature Review ....................................................................... 11
2.2.1 Structure-borne Sound Theory ...................................................... 11
2.2.2 Research on Floor Impact Sound.................................................. 13
Chapter 3. Floor Impact Sound and Vibration

Test in a Residential Building ............................... 18
iii
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................ 18
3.2 Test Program ............................................................................... 20
3.2.1 Test site ......................................................................................... 20
3.2.2 Modal test plan ............................................................................. 25
3.2.3 Floor impact sound test plan ......................................................... 28
3.3 Test Result .................................................................................. 31
3.3.1 Modal Test Result ......................................................................... 31
3.3.2 Vibration Response ....................................................................... 35
3.3.3 Acoustic Response ........................................................................ 37
3.3.4 Floor Impact Sound Level ............................................................ 38
3.4 Discussions ................................................................................. 47
Chapter 4. Numerical Analysis of Floor Impact

Sound ....................................................................... 48
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................ 48
4.2 Proposal of Numerical Analysis Process .................................... 49
4.2.1 Assumptions ................................................................................. 49
4.2.2 Proposal of Design Property ......................................................... 51
4.2.3 Numerical Analysis Process ......................................................... 53
4.3 Analysis Plan .............................................................................. 55
4.3.1 Bare Concrete Slab ....................................................................... 55
4.3.2 Floating Floor ............................................................................... 57
4.4 Analysis Result ........................................................................... 59
4.4.1 Modal analysis .............................................................................. 59
4.4.2 Vibration Analysis ........................................................................ 61
4.4.3 Floor Impact Sound Analysis ....................................................... 64
4.4.4 Numerical Verification ................................................................. 68
4.5 Discussions ................................................................................. 76
Chapter 5. Parametric Study on Floor Impact

Sound Design Factors ............................................ 77
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................ 77
iv
5.2 Concrete Slab Design ................................................................. 78
5.2.1 Compressive Strength of Concrete ............................................... 78
5.2.2 Mass Density of Concrete............................................................. 80
5.2.3 Young’s Modulus of Concrete ...................................................... 82
5.3 Resilient Materials Design.......................................................... 85
5.3.1 Dynamic Stiffness of Resilient Materials ..................................... 85
5.3.2 Thickness of Resilient Materials .................................................. 89
5.3.3 Axial Stiffness of Resilient Materials ........................................... 91
5.4 Floor Plan Design ....................................................................... 96
5.4.1 Floor Area ..................................................................................... 96
5.4.2 Aspect Ratio................................................................................ 103
5.5 Discussions ............................................................................... 106
Chapter 6. Conclusions ........................................ 108
References ............................................................. 110
Appendix A: Test Database ................................. 113
초 록 .................................................................. 121
v
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Floor impact sound insulation performance grade ................. 7

Table 3.1 Scope and objective of test ................................................... 18
Table 3.2 Material property of bare concrete slab ................................ 23
Table 3.3 Resilient material property of floating floor ......................... 23
Table 3.4 Vibration property of bare concrete slabs ............................. 33
Table 3.5 Mode shapes ......................................................................... 34
Table 3.6 Vibration acceleration level of bare concrete slabs .............. 36
Table 3.7 Floor impact sound level of bare concrete slabs ................... 39
Table 3.8 Heavy-weight floor impact sound reduction of floating floor
.............................................................................................................. 41
Table 4.1 Design values for numerical modeling ................................. 52
Table 4.2 Requirements of floor impact sound analysis process .......... 54
Table 4.3 Numerical model plan........................................................... 56
Table 4.4 Input property of floating floor model .................................. 58
Table 4.5 Mode shapes by experiment and analysis ............................. 60
Table 4.6 Analytical result of 1/1 octave floor impact sound level ...... 64
Table 4.7 Floor impact sound level prediction error ............................ 71
Table 5.1 Floor impact sound design parameters ................................. 77
Table 5.2 Analysis of vibration property according to concrete strength
.............................................................................................................. 79
Table 5.3 Analysis of floor impact sound according to concrete strength
.............................................................................................................. 79
Table 5.4 Analysis of vibration property according to mass density .... 81
Table 5.5 Analysis of floor impact sound according to mass density... 81
Table 5.6 Analysis of vibration property according to Young’s modulus
.............................................................................................................. 84
Table 5.7 Analysis of floor impact sound according to Young’s modulus
.............................................................................................................. 84
vi
Table 5.8 Floor impact sound reduction level according to dynamic
stiffness ................................................................................................. 88
Table 5.9 Floor impact sound reduction level according to unit axial
stiffness ................................................................................................. 95
Table 5.10 Floor impact sound reduction level according to axial
stiffness ................................................................................................. 95
Table 5.11 Analysis of floor impact vibration according to floor area . 97
Table 5.12 Analysis of floor impact sound according to floor area ...... 97
Table 5.13 Statistical result of floor impact sound level of bare concrete
slabs .................................................................................................... 102
Table 5.14 Design property according to aspect ratio ........................ 103
Table 5.15 Floor impact vibration level by aspect ratio ..................... 104
Table 5.16 Floor impact sound level by aspect ratio .......................... 104
Table 5.17 Floor impact sound tendency ............................................ 106
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Floor impact sound transmission mechanism ....................... 1

Figure 1.2 Outline of research ................................................................ 5
Figure 2.1 Section plan of typical standard floor ................................... 8
Figure 2.2 Inverse A curve (KS F 2863-2) ........................................... 10
Figure 2.3 Measurement system arrangement (Kim et al.) .................. 14
Figure 2.4 Mode shape of slab system (Hwang et al.) ......................... 15
Figure 2.5 Prediction of acceleration response and sound pressure by
FRF (Mun et al.) ................................................................................... 17
Figure 3.1 Test site ................................................................................ 20
Figure 3.2 Floor plan of test site ........................................................... 21
Figure 3.3 Section plan of test site ....................................................... 22
Figure 3.4 Dynamic stiffness measurement set-up on resilient materials
.............................................................................................................. 24
Figure 3.5 Dynamic stiffness measurement result of resilient materials
.............................................................................................................. 24
Figure 3.6 Modal test plan .................................................................... 26
Figure 3.7 Test grid setup on floor slab ................................................ 27
Figure 3.8 Section plan of floor impact sound test room ..................... 29
Figure 3.9 Location of impact points and receiving points .................. 30
Figure 3.10 Receiving room ................................................................. 30
Figure 3.11 Acceleration FRF at P1 by impacting P1 .......................... 32
Figure 3.12 Acceleration FRF at P2 by impacting P2 .......................... 32
Figure 3.13 Acceleration level at P1 by impacting P1 ......................... 35
Figure 3.14 Acceleration response of bare slab and floating floor ....... 36
Figure 3.15 Correlation between acoustic FRF and acceleration FRF . 37
Figure 3.16 1/3 Octave floor impact sound level of bare concrete slabs
.............................................................................................................. 38
.............................................................................................................. 39
viii
Figure 3.18 Single number quantity ..................................................... 41
Figure 3.19 Heavy-weight floor impact sound according to dynamic
stiffness ................................................................................................. 42
Figure 3.20 Heavy-weight floor impact sound according to thickness of
resilient materials .................................................................................. 42
Figure 3.21 Floor impact sound level of floor structure A ................... 44
Figure 3.22 Floor impact sound level of floor structure B ................... 44
Figure 3.23 Floor impact sound level of floor structure C ................... 45
Figure 3.24 Floor impact sound level of floor structure D ................... 45
Figure 3.25 Floor impact sound level of floor structure E ................... 46
Figure 3.26 Floor impact sound level of floor structure F.................... 46
Figure 4.1 Structural FE model ............................................................ 50
Figure 4.2 Acoustic FE model .............................................................. 50
Figure 4.3 Numerical analysis process ................................................. 53
Figure 4.4 Floor plan of numerical model ............................................ 55
Figure 4.5 Concept of floating floor analysis model ............................ 58
Figure 4.6 Acceleration response at receiving point P1 by impact at P1
.............................................................................................................. 62
.............................................................................................................. 62
.............................................................................................................. 63
.............................................................................................................. 63
Figure 4.10 Analytical and experimental result of floor impact sound by
impact at P1 .......................................................................................... 65
impact at P2 .......................................................................................... 65
impact at P3 .......................................................................................... 66
impact at P4 .......................................................................................... 66
impact at P5 .......................................................................................... 67
ix
Figure 4.15 Analytical and experimental result of average floor impact
sound..................................................................................................... 67
Figure 4.16 Analytical result of floor impact sound of test model ....... 68
Figure 4.17 Analytical result of floor impact sound in 59-type
household .............................................................................................. 69
household .............................................................................................. 69
household .............................................................................................. 70
household .............................................................................................. 70
Figure 4.21 Analytical result of floor impact sound in floating floor
structure A ............................................................................................ 73
structure B ............................................................................................ 73
structure C ............................................................................................ 74
structure D ............................................................................................ 74
structure E ............................................................................................. 75
structure F ............................................................................................. 75
Figure 5.1 Flexural stiffness measurement of concrete specimen ........ 83
Figure 5.2 Dynamic stiffness according to concrete aging .................. 83
stiffness by bang machine excitation .................................................... 86
stiffness by impact ball excitation ........................................................ 86
Figure 5.5 Heavy-weight floor impact sound reduction according to
dynamic stiffness by bang machine excitation ..................................... 87
dynamic stiffness by impact ball excitation ......................................... 87
Figure 5.7 Heavy-weight floor impact sound according to resilient
material thickness of test site ................................................................ 90
Figure 5.8 Heavy-weight floor impact sound according to resilient
x
material thickness of site A ................................................................... 90
Figure 5.9 Heavy-weight floor impact sound according to unit axial
stiffness by bang machine excitation .................................................... 92
Figure 5.10 Heavy-weight floor impact sound according to unit axial
stiffness by impact ball excitation ........................................................ 92
unit axial stiffness by bang machine excitation .................................... 93
unit axial stiffness by bang machine excitation .................................... 93
axial stiffness by bang machine excitation ........................................... 94
axial stiffness by impact ball excitation ............................................... 94
Figure 5.15 Heavy-weight floor impact sound level according to floor
area by bang machine excitation .......................................................... 99
Figure 5.16 Heavy-weight floor impact sound level according to floor
area by impact ball excitation ............................................................... 99
Figure 5.17 1/1 Octave floor impact sound level according to floor area
............................................................................................................ 102
Figure 5.18 Heavy-weight floor impact sound according to aspect ratio
............................................................................................................ 105
xi
List of Symbols
A floor area, m2
c velocity of sound, m/s
Ec static modulus of elasticity of concrete, GPa
Ed dynamic stiffness of resilient materials, MN//m3
fc design concrete strength, MPa
fn natural frequency, Hz
k axial stiffness, MN//m2
k/A unit axial stiffness per floor area, MN//m4
LFmax maximum sound pressure level measured by sound

level meter with ‘F’ time calibration, dB
LFmax,k maximum sound pressure level at k-th impact point

measured by sound level meter with ‘F’ time
calibration, dB
Li,Fmax average value of maximum impact sound level at each

frequency measured by sound level meter with ‘F’ time
calibration, dB
Li,Fmax,AW inverse A-weighted value of Li,Fmax assessed by inverse

A curve, dB
Ln,AW inverse A-weighted value of Ln assessed by inverse A

curve, dB
xii
p sound pressure, Pa
R reflection coefficient of material
SNQ single-number quantity of floor impact sound, dB
SPL sound pressure level, dB
VAL vibration acceleration level, dB(ref. 1x10-6 m2/s)
t resilient material thickness, mm
vn surface normal velocity of structure, m/s
Z acoustic panel impedance, kg/m2/s
 sound absorption coefficient of material
 angular frequency, rad/s
n damping ratio of n-th normal vibration mode
ρ mass density, kg/m3
ρ·c acoustic characteristic impedance, kg/m2/s
xiii
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Background of Research
In Korea, floor impact noise often causes disputes between the

residences, which rise as an important issue in the society. Generally, the
structure of residential buildings in Korea is mainly bearing wall-slab
structure, where walls replace columns and a room is enclosed by the
walls and slab. As shown in Figure 1.1, floor impact noise is transmitted
to the lower household through walls and slab by various paths. The
main problem of floor impact noise is heavy-weight floor impact sound,
which is induced by low-frequency vibration of heavy and soft impact
source. The typical example of the heavy and soft impact source is
children’s jumping or walking.
Figure 1.1 Floor impact sound transmission mechanism
1
In 2010, Canada NRC research report [1] announced that heavy-
weight floor impact sound is mainly influenced by structural parameters.
The parameters are structure system type, slab thickness, floor area, and
boundary condition of buildings. It indicates that heavy-weight floor
impact sound is a kind of structure-borne sound, which is radiated by
slab vibration. The majority of previous researches have focused on
investigating performance of resilient materials on the reduction of floor
impact noise. A large number of resilient materials were randomly
investigated by experimental method. The result showed that they have
good insulation performance on light-weight floor impact noise but not
on heavy-weight floor impact noise. It is difficult to reduce the heavy-
weight floor impact noise only by using resilient materials because they
cannot reduce slab vibration itself.
Thus, to fundamentally reduce floor impact sound, structural
parameters should be significantly considered and determined at initial
design stage by building designers. For the purpose, studies on floor
impact sound prediction are needed to prevent the plans which show
poor floor impact sound insulation performance. Numerical study should
be especially developed because experiments which investigate such
parameters cost a lot of money and time in actual building design.
Analytical solution for structure-borne sound including heavy-weight
floor impact sound can be proposed with high accuracy if vibration
analysis model predicts the actual behavior well.
2
1.2 Objective of Research
The objective of this research is to propose total floor impact sound

analysis process to such designers in the practical field. Required
performance of the process is that any designer can perform the floor
impact sound analysis if FEA software and building structure plan is
given. Because they have to perform the analysis with limited
information, practical applicability was considered the most. The
prediction accuracy of numerical analysis was targeted that floor impact
sound error is within the range of experimental deviation database.
For the above purposes, it firstly focused on finding proper design
values which is needed for floor impact sound analysis. Several
preceding tests were performed in a residential building to derive
vibration properties and average floor impact sound data from them. And
it secondly focused on proposing numerical analysis process for
predicting floor impact sound of residential buildings. To evaluate
prediction accuracy of the process, various buildings including the test
site were analyzed and compared with experimental result. Finally,
parametric studies on actual building design factors were performed to
investigate correlation with floor impact sound.
3
1.3 Outline of Master’s Thesis
In Chapter 2, domestic laws and codes about floor impact sound in

residential buildings were reviewed. And sound radiation theory of
vibrating structures was briefly introduced to explain the principle of
floor impact sound occurrence. Preceding experimental and numerical
studies about floor impact sound were reviewed.
In Chapter 3, experimental study was conducted about investigating
floor impact sound and vibration characteristics of a building. Modal test
was performed to measure vibration properties of the building. And floor
impact sound test according to building construction stage was
performed at the same site. The standard floor impact vibration and
sound data was derived from the tests and compared with analytical
results in Chapter 4. It found the deviation of floor impact sound level in
bare concrete slabs of identical plan. Also, floor impact sound insulation
performance of floating floors was investigated according to various test
parameters.
In Chapter 4, it was proposed floor impact sound prediction process
by finite element method. Modal analysis, steady-state dynamics
analysis, and acoustic harmonic FEM analysis were performed. Each
analytical result was compared with the corresponding test result in
Chapter 3. Several design values about structural and acoustic properties
of general residential buildings were proposed for practical usage. The
result showed that floor impact sound prediction error is 1-2 dB on
average, which is smaller than deviation level of the test result. Thus, it
seemed that the numerical method in this study is able to be utilized for
designers who perform the floor impact sound analysis with limited
information.
In Chapter 5, parametric study on floor impact sound was performed
by both numerical and experimental method. Actual building design
factors such as material property, floor plan, and section plan were set as
4
parameters. And correlation with floor impact sound was investigated
for each parameter.
Finally, conclusion of this study is summarized in Chapter 6. The
outline of this research is shown in Figure 1.2
Figure 1.2 Outline of research
5
Chapter 2. Review
2.1 Code Review
Before the revision of Korean housing laws, there was no specific

regulation or design guide about floor impact noise in residential
buildings. However, as floor impact noise problem occurred as an
important social issue in Korea, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and
Transport established the laws which comment the specific criterion for
floor impact sound insulation performance. The criterion is commented
in ‘Provisions about Housing Construction Standard-Clause 3, Article 14’
[2].
In the provision by 2013, it is commented that residential buildings
should satisfy two criteria about floor impact sound. The first one is
floor impact sound insulation performance criteria and the second one is
construction specification of standard floor structure. But the standard
floor structure was abolished in 2014 and two criteria were integrated
into one criterion. The explanation about them is introduced in chapter
2.1.1 and 2.1.2. Also, measurement and assessment code of floor impact
sound in residential building is briefly reviewed in chapter 2.1.3.
Currently, KS (Korean Industrial Standard) codes regulate the standard
floor impact sound test method in Korea. KS F 2810-2 [3] is about field
measurement of heavy-weight floor impact sound and KS F 2863-2 [4]
is about assessment of heavy-weight floor impact sound.
6
2.1.1 Provisions about Housing Construction Standard
According to ‘Provisions about Housing Construction Standard’,

rating of floor impact sound insulation performance is provided as
shown in Table 2.1. Floor impact sound insulation performance grade is
classified from Grade 1 to Grade 4. It is recommended that floor impact
sound level in residential buildings is lower than 50 dB1 for standard
heavy-weight floor impact sound ( L 'i ,F max, AW ) and 58 dB for standard
light-weight floor impact sound ( L 'n , AW ).
But most of standard floor systems satisfying the criteria have grade 1
in light-weight floor impact sound but they only have grade 3 or 4 in
heavy-weight floor impact sound. It indicates that present floor system
has structural limits for heavy-weight floor impact sound insulation
performance.
Table 2.1 Floor impact sound insulation performance grade
Grade L 'n, AW Grade L'i,Fmax,AW
1 L 'n, AW  43 1 L'i,Fmax,AW  40
2 43  L 'n, AW  48 2 40 < L'i,Fmax,AW  43
3 48  L 'n, AW  53 3 43 < L'i,Fmax,AW  47
4 53  L 'n, AW  58 4 47 < L'i,Fmax,AW  50
1
Sound pressure reference : 20x10-5 Pa
7
2.1.2 Standard Floor Structure
Standard floor structure is a floor structure which is recommended in

‘Korea Construction Standards, Article 14, section 3’. The representative
section plan of standard floor structure is shown in Figure 2.1.
Floor coverings
Finishing mortar (40mm)
Autoclaved Lightweight Concrete (40mm)
Resilient Material (20mm)
Resilient Material Concrete Slab (210mm)
Figure 2.1 Section plan of typical standard floor
It is composed of concrete slab, resilient material, autoclaved

lightweight concrete (ALC), finishing mortar, and floor coverings.
Minimum thickness of concrete slab is 210 mm for buildings with
bearing wall-slab structure. It is generally called as ‘floating floor’
because it physically separates the concrete slab from the finishing
mortar by placing resilient materials between them. Most of residential
buildings after revision of Korean housing laws were constructed by the
specification of standard floor. In 2014, the law about stand floor
structure specification was abolished. Instead of this, standard floor was
integrated with the floor structures which satisfy constant sound
insulation performance criteria regardless of slab thickness. But this
study focused on residential buildings which were constructed as
standard floor structure.
8
2.1.3 KS Code
In Korea, there is no specific design code for floor impact sound in

residential buildings. Instead, measurement and assessment criterion for
floor impact sound is specified in KS (Korean Industrial Standard) codes.
Field measurement of floor impact sound insulation of buildings is
prescribed in KS F 2810 codes. The contents are based on ISO 140-6
code. KS F 2810-1 states the method using standard light impact sources
and KS F 2810-2 states the method using standard heavy impact sources.
KS F 2810-2 is briefly introduced among them because this study
focused on heavy-weight floor impact sound. Primary terms defined in
the code are as follows. LF max is maximum sound pressure level
measured by sound level meter with ‘F’ time calibration. Especially,

Li ,F max is maximum impact sound level at each frequency. Calculation
of Li ,F max is stated as follows.
LF max,k , which is LF max at the k-th impact point, is calculated by
energy average value of maximum sound pressure level measured at all

receiving points like equation (2.1).
1 m L 
LF max,k  10log10  10 F max, j /10 
 m j 1  (2.1)
In equation (2.1), LFmax,j is maximum sound pressure level measured at
j-th receiving point. m is the number of receiving points. Then Li ,F max
is calculated by the linear average of LF max,k as shown in equation (2.2).
1 n
Li ,F max   LF max,k
n k 1 (2.2)
Assessment of heavy-weight floor impact sound follows KS F 2863-2,
which is based on ISO 717-2 [5]. The code defines the assessment
method of single-number quantity by Li ,F max, AW , which is inverse A-
weighted value of maximum sound pressure level. It is calculated by
9
using inverse A curve as shown in Figure 2.2. The measured 1/1 octave
floor impact sound level curve is translated until the summation of
difference between reference value and the measured value is less than
8.0 dB. Then, sound pressure level at 500 Hz in the translated curve is
defined as Li ,F max, AW .
Figure 2.2 Inverse A curve (KS F 2863-2)
10
2.2 Literature Review
2.2.1 Structure-borne Sound Theory
This chapter briefly introduces about the structural-borne sound

radiation theory, stated by Fahy and Gardonio [6]. It is the basis theory
of floor impact sound radiation which this study focuses on.
The definition of sound is small variation of an acoustic medium
around a state of equilibrium. It is classified into air-borne sound and
structure-borne sound according to acoustic source pathway. Structure-
borne sound, including floor impact sound, is mainly caused by
vibration of solid structures. Sound pressure wave equation in the time
domain t is like equation (2.3).
1  2 p( r,t)
2 p( r,t)- =0
c 2 t 2 (2.3)
In equation (2.3), p(r , t ) is sound pressure at position vector r , c

is sound velocity. If simple harmonic excitation is assumed, time
variable can be removed by Fourier transform equation (2.4).

 
p r, t 
1
2  p  r,    e
 jt
dt
 (2.4)
By substituting equation (2.4) to (2.3), it can lead to Helmholtz
equation (2.5) which represents wave equation in the frequency domain.
2 p( r, )+ k 2 p( r, )= 0 (2.5)
p(r ,  ) is sound pressure variation at position r with angular
c
frequency ω. k is wave number which is defined as .
ω
In Helmholtz equation, p(r ,  ) , which is vector component, can be
expressed by using velocity potential  which is scalar component as
shown in equation (2.6).
11
v   (2.6)
The term v in (2.6) is substituted to Euler’s equation (2.7) which

states conservation of momentum of fluid. Then equation (2.8) and (2.9)
is derived from it as a result.
v
0  p  0
t (2.7)

 0  p  0
t (2.8)

p  0  const.
t (2.9)

In equation (2.9), can be expressed as j .
t
p  0 j
(2.10)
Finally, wave equation of velocity potential  can be derived by
substituting equation (2.11) to equation (2.5).
(2  k 2 )  0 (2.11)
(2  k 2 )  q (2.12)
Equation (2.11) and (2.12) show the relationship between sound
pressure and velocity of acoustic medium. These equations are the basis
for acoustic FEM analysis.
12
2.2.2 Research on Floor Impact Sound
Previous researchers had been studying about characteristics of floor

impact sound by experimental and numerical method. And most of
research results found that floor impact sound is a kind of a structure-
borne sound. It indicates that floor impact sound prediction is possible if
structural vibration is analyzed with high accuracy. The primary
researches are reviewed as follows.
In 1896, Rayleigh et al. [7] proposed the sound radiation equation that
calculates sound pressure at any position through surface normal
velocity of vibrating structure.
j 0 vn ( rs )e  jkR
p( r ) 
2 s R
dS
(2.13)
In equation (2.13),  is angular frequency of acoustic source,  0 is
mass density of acoustic medium, vn is surface normal velocity of
vibrating structure, r is position vector of acoustic field, R is distance

between acoustic field point and vibrating surface. On the basis of this
equation, sound pressure at any specific measurement points can be
calculated by using surface normal velocity of floor slab. This equation
had been applied to both experimental and analytical researches on floor
impact sound prediction field.
13
In 2003, Kim et al. [8] studied the prediction of floor impact sound by
measuring the vibration responses on the interior structure in residential
buildings. It focused on the applicability of the sound radiation theory,
which shows correlation between floor impact sound and vibration. In
the study, the vibration acceleration levels on the interior structures were
measured. Figure 2.3 shows the measurement system arrangement.
Figure 2.3 Measurement system arrangement (Kim et al.)
Then, the sound pressure level was predicted by substituting the

measured vibration acceleration levels to equation (2.14). And it was
compared with the measured sound pressure level.
SPL  VAL  10log   10log( S A)  20log f m  36
(2.14)
The equation (2.14) is generally used in estimating the sound pressure
level of structural-borne sound by sound radiation theory. SPL is average
interior sound pressure level, VAL is vibration acceleration level (dB, ref.
6 2
1  10 m s ), A is interior total sound absorption (m ), and
2
f m is
center frequency (Hz). The result showed that the predicted values were
in good agreement with the measured values within 5~10 % in error rate.
In conclusion, it proved that floor impact sound is greatly related with
slab vibration. It also indicates that if numerical model predicts the
actual vibration response with high accuracy, floor impact sound can be
predicted from them as well.
In 2009, Hwang et al. [9] performed finite element analysis to
14
investigate the sound radiation characteristics according to building
structural system type. The sound pressure of floor impact noise radiated
by slab vibration at any point r can be expressed by following equation.
ik  c
4 s
P( r )   G( r | rs )V ( rs )ds( rs )
(2.15)
Three kinds of structural system such as wall-slab, ramen, and flat
slab system were compared. The vibration mode of three structural
system is shown in Figure 2.4. The result showed that heavy-weight
floor impact noise of wall-slab system is larger than that of the other
system and the sound radiation from the wall have great effect on total
floor impact sound. It indicates that floor impact sound radiation can be
controlled by structural parameter design.
Figure 2.4 Mode shape of slab system (Hwang et al.)
15
In 2014, Mun et al. [10] proposed a prediction method of concrete
slab acceleration and floor impact sound by using frequency response
function. FRF (Frequency Response Function) is a transfer function
defined as unit response per applied force. Because FRF is one of inherit
dynamic characteristics of a linear system, prediction of dynamic
response is possible if FRF is given. As shown in equation (2.16), the
relationship between input signal X  f  and output signal Yf  is
related with frequency response function Hf .
Y  f   H  f  X  f  (2.16)
To investigate the applicability of FRF to floor impact sound
prediction, actual test was conducted. The acceleration response of
concrete slab and the floor impact sound in the living room were
measured by bang machine and impact ball excitation. And the test
results were compared with the predicted results which is based on FRF
and impact force spectrum.
The predicted result of acceleration response is Figure 2.5 (a) and the
floor impact sound level is Figure 2.5 (b). The predicted values were
generally in good agreement with the measured values. The result
showed that the floor impact sound could be predicted according to
various input forces. Also, calculation time can be effectively reduced by
applying FRF to numerical analysis on floor impact sound.
16
(a) Acceleraion response by bang machine excitation
(b) Acoustic pressure response by bang machine excitation
Figure 2.5 Prediction of acceleration response and sound pressure by FRF (Mun et al.)
17
Chapter 3. Floor Impact Sound and Vibration
Test in a Residential Building
3.1 Introduction
Floor impact sound and vibration tests were conducted in a multi-

story residential building. Modal test was firstly performed on bare
concrete slab. And floor impact sound measurements were performed
three times according to building construction stage. The scope and
objective of each test is shown in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Scope and objective of test
Test Scope Purpose
bare concrete Measurement of vibration properties such as

Modal test
slab natural frequency, mode shape, and damping
Floor impact bare concrete Acquisition of average floor impact sound level
sound test slab for comparison with numerical model
Floor impact Investigation of floor impact sound insulation

floating floor
sound test performance according to resilient material type
Floor impact floating floor Investigation of influence of ceilings on floor

sound test with ceiling impact sound insulation performance
The purpose of modal test is to get intrinsic vibration properties of

concrete slab such as natural frequency, mode shape, and damping ratio.
Correlation between floor impact sound and vibration can be
investigated through this test. And the measured properties are utilized to
numerical analysis in the next chapter. They become the basis of design
values proposed for floor impact sound prediction process.
The purpose of floor impact sound test is to get standard sound
18
pressure level data which can be compared with the corresponding data
of numerical model. The sound pressure level deviation was investigated
for the households of identical floor plan. Then average value was
derived from the results. Measurement of heavy-weight floor impact
sound followed KS F 2810-2 and assessment of floor impact sound
followed KS F 2863-2. Impact ball, or rubber ball, was used as a
standard heavy-weight impact source.
Additionally, to investigate correlation between floor impact sound
and vibration, floor impact vibration was measured together when the
floor impact sound test was conducted. Because there is no specific code
for floor impact vibration measurement, the test setup was planned as
same as floor impact sound test.
19
3.2 Test Program
3.2.1 Test site
Floor impact sound and vibration test was conducted in an actual

apartment building. The test site is a 27-story building under
construction, which is located at Chunan-si, Korea. The main structural
system is bearing wall-slab system, which is generally used for Korean
apartment houses. Total six households which have identical floor plans
were selected from 8th story to 13th story. The floor structure at each
story was named as floor structure A, B, C, D, E and F. Figure 3.1 shows
test site and interior test room of the household.
Figure 3.1 Test site
The test was performed three times according to floor structure

construction stage. In the test site, the floor structure was constructed by
three steps – bare concrete slab, floating floor, and floating floor with
ceiling. The first step is bare concrete slab without any resilient materials.
In the step, all six households have identical section plan. The thickness
of floor slab is 210 mm. The second step is floating floor. The
components are concrete slab of 210 mm, resilient materials of 20-60
mm, autoclaved lightweight concrete (ALC) of 40 mm, and finishing
mortar of 40 mm. All households have identical floating floor design
20
plan except resilient materials. And the third step is floating floor with
ceiling. Identical ceiling structure was added to the floating floor of
previous step. The height of space between floating floor and ceiling
frame is 170 mm. Figure 3.2 is floor plan and Figure 3.3 is section plan
of floor structure in the test site.
Figure 3.2 Floor plan of test site
21
Concrete Slab (210mm)
(a) Bare concrete slab

Resilient Material (20-60mm)
(b) Floating floor

Resilient Material (20-60mm)
170 mm
Ceiling Frame
(c) Floating floor with ceiling
Figure 3.3 Section plan of test site
22
Specimen properties are as follows. Table 3.2 shows the material
property of bare concrete slab. Design compressive strength ( ) of
concrete was 24 MPa for all households. Actual 28-day strength (f28) was
ranged from 29.3 MPa to 41.9 MPa. And Table 3.3 shows the floating
floor properties. All floating floors were designed with different resilient
materials. Primary test parameters are resilient material type, thickness,
dynamic stiffness (Ed) of resilient materials.
Table 3.2 Material property of bare concrete slab
Floor Test date fc’ f28

structure (YY-MM-DD) (MPa) (MPa)
A 15-01-06 24.0 41.9
B 15-01-17 24.0 40.1
C 15-01-23 24.0 38.9
D 15-02-03 24.0 33.7
E 15-02-10 24.0 29.3
F 15-02-17 24.0 41.5
Table 3.3 Resilient material property of floating floor
Floor t Ed
Resilient material type
structure (mm) (MN/m3)
2 3
A PET 30 mm + EVA 20 mm + EVA 10 mm 60 6.1
B EVA 30 10.6
C EVA 30 4.8
4
D EPS 30 5.8
E EPS 30 7.1
F EVA 30 3.3
2
Polyethylene terephthalate
3
Ethylene-vinyl acetate
4
Expanded polystyrene
23
In floating floor, dynamic stiffness measurement of resilient materials
is provided in KS F 2868 [11]. Figure 3.4 shows the measurement setup
by resonance method. To investigate actual deviation of dynamic
stiffness, it was measured for all resilient materials placed in the test site.
The measured result is shown in Figure 3.5.
Figure 3.4 Dynamic stiffness measurement set-up on resilient materials
Figure 3.5 Dynamic stiffness measurement result of resilient materials
24
3.2.2 Modal test plan
Modal test was conducted at bare concrete slab of the test site. Modal
test is mainly conducted test in the field of structural dynamics to
measure intrinsic vibration properties of structures such as natural
frequency, mode shape, and damping. In this study, vibration properties
of bare concrete floor slab were measured for comparisons with
numerical model in the next chapter. Natural frequency, damping ratio
and mode shape can be measured from the test. Also, measured damping
ratio is used for input property of vibration analysis model. Because
damping only can be measured by actual testing, it is important to
investigate the characteristic of damping from modal test before
performing numerical analysis.
The modal test plan is like Figure 3.6. Test grid was set on the floor
slab with identical transverse interval of 570 mm and horizontal interval
of 1250 mm. Total forty-five number of points were set and each point
on the test grid was impacted by impact hammer. Impact hammer can hit
the floor slabs with impact force over the frequency range of 1000 Hz.
For measurements of floor impact vibration, two set of accelerometers
were placed on the center and the edge of floor slab which corresponds
to living room. The location of accelerometers was determined
considering main mode shapes.
25
2,270
3365
11,040
Acc.2
3905
570 x 1250
Acc.1
1,500
4,120 4,720 3,575
12,415
Figure 3.6 Modal test plan
26
Figure 3.7 Test grid setup on floor slab
27
3.2.3 Floor impact sound test plan
Floor impact sound test was performed three times according to floor
construction stage of the building. Measurement of floor impact sound
followed KS F 2810-2 and assessment of floor impact sound followed
KS F 2863-2. The section plan of test site and test setup is shown in
Figure 3.8. All floor structures have identical setup plan. In Figure 3.8,
source room is defined as living room of the household that causes floor
impact sound by impact source. Tester dropped impact ball at the height
of 1000 mm in the source room. And receiving room is defined as living
room of the lower household that floor impact sound is radiated.
Accelerometers and microphones are set for floor impact vibration and
sound measurement in the receiving room.
Figure 3.9 shows the location of impact points and receiving points in
the floor plan. Impact points were set from P1 to P5 in a source room,
and receiving points were set from P1 to P4 in a receiving room. It
followed ‘Criteria on floor impact sound insulation structure in
residential buildings [12]’ by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and
Transport. The center point P1 is located at the center of living room.
The edge points from P2 from P5 are located at position separated about
750 mm from the walls. Impact ball was used for heavy impact source.
In a receiving room, total four receiving points from P1 to P4 are set at
microphones. The height of microphone is 1200 mm from the floor slab.
Also, five accelerometers were set at the bottom of floor slab, which is
located below the impact points. When impact ball hits the floor slab,
sound pressure and acceleration response were measured at the same
time by microphone and accelerometer. Figure 3.10 shows the receiving
room with test setup.
28
Source Room
2600
Impact Ball
1000
210
Acc.3,4 Acc.1 Acc.2,5
Receiving Room
2600
750 750
Mic.3,4 Mic.1 Mic.2

1200
Figure 3.8 Section plan of floor impact sound test room
29
2,270
3365
11,040
750 750
750 P4 P5 750
P1
3905
750 P3 P2 750
1,500
750 750
4,120 4,720 3,575

12,415
Figure 3.9 Location of impact points and receiving points
Figure 3.10 Receiving room
30
3.3 Test Result
3.3.1 Modal Test Result
Intrinsic vibration properties of concrete slabs in the building were

derived from the modal test. Total 90 number of acceleration FRFs were
measured by two set of accelerometers at each floor structure. Primary
results are as follows. The measurement result of representative
acceleration FRFs are plotted in Figure 3.11 and Figure 3.12.
Figure 3.11 is the acceleration FRFs measured by accelerometer no.1
when impact hammer hit the center of floor slab. The floor slab of six
specimens showed similar acceleration FRFs and vibration properties.
The acceleration response of the first and the second vibration mode was
clearly measured. But the third vibration mode was not clearly measured
because nodal line is located at the center of floor slab.
And Figure 3.12 shows the acceleration FRFs measured by
accelerometer no.2 when impact hammer hit the edge of floor slab. The
acceleration FRF level was differently measured because of impact
location, the result of natural frequency was coincident with the result of
Figure 3.11. Also, the accelerometer no.2 could measure the response of
the third vibration mode, which was not clearly measured by
accelerometer no.1.
31
Figure 3.11 Acceleration FRF at P1 by impacting P1
Figure 3.12 Acceleration FRF at P2 by impacting P2
32
The measured vibration property of each floor structure is
summarized at Table 3.4. Although they have identical floor plan, the
first natural frequency was ranged from 26 Hz to 32 Hz, which showed
about 6 Hz difference. The natural frequency showed larger difference at
the higher modes. And the natural frequency at the lower building story
tended to be greater except floor structure D. It would be reason that
aging of concrete slab is different according to building story. Modal
damping coefficient was calculated by half-power bandwidth method.
The average damping coefficient of first normal mode was 2.47 % and
deviation of damping coefficient in six specimens was not very large.
Table 3.4 Vibration property of bare concrete slabs
Floor f1 1 f2 2 f3 3
structure (Hz) (Hz) (Hz)
A 32 0.0260 45 0.0197 53 0.0301
B 30 0.0238 43 0.0200 50 00282
C 30 0.0211 43 0.0231 46 0.0305
D 26 0.0268 38 0.0266 52 0.0341
E 28 0.0241 42 0.0254 54 0.0314
F 28 0.0266 43 0.0279 55 0.0325
Average 29 0.0247 42 0.0238 52 0.0311
Deviation 6 0.0057 7 0.0082 9 0.0059
And the measured mode shapes are plotted in Table 3.5. The result
was derived from imaginary part of acceleration FRF at each
measurement point. Mode shapes in the space between the measurement
points were plotted by linear interpolation.
33
Table 3.5 Mode shapes
Frequency Measurement result

(Hz) Mode shape Location
29
43
52
74
85
34
3.3.2 Vibration Response
Floor impact vibration was measured together when floor impact

sound test was conducted. Primary results according to construction
stage are as follows.
Firstly, vibration acceleration level of bare concrete slab was
measured at six households. Time-history acceleration response signals
were directly measured by accelerometers. Then the recorded signals
were converted to frequency response spectrum through Fast Fourier
transform. Figure 3.13 is the vibration acceleration response measured at
receiving point P1 when impact ball hit the impact point P1. It showed
relatively high vibration acceleration level at low frequency domain. It is
influence of heavy impact source. The acceleration level at 1st mode is
90-100 dB5 and it would lead to amplification of heavy-weight floor
impact sound. The measured level is shown in Table 3.6. The level was
averaged for five impact points and four receiving points. Also,
acceleration level deviation was investigated of six households.
Figure 3.13 Acceleration level at P1 by impacting P1
5
Vibration acceleration reference: 1·10-6 m/s2
35
Table 3.6 Vibration acceleration level of bare concrete slabs
Floor VAL (dB)

structure (1,1) mode (2,1) mode (3,1) mode
A 75.6 63.1 46.8

B 75.8 65.7 55.2
C 81.2 66.1 60.2
D 77.4 67.4 57.2
E 79.5 72.9 55.9
F 74.9 70.4 58.6
Average 77.4 67.6 55.7

Deviation 5.6 9.8 13.2
Secondly, vibration response of floating floor was measured in the

same way. Figure 3.14 shows the acceleration response of floating floor
structure B, which is compared with the response of bare slab. The other
floor structures showed the similar results. The acceleration level below
100 Hz was amplified in floating floor because secondary resonance
between mortar and concrete slab occurred.
Figure 3.14 Acceleration response of bare slab and floating floor
36
3.3.3 Acoustic Response
The acoustic FRF (i.e. sound pressure level per unit impact force) and
acceleration FRF corresponding to impact point P1 were compared in
Figure 3.15. It is FRFs measured at floor structure C and the other floor
structures showed the similar results. The main peak acoustic responses
occurred at 16 Hz, 26 Hz, 35 Hz, 38 Hz, 52 Hz, 65 Hz, and so on. Part of
them are coincident with the peak vibration frequencies at 26 Hz, 38 Hz
and 52 Hz of acceleration FRF. Thus it was shown that the first, second
and third vibration mode makes the amplification of sound pressure
level. The result proved that the vibration response directly influences
the acoustic responses. The other peak acoustic responses are related
with the acoustic modes which make stationary waves (i.e. waves in a
medium in which each point on the axis of the wave has an associated
constant amplitude in a closed space.) in a closed space.
Figure 3.15 Correlation between acoustic FRF and acceleration FRF
37
3.3.4 Floor Impact Sound Level
The floor impact sound level were derived from 1/1 octave band and
1/3 octave band transform of acoustic FRFs. And inverse-A weighted
floor impact sound level which is single-number quantity of each floor
structure, Li,Fmax,AW, was assessed by KS F 2863-2. The results are as
follows.
The 1/3 octave and 1/1 octave floor impact sound level of bare
concrete slabs are plotted in Figure 3.16 and Figure 3.17. To derive
reliable test data, the maximum, minimum, average, and deviation of
floor impact sound level was investigated as shown in Table 3.7.
Although all households have an identical floor plan, the deviation
clearly occurred at each 1/1 octave floor impact sound level about 2-4
dB. The maximum deviation of single-number quantity was 2 dB. It
indicates that construction error or actual material properties such as
concrete strength, mass density or Young’s modulus can significantly
affect the floor impact sound level.
38
Table 3.7 Floor impact sound level of bare concrete slabs
Frequency Maximum level Minimum level Average level Deviation

(Hz) (dB) (dB) (dB) (dB)
31.5 80 76 78 4
63 69 67 68 2
125 69 66 67 3
250 63 61 62 2
500 54 49 50 2
Li,Fmax,AW 53 51 52 2
39
Floor impact sound insulation performance of floating floor was
investigated. Figure 3.18 shows single-number quantity level of each
floor structure according to building construction stage. All floor
structures had different floor impact sound insulation performance at
each construction stage. The difference level was relatively large at the
construction stage of floating floor. Table 3.8 shows the final single-
number quantity and single-number quantity reduction level of each
floor structure.
Floor impact sound level of floating floor according to various test
parameters was analyzed. As shown in Figure 3.19 and Figure 3.20,
floor impact sound tendency is clearly shown according to thickness and
dynamic stiffness of resilient materials. Firstly, the floating floor with
relatively low dynamic stiffness of resilient materials showed good floor
impact sound insulation performance as respect to single-number
quantity. It is clearly seen at the results of floor structure C and F.
Dynamic stiffness of resilient materials in floor structure C is 4.8 MN/m3
and it showed floor impact sound reduction performance about 9 dB in
single-number quantity. Floor structure F also has low dynamic stiffness
of 3.3 MN/m3 and it showed 9-dB reduction in single-number quantity.
On the other hand, floor structure B which has the highest dynamic
stiffness of 10.6 MN/m3 showed only 5-dB reduction in single-number
quantity. Secondly, the floating floor with relatively thick resilient
materials had better floor impact sound insulation performance than
others. Floor structure A, which has resilient material thickness of 60
mm, showed the best performance with reducing 10 dB in single-number
quantity.
40
Figure 3.18 Single number quantity
Table 3.8 Heavy-weight floor impact sound reduction of floating floor
Floor structure Ed (MN/ ) t (mm) Li,Fmax,AW (dB) △Li,Fmax,AW (dB)
A 6.1 60 42 10
B 10.6 30 46 5
C 4.8 30 43 9
D 5.8 30 45 7
E 7.1 30 46 7
F 3.3 30 43 9
41
Figure 3.19 Heavy-weight floor impact sound according to dynamic stiffness
Figure 3.20 Heavy-weight floor impact sound according to thickness of resilient

materials
42
And the 1/3 octave floor impact sound level was investigated
according to construction stage. Because single-number quantity itself
does not show the frequency-dependent characteristics of floor impact
sound, it is necessary to analyze the same result by 1/3 octave floor
impact sound. The results of six households are plotted from Figure 3.21
to Figure 3.26. Compared with bare concrete slab, floor impact sound
level of floating floor was generally amplified at low-frequency domain
under 80-100 Hz and reduced at high-frequency domain. It is estimated
that vibration resonance between resilient materials and finishing mortar
of floating floor because the floor impact vibration level at the same
frequency domain was amplified as shown in Figure 3.15.
Also, floating floors with ceilings showed different performance from
floating floors without ceilings. Except floor structure D, ceiling
structures amplified the floor impact sound level at low frequencies
below 100 Hz. It led to increase of single-number quantity level at floor
structure F. On the other hand, the level at high-frequency domain was
generally reduced by ceilings. As a result, ceilings reduced single-
number quantity level except floor structure F but did not have a good
effect on heavy-weight floor impact noise reduction.
43
Figure 3.21 Floor impact sound level of floor structure A
Figure 3.22 Floor impact sound level of floor structure B
44
Figure 3.23 Floor impact sound level of floor structure C
Figure 3.24 Floor impact sound level of floor structure D
45
Figure 3.25 Floor impact sound level of floor structure E
Figure 3.26 Floor impact sound level of floor structure F
46
3.4 Discussions
Modal test and floor impact sound test were performed in an actual
residential building. The primary test results are summarized as follows.
1) As an extension of preceding research, floor impact sound was
directly influenced by main vibration modes, which proves that it is
a structural-borne sound.
2) All bare concrete slabs showed different floor impact sound and
vibration level although they have an identical floor plan, which
indicates that construction error or material property can be
influence factor on floor impact sound.
3) The experimental deviation of 1/1 octave floor impact sound level
was about 2-4 dB at bare concrete slabs, which is not very
significant that the average value of the test data can be used for
verifying numerical model.
4) The floor impact sound insulation performance of floating floor was
largely different according to resilient material parameters such as
thickness and dynamic stiffness.
5) Ceilings of floating floor generally reduced overall single-number
quantity level but it amplified the floor impact sound level at low-
frequency domain.
47
Chapter 4. Numerical Analysis of Floor Impact
Sound
4.1 Introduction
When designers perform floor impact sound analysis on residential

buildings, only limited information is given. It is generally floor plan,
section plan and concrete strength data of the building. Thus, this
chapter focused on proposal of numerical analysis process for designers
who have to predict floor impact sound the above information.
Total floor impact sound analysis process was proposed by finite
element method. General dynamics analysis method which is included in
common FEA software was used for applicability to the practical field.
The object is bare concrete slab of residential building. Chapter 4.2
introduces the finite element modeling process for floor impact sound
analysis. Several assumptions were presented in chapter 4.2.1. Structural
and acoustic properties of residential buildings were proposed in chapter
4.2.2. And details about each analysis steps were stated in chapter 4.2.3.
Chapter 4.3 shows numerical analysis plan. Various residential building
models were designed to compare the prediction accuracy. And the
verification of numerical model was conducted with the test result in
Chapter 4.4. Finally, the discussion is summarized in Chapter 4.5.
48
4.2 Proposal of Numerical Analysis Process
4.2.1 Assumptions
In this study, finite element analysis on floor impact sound was

performed with several assumptions as follows.
Element type was determined for numerical modeling. In case of
structural model, floors and walls can be assumed as thin plates because
thickness-width ratio of the slabs is less than 0.05-0.1. Shell element was
used for them. In case of acoustic model, solid element was used for
modeling the air as an acoustic medium and shell element was used for
modeling the acoustic field.
In order to reduce calculation time, fluid-structure interaction effect
was excluded by assuming that influence of air to concrete is ignorable.
Mesh size was determined considering the main target frequency range.
Behavior of vibration wave can be modeled with minimum six elements
as shown in equation (4.1).
c
6  ElementSize  min 
f max
(4.1)
It means that numerical model can analyze the vibration wave within
the range of wavelength with six times mesh size. If linear element with
mesh size of 0.15 m was used, the frequency response under 381Hz can
be exactly calculated. It is sufficient to analyze the heavy-weight floor
impact noise which is main interest in this study.
Modeling range for numerical model is as follows. In structural model,
unit household model without exterior slab was compared with the
model including exterior slab. Because floor slab is continuous for
households in the same building story, the effect of modeling exterior
slab was investigated. And acoustic model was made in the range of
living room and kitchen, which corresponds to receiving room which
sound pressure level is measured. It was assumed that the other rooms
49
have little influence to floor impact sound level of receiving room.
Figure 4.1 shows the example of structural finite element model and
Figure 4.2 shows the acoustic finite element model. Various models were
made according to design plan and verified with test results.
Figure 4.1 Structural FE model
Figure 4.2 Acoustic FE model
50
4.2.2 Proposal of Design Property
When designers perform numerical analysis of floor impact sound,

they only have limited information such as building floor plan. Most of
structural and acoustic properties of buildings should be derived from
experimental results. But it is not efficient to perform experiments all the
time at every building construction sites. Thus, this study proposed
design properties which can predict floor impact sound level within
suitable error range. The prediction error was targeted for maximum 3
dB based on deviation of test results.
The proposed structural and acoustic properties are shown in Table 4.1.
For structural properties, mass density and elastic modulus of the
concrete were assumed to be 2400 kg/ and 23 GPa on the basis of
design material property data. And modal damping ratio of main
vibration modes was assumed to be 2-5% on the basis of preceding
modal test results. The thickness of floor and wall was applied 210 mm
and 200 mm according to building plan. For acoustic properties, acoustic
panel impedance (Z) was applied to concrete slabs and walls. It is the
ratio of sound pressure (P) and sound speed (U) as shown in equation
(4.2). It indicates how large sound pressure occurs by air vibration at
specific frequency domain, which represents the acoustic absorption
characteristics of room.
P
Z
U (4.2)
The actual value at the test site is difficult to be measured, because it
only considers vertical incidence of plane wave. Thus it was
theoretically calculated from equation (4.3).
  1 R
2
(4.3)
α is absorption coefficient of material at frequency domain.
Absorption coefficient (α) of concrete at 250 Hz is 0.02. R is reflection
51
coefficient of concrete and it is related with acoustic panel impedance Z
like equation (4.4).
Z  c
R
Z  c (4.4)
In equation (4.4), c is acoustic characteristic impedance which has
value of 413 kg/m2/s at 20°C. From equation (4.3) and (4.4), value of Z
could be calculated as 80000 kg/m2/s.
Table 4.1 Design values for numerical modeling
Structural property Value Acoustic property Value
Concrete strength 24 MPa Sound speed 340 m/s
Young’s modulus of 23 GPa Young’s modulus of 0.14 MPa

concrete air
Mass density 2400 kg/m3 Mass density 1.23 kg/m3
Poisson’s ratio 0.167
Modal damping ratio 0.03 for 1st - 3rd Acoustic impedance 80000 kg/m2/s for
mode concrete slabs and
0.05 for other modes walls
Boundary condition Fixed support Boundary condition Surface velocity of
slab
52
4.2.3 Numerical Analysis Process
Floor impact sound analysis was performed as following process.

Modal analysis, steady-state dynamics analysis and acoustic harmonic
FEM analysis were done. Total process is shown in Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3 Numerical analysis process
The first step is modal analysis. It was analyzed for structural model.
Design properties of mass density, Young’s modulus, damping ratio were
applied. Boundary condition that floor slabs contact walls was assumed
to be fixed. The response was calculated from 1st mode to 1000th mode,
which includes the target frequency range of heavy-weight floor impact
sound. From this step, natural frequencies and mode shapes of structural
model were derived and compared with the test results.
The second step is steady-state dynamics analysis. It was also
performed for structural model. In this step, impact force by impact ball,
first, was assumed as harmonic excitation. The force response in the
time domain was converted to frequency spectrum by Fourier Transform.
Then, modal based steady-state dynamic analysis was conducted to
calculate the linear response of a floor slab to harmonic excitation. This
analysis method is based on modal superposition which the natural
frequencies and modes were extracted by modal analysis. As a result, the
acceleration response of floor slab could be calculated.
And the third step is acoustic harmonic FEM analysis. In this step,
53
acceleration response from the previous step is firstly converted to
velocity response. Then, the surface normal velocity of slab is derived
from it and transferred to acoustic field velocity. It is applied for
boundary condition of sound pressure. The acoustic frequency response
could be calculated and it was finally converted to 1/3 octave floor
impact sound level.
Table 4.2 Requirements of floor impact sound analysis process
Process Requirements Results
Floor plan Building

Initial step
Section plan information
Density of concrete
Structural material Structural FE
Compressive strength
property model
FE modeling Poisson’s ratio
Acoustic fluid Density of air Acoustic FE
property Sound speed model
Mass density
Structural model Young’s modulus Dynamic
Modal analysis
property Modal damping ratio properties
Boundary condition
Steady-state Impact force Impact ball spectrum Surface normal

dynamics analysis spectrum Bang machine spectrum velocity of slab
Acoustic harmonic Acoustic

Acoustic panel impedance
FEM analysis response
Floor impact sound Octave band 1/1 octave band filters Floor impact
analysis frequency band filters 1/3 octave band filters sound level
54
4.3 Analysis Plan
4.3.1 Bare Concrete Slab
Floor impact sound analysis model was designed by the finite element
analysis process proposed in chapter 4.2. Bare concrete slab model was
analyzed as the first step. To compare the prediction error of heavy-
weight floor impact sound level, two types of structural model were
proposed in this chapter. The first one is unit household model without
including any slab of exterior household. But actual buildings have
continuous floor slab system regardless of division of household. It can
change entire flexural stiffness of floor slab that affects the heavy-weight
floor impact sound level in the building. Thus, the second model was
designed including floor slab of exterior to the unit household model.
Figure 4.4 shows the comparisons of two numerical models. In the
model plan, Figure 4.4(a) shows FEM-1 model which is the unit
household model without any exterior slabs. On the other hands, Figure
4.4(b) shows FEM-2 model which is modified to include part of floor
slab in the exterior household. The boundary condition of exterior floor
slab is fixed condition which indicates that floor slab is continuous.
Exterior walls were excluded in the modeling. The other conditions of
FEM-1 and FEM-2 are identically designed.
(a) Unit household (b) Unit household with exterior slab

Figure 4.4 Floor plan of numerical model
55
And, to investigate the influence of exterior slab on floor impact
sound more clearly, various residential building models were
additionally analyzed. Table 4.3 shows the numerical model plan which
analysis was performed in the same way. The proposed numerical
method and design values were identically applied to the models. Total
four types of plans with various floor area were additionally selected.
Table 4.3 Numerical model plan
Floor area
FEM-1 model FEM-2 model
(m2)
59
74
84
114
56
4.3.2 Floating Floor
Floating floor structure model was designed as the second step. Figure
4.5 shows the concept of floating floor structure model. In floating floor
model, spring element was used for modeling resilient materials because
it transmits impact force from finishing mortar floor to concrete slab like
a spring. And concrete slab floor and finishing mortar floor was
independently modeled as shell element to represent flexural behavior of
each floor. And boundary condition of finishing mortar floor was
assumed that displacement in x, y-direction is zero. It means that
finishing mortar floor have vertical and rotational degrees of freedom
(DOFs).
Input property of the floating floor model was stated in Table 4.4.
Concrete slabs and walls were modeled with identical material property
of bare concrete slab model. Resilient materials, autoclaved lightweight
concrete, and finishing mortar was added to the bare concrete slab model.
In case of resilient materials, mass was ignored because it is very small
compared to concrete. Finishing mortar and autoclaved lightweight
concrete was modeled as one single layer. Axial stiffness of spring
element was calculated from thickness (t) and dynamic stiffness (Ed) of
resilient materials.
57
Figure 4.5 Concept of floating floor analysis model
Table 4.4 Input property of floating floor model
t E k  
Components Element
(mm) (MPa) (N/mm) (kg/m3)
Concrete slab Shell 210 23000 - 2400 0.167
Finishing mortar and ALC Shell 80 23000 - 2000 0.167
Resilient material A Spring 60 6.1 8.5
Resilient material B Spring 30 10.6 29.7
Resilient material C Spring 30 4.8 13.4

Ignored in
modeling
Resilient material D Spring 30 5.8 16.2
Resilient material E Spring 30 7.1 19.9
Resilient material F Spring 30 3.3 9.2
58
4.4 Analysis Result
4.4.1 Modal analysis
The analytical result of vibration property such as mode shape and

natural frequency was compared with the test result. The similarity of
mode shapes was evaluated by modal assurance criterion (MAC) value.
MAC is a kind of indicator which represents the degree of consistency
between one modal and another reference modal vector as equation (4.4).
    T 2
A X
MAC ( r , q ) 
r q
         
A r
T
A r X q
T
X q
(4.4)
In equation (4.4),  A r is modal vector A for mode r and X q
is modal vector X for mode q. MAC value is ranged from 0 to 1.
Generally, if MAC value is close to ‘1’, it indicates that numerical model
corresponds with experimental results well. The mode shapes of
experimental and analytical results were very similar that MAC value for
main modes is over 0.9. And the natural frequency by analysis was 29
Hz, 41 Hz, and 51 Hz which showed little difference about 1-2 Hz with
experimental result. Thus, the next analysis step could be performed
with current numerical model. Main mode shapes of the analytical and
experimental result are shown in Table 4.5.
59
Table 4.5 Mode shapes by experiment and analysis
Normal Mode shape

MAC value
mode Experiment Analysis
1st mode 0.99
29 Hz 29 Hz
2nd mode 0.96
42 Hz 41 Hz
3rd mode 0.91
52 Hz 51 Hz
4th mode 0.87
73 Hz
5th mode 0.77
85 Hz 83 Hz
60
4.4.2 Vibration Analysis
The vibration acceleration response of floor slab was predicted by

steady-state dynamics analysis and compared with the test result. It was
analyzed for the frequency range from 10 Hz to 630 Hz. Impact force
spectrum of impact ball was applied to the numerical model as same as
experimental condition. And design values of modal damping coefficient
were applied to the model. It is 3 % for the first, the second and the third
mode and 5 % for the other modes.
The vibration acceleration response by impact at P1 is plotted in
Figure 4.6 to Figure 4.9. Each figure shows the vibration acceleration
response at four receiving points from P1 to P4. Numerical model
predicted the tendency of actual acceleration response similarly. Actual
vibration acceleration level at low frequencies is relatively higher than at
high frequencies, which indicates characteristics of response by heavy
impact source. The numerical model showed the similar behavior. It also
predicted peak vibration acceleration level at low-frequency domain
below 100 Hz successfully. The vibration acceleration level at 1st mode,
2nd mode, and 3rd mode was predicted within the error range of 3 dB.
Thus, the next analysis step could be continued with the vibration
analysis model.
61
62
63
4.4.3 Floor Impact Sound Analysis
Floor impact sound was analyzed by acoustic harmonic FEM analysis.

Table 4.6 shows the 1/1 octave floor impact sound and single-number
quantity prediction error level. The finite element model predicted the
test result successfully in the frequency range of 63-125 Hz which
mainly determines heavy-weight impact sound level. And overall
tendency of floor impact sound was similar. The prediction error at each
1/1 octave frequency was within 3 dB. It seems that analytical result is
in good agreement with the test result because prediction error is less
than experimental deviation.
Table 4.6 Analytical result of 1/1 octave floor impact sound level
Floor impact sound level (dB)

1/1 Octave center
frequency (Hz) Experiment Analysis Difference
31.5 78 77 -1
63 68 68 0
125 67 68 +1
250 62 59 -3
500 50 50 0
Li,Fmax,AW 51 50 -1
The same result was analyzed by 1/3 octave floor impact sound level
to see detail error level. It is plotted from Figure 4.10 to Figure 4.15. The
result showed that floor impact sound level at 25-40 Hz was relatively
low than test results. The 1/1 octave floor impact sound level had
average prediction error of 1 dB at 31.5 Hz but it was much higher when
analyzed by 1/3 octave floor impact sound level. It is over the target
error level 3 dB as shown in the figures by each impact point. Because
floor impact sound at that low frequencies is influenced by floor impact
vibration, the structural model seems to be improved. The following
chapter includes the modified prediction model.
64
Figure 4.10 Analytical and experimental result of floor impact sound by impact at P1
65
66
Figure 4.15 Analytical and experimental result of average floor impact sound
67
4.4.4 Numerical Verification
4.4.4.1. Bare Concrete Slab

The numerical analysis result was finally verified on the basis of
experiment results. Bare concrete slab model was firstly evaluated as
follows. The floor impact sound prediction result of the test model is
plotted in Figure 4.16. When compared with FEM-1 model, FEM-2
model predicted the floor impact sound level higher about 3-4 dB at low
frequencies. The prediction error at 31.5 Hz and 63 Hz was successfully
reduced. On the other hands, the level at high frequencies was similar or
lower about 1-2 dB compared to the level of FEM-1.
Figure 4.16 Analytical result of floor impact sound of test model
And the numerical verification of the other models were conducted in

the same way. Except 114 m2-plan, overall floor impact sound prediction
error level was reduced in the FEM-2 model rather than FEM-1 model.
The result of each model is plotted from Figure 4.17 to Figure 4.20.
68
Figure 4.17 Analytical result of floor impact sound in 59-type household
69
70
Based on the analytical result, FEM-2 seems to be more appropriate
model than FEM-1 to improve the accuracy of prediction. It is because
FEM-2 generally reduces prediction error of heavy-weight floor impact
sound domain, which this study focused on. And it was more effective
for small floor plans such as 59 m2 and 74 m2 rather than large floor plan
like 114 m2. Thus, the structural model including exterior slab is better
for heavy-weight floor impact sound prediction if small floor plan is
analyzed.
The final floor impact sound prediction error level is summarized in
Table 4.7. In FEM-2 models, the prediction error level at each 1/1 octave
center frequency was less than 3 dB. It is concluded that the proposed
model successfully predicts the floor impact sound because the
prediction error level is less than experimental deviation.
Table 4.7 Floor impact sound level prediction error
1/1 Octave Floor impact sound level prediction error (dB)

center
frequency 59 m2 74 m2 84 m2 114 m2
(Hz)
FEM-1 FEM-2 FEM-1 FEM-2 FEM-1 FEM-2 FEM-1 FEM-2
31.5 0 +1 -2 -1 0 +1 0 +3
63 -6 +2 -4 0 -1 0 0 +2
125 -3 -2 -1 -1 -2 -1 -3 -3
250 -1 -1 -2 -3 0 -2 -2 -3
500 +2 0 +1 -1 +2 +1 +1 -3
Li,Fmax,AW -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 +1 -1 -2
71
4.4.4.2. Floating Floor
In case of floating floor, the same analysis process was applied to the
model. The analytical results are as follows. The floor impact sound
level of floor structure A, B, C, D, E, and F is plotted from Figure 4.21
to Figure 4.22. Axial stiffness of resilient materials in each floor
structure was applied to spring stiffness in the numerical model.
The result showed that the prediction models could describe the sound
pressure amplification at low frequency domain and reduction at high
frequency domain, which corresponds to the experimental result. But the
prediction error level at each frequency was more than 3 dB, which is
over the target error range. In case of low spring stiffness model, it was
relatively in good agreement with the actual result. But in case of high
spring stiffness model, the analytical result of floor impact sound level
was lower than the experimental result at frequency below 200 Hz. The
prediction accuracy of floating floor model needs to be improved
through the further study.
72
100
Bare slab(EXP)
90 Bare slab(FEM)
Floating floor(EXP)
Floor Impact Sound Level (dB)
80 Floating floor(FEM)
70
60
50
40
30
20
25 31.5 40 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630
1/3 Octave Center Frequency (Hz)
Figure 4.21 Analytical result of floor impact sound in floating floor structure A
100
Bare slab(EXP)
90 Bare slab(FEM)
Floating floor(EXP)
70
60
50
40
30
20
25 31.5 40 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630
Figure 4.22 Analytical result of floor impact sound in floating floor structure B
73
100
Bare slab(EXP)
90 Bare slab(FEM)
Floating floor(EXP)
70
60
50
40
30
20
25 31.5 40 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630
Figure 4.23 Analytical result of floor impact sound in floating floor structure C
100
Bare slab(EXP)
90 Bare slab(FEM)
Floating floor(EXP)
70
60
50
40
30
20
25 31.5 40 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630
Figure 4.24 Analytical result of floor impact sound in floating floor structure D
74
100
Bare slab(EXP)
90 Bare slab(FEM)
Floating floor(EXP)
70
60
50
40
30
20
25 31.5 40 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630
Figure 4.25 Analytical result of floor impact sound in floating floor structure E
100
Bare slab(EXP)
90 Bare slab(FEM)
Floating floor(EXP)
70
60
50
40
30
20
25 31.5 40 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630
Figure 4.26 Analytical result of floor impact sound in floating floor structure F
75
4.5 Discussions
Numerical analysis of floor impact sound was performed for several

representative floor plans of residential buildings. Design properties and
detail analysis process were proposed. The primary results are
summarized as follows.
1) The proposed numerical model of bare concrete slab successfully
predicted the floor impact vibration level and peak frequency at
main vibration modes in the error range of 1-2 dB.
2) The proposed numerical model also successfully predicted the floor
impact sound level in the error range of 1-2 dB, which is less than
experimental deviation.
3) The result indicates that to accurately predict the impact sound level,
first, the acceleration response of the slabs should be accurately
predicted.
4) To improve accuracy of floor impact sound prediction, it is better to
include the exterior floor slab in the structural model rather than
modeling only unit household.
5) In case of floating floor model, it predicted the sound pressure
amplification at low-frequency domain but the prediction accuracy
needs to be improved through further study.
76
Chapter 5. Parametric Study on Floor Impact
Sound Design Factors
5.1 Introduction
In this chapter, parametric study on floor impact sound design factors

was conducted. The actual building design factors such as material
property of concrete, resilient materials, section plan and floor plan of
building were investigated. Each parameter is theoretically related to
vibration response of slab or acoustic response of receiving room. It is
summarized in Table 5.1. The floor impact sound tendency was
investigated by both numerical and experimental method. The numerical
method which was proposed in previous chapter was applied to the
parametric study. And test database in appendix A was used for statistical
analysis on floor impact sound. All test sites in appendix A are
residential buildings and thickness of concrete floor slab is 210 mm.
Table 5.1 Floor impact sound design parameters
Parameter Detail design parameter
- Compressive strength of concrete (fck)

Concrete slab - Mass density (ρ)
- Young’s modulus (E)
- Dynamic stiffness of resilient materials (Ed)

Resilient material - Thickness of resilient materials (t)
- Axial stiffness of resilient materials (k)
- Floor area (A)

Floor plan
- Aspect ratio of floor (w/d ratio)
77
5.2 Concrete Slab Design
5.2.1 Compressive Strength of Concrete
Influence of concrete strength on floor impact sound was investigated.

This parameter was set by the following reason. In Chapter 3, the floor
impact sound test result showed that the sound pressure level was clearly
different at the households of identical floor plan. It was concluded that
material property would be one of the influential factors. Because the
concrete floor slabs were placed one story per week, the material
property was all different at each story. The actual concrete strength was
ranged from 29.3 MPa to 41.9 MPa although the design strength is 24.0
MPa. It would influence the elastic modulus of concrete, which is related
to the vibration mode frequency. The relationship between concrete
strength (fc’) and elastic modulus (Ec) is presented in equation (5.1). And
Ec is substituted to the stiffness matrix term K in equation (5.2).
Ec  4700 fc '
(5.1)
Mu(t )  Cu(t )  Ku(t )  f (t ) (5.2)
Equation (5.2) is governing equation of vibration analysis. In equation
(5.2), M is the mass matrix, C is the damping matrix, K is the stiffness
matrix, u(t) is the displacement vector and f(t) is the applied force vector.
According to above equations, it is estimated that concrete strength
would have indirect correlation with floor impact sound. The concrete
strength of 21 MPa, 24 MPa, 27 MPa and 49 MPa was set for the
parameter.
78
The analytical result of vibration property is shown in Table 5.2. It
was shown that the natural frequency becomes higher and vibration
acceleration level becomes lower as concrete strength increases. And the
analytical result of floor impact sound is shown in Table 5.3. The result
showed that only high concrete strength of 49 MPa has floor impact
sound reduction effect in single-number quantity. It was reduced about 2
dB and the others were constant. In conclusion, concrete strength can be
influence factor on floor impact sound if the value difference is more
than 20 MPa.
Table 5.2 Analysis of vibration property according to concrete strength
fc ' f1 VAL f2 VAL f3 VAL f4 VAL

(MPa) (Hz) (dB) (Hz) (dB) (Hz) (dB) (Hz) (dB)
21.0 28 99.8 40 78.2 47 66.3 59 68.6
24.0 29 99.0 41 77.3 51 64.0 61 66.6
27.0 31 99.2 43 77.1 54 64.0 63 64.5
49.0 35 97.9 49 73.7 59 59.2 76 59.6
Table 5.3 Analysis of floor impact sound according to concrete strength
fc ' 1/1 Octave floor impact sound (dB)
(MPa) 31.5 Hz 63 Hz 125 Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz Li,Fmax,AW
21.0 78 65 68 60 49 50
24.0 77 68 68 59 50 50
27.0 77 66 67 59 49 49
49.0 75 62 64 59 48 48
79
5.2.2 Mass Density of Concrete
Influence of concrete mass density on floor impact sound was

investigated. This parameter was set to analyze the correlation between
material property and floor impact sound. Mass density is substituted to
the mass matrix term M in the equation (5.2). Thus it can affect surface
normal velocity of floor slab. Mass density of 2000, 2200, 2400, 2600,
and 2800 kg/m3 was set as parameter. Maximum and minimum value
corresponds to 85 % and 115 % of design value 2400 kg/m3.
Table 5.4 shows the analytical result of vibration property according
to mass density. The tendency was shown that natural frequency and
vibration acceleration level becomes lower as mass density increases.
The 90 % of mass density corresponding to 2400 kg/m3 had the natural
frequency changed about 1.2 Hz. It is relatively small change compared
to other parameters. And Table 5.5 is the analytical result of floor impact
sound. The result showed that mass density does not reduce floor impact
sound level within the general range. Floor impact sound level at 31.5
Hz and 63 Hz generally reduced with mass density about 1-2 dB. But it
is unrealistic to have significant difference in actual concrete mass
density.
In conclusion, difference in concrete mass density is estimated to have
little influence on floor impact sound. Thus, it is confirmed that floor
impact sound analysis can be performed with design value of mass
density.
80
Table 5.4 Analysis of vibration property according to mass density
 f1 VAL f2 VAL f3 VAL f4 VAL

(kg/m3) (Hz) (dB) (Hz) (dB) (Hz) (dB) (Hz) (dB)
2000 32 100.4 45 77.3 54 64.7 66 61.6
2200 30 99.5 43 77.2 52 64.2 63 60.9
2400 29 99.0 41 77.2 51 64.0 61 60.6
2600 28 98.7 39 76.9 48 63.7 59 60.0
2800 28 98.6 38 76.9 46 63.5 57 60.4
Table 5.5 Analysis of floor impact sound according to mass density
 1/1 Octave floor impact sound (dB)

3
( kg/m ) 31.5 Hz 63 Hz 125 Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz Li,Fmax,AW
2000 79 69 67 59 50 50
2200 78 70 67 59 50 50
2400 77 68 68 59 50 50
2600 76 68 69 57 49 50
2800 76 68 69 57 49 49
81
5.2.3 Young’s Modulus of Concrete
Young’s modulus (Ec) of concrete slab was investigated to analyze the

influence on floor impact sound. It is a parameter related to the stiffness
matrix term K in equation of motion. The change of stiffness affects the
flexural vibration and surface normal velocity of floor slab. As a result,
it can influence the floor impact sound level. Also, Young’s modulus
would contribute to deviation of sound pressure level in identical floor
plans. It is because Young’s modulus is changed with aging of concrete.
The floor impact sound test result in Chapter 4 showed that floor impact
sound level was different about 2-3 dB in the identical floor plans. It is
estimated that the concrete floor slab was placed one story per week,
which makes Young’s modulus changed.
For the purposes, both experiment and numerical analysis were
performed. The change of Young’s modulus according to concrete aging
was measured by experiment. It was measured by resonance vibration
method. KS F 2437 [13] specified the standard test method for dynamic
modulus of elasticity of concrete specimens by resonance vibration. As
shown in Figure 5.1, flexural vibration of concrete specimen was
measured. Dynamic stiffness (Ed) is calculated by equation (5.3).
Ed  C2Wf 2 2 (5.3)
3
6 LT
C2 is coefficient which is 947  10 3
for cubic specimen. W is
bt
mass of specimen and f2 is the first natural frequency of flexural
vibration. Using the equation, this study firstly investigated the change
of Young’s modulus with aging of concrete. It was measured at 14, 30
and 40 day after concrete aging. Figure 5.2 shows the result that Young’s
modulus averagely increases about 2 MPa during 40 days.
82
Figure 5.1 Flexural stiffness measurement of concrete specimen
Figure 5.2 Dynamic stiffness according to concrete aging
Then numerical analysis was performed with experimental values to

analyze if the change of Young’s modulus is critical to floor impact
sound. The analytical results are as follows. Table 5.6 shows the
tendency of natural frequency and vibration level according to Young’s
modulus. As a result, 80 % of elastic modulus corresponding to 23 GPa
had the natural frequency changed about 1.8 Hz. It is very little change
compared to the other design parameters. Table 5.7 is the analytical
result of floor impact sound. It also showed very little changes in the
range from 20 MPa to 25 MPa. Single-number quantity was reduced
about 2 dB in case of 40 MPa and the others were constant as 50 dB.
83
Table 5.6 Analysis of vibration property according to Young’s modulus
Ec f1 VAL f2 VAL f3 VAL

(GPa) (Hz) (dB) (Hz) (dB) (Hz) (dB)
20.0 25 100.2 34 78.5 40 68.7
21.0 26 99.1 36 78.6 42 67.9
22.0 27 98.9 38 77.5 45 67.2
23.0 29 98.6 41 76.9 51 66.0
24.0 30 98.0 43 76.4 53 65.3
25.0 31 97.4 45 75.9 55 64.8
40.0 36 92.1 50 71.1 60 60.1
Table 5.7 Analysis of floor impact sound according to Young’s modulus
1/1 Octave floor impact sound (dB)

Ec
(GPa) 31.5 Hz 63 Hz 125 Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz Li,Fmax,AW
20.0 76 67 69 58 49 50
23.0 77 68 68 59 50 50
25.0 78 67 65 58 50 49
40.0 73 63 66 57 49 48
84
5.3 Resilient Materials Design
5.3.1 Dynamic Stiffness of Resilient Materials
Dynamic stiffness (s’) of resilient materials is the ratio of dynamic

load to dynamic displacement.
F S
s' 
d (5.4)
The dynamic stiffness in equation (5.4) is related to natural frequency
of supported floor like equation (5.5).
1 s'
f0 
2 m' (5.5)
The translation of natural frequency domain changes the overall floor
impact vibration characteristics. And it sequentially influences the floor
impact sound. Thus it is estimated that dynamic stiffness of resilient
material can indirectly affect the floor impact sound.
In this study, single-number quantity-dynamic stiffness relationship
was investigated by test database analysis. The test result is plotted in
Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4 according to impact source type. Both results
showed that single-number quantity proportionally increases with
dynamic stiffness of resilient materials. Relatively low dynamic stiffness
had better floor impact sound insulation performance regardless test sites
or impact source.
But the measured floor impact sound level at bare concrete slab was
all different according to test sites. In order to exclude the difference by
test sites, net single-number quantity reduction was additionally
investigated. It was calculated by subtracting single-number quantity of
floating floor from single-number quantity of bare concrete slab. Figure
5.5 and Figure 5.6 shows the tendency results and it was quantitatively
analyzed in Table 5.9.
85
Figure 5.3 Heavy-weight floor impact sound according to dynamic stiffness by bang
machine excitation
Figure 5.4 Heavy-weight floor impact sound according to dynamic stiffness by impact
ball excitation
86
Figure 5.5 Heavy-weight floor impact sound reduction according to dynamic stiffness
by bang machine excitation
Figure 5.6 Heavy-weight floor impact sound reduction according to dynamic stiffness
by impact ball excitation
87
Table 5.8 Floor impact sound reduction level according to dynamic stiffness
∆Li,Fmax,AW by impact ball ∆Li,Fmax,AW by bang machine

Ed
Avg. Max. Min. No. of Avg. Max. Min. No. of
(MN/m3)
(dB) (dB) (dB) sample (dB) (dB) (dB) sample
0<Ed≤3 9.0 9.0 9.0 1 7.0 7.0 7.0 1
3<Ed≤4 8.0 9.0 6.0 4 2.7 5.0 0.0 3
4<Ed≤5 5.9 11.0 1.0 11 0.5 6.0 -5.0 10
5<Ed≤6 6.7 7.0 6.0 3 -1.5 -1.0 -2.0 2
6<Ed≤7 8.0 10.0 4.0 3 -1.0 0.0 -2.0 2
7<Ed≤8 6.5 7.0 6.0 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 3
8<Ed≤9 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 1
9<Ed≤10 3.8 5.0 3.0 4 -2.5 -1.0 -5.0 4
10<Ed≤12 5.0 5.0 5.0 3 0.5 1.0 0.0 2
12<Ed≤14 5.5 6.0 5.0 2 1.5 4.0 -1.0 2
14<Ed≤20 4.0 6.0 3.0 6 -0.4 0.0 -5.0 7
88
5.3.2 Thickness of Resilient Materials
Influence of resilient material thickness on floor impact sound was

investigated of floating floors. Figure 5.7 shows the relationship between
single-number quantity and resilient material thickness. It is the result of
the test site which was stated in Chapter 3. In order to derive reliable
data, single-number quantity was measured two times at the same test
site. The result showed that single-number quantity clearly decreased
with increase of resilient material thickness. The range of single-number
quantity was from 43 dB to 46 dB at the floating floor with resilient
materials of 30 mm. On the other hand, it was from 41 dB to 42 dB at
the floating floor with resilient materials of 60 mm. The increase of
thickness has single-number quantity reduction effect about 3 dB per 30
mm.
Figure 5.8 is the result of site A. The site has identically designed
floating floor system of the site B, which is the test site in Chapter 3, as
shown in Appendix A. Only floor area condition is different from the test
site. It also showed better floor impact sound insulation performance in
the floating floor with resilient material thickness of 60 mm than
thickness of 30 mm. Only one floating floor with 47 dB-single-number
quantity was exceptional case and it seems to be influenced by dynamic
stiffness of resilient materials.
In conclusion, it is estimated that thickness of resilient materials has
correlation with floor impact sound insulation performance on general.
But it seems to have relatively low influence on floor impact sound
compared to dynamic stiffness parameter.
89
Figure 5.7 Heavy-weight floor impact sound according to resilient material thickness
of test site
Figure 5.8 Heavy-weight floor impact sound according to resilient material thickness
of site A
90
5.3.3 Axial Stiffness of Resilient Materials
Axial stiffness (k) of resilient materials is related to thickness (L) and

dynamic stiffness (E) as shown in equation (5.6).
EA
k
L (5.6)
In chapter 5.3.1 and 5.3.2, it was shown that L and E has relatively
high correlation with floor impact sound. Thus, if two parameters are
combined with one term, the correlation would be more clearly shown.
In this chapter, axial stiffness (k) and axial stiffness per unit floor area
(k/A) were investigated as new parameters.
The experimental results are plotted as follows. Figure 5.9 shows the
result of single-number quantity with respect to axial stiffness of the test
site by bang machine excitation. And Figure 5.10 is the result of the test
site by impact ball excitation. Both of them showed that resilient
materials with relatively low axial stiffness had better floor impact sound
insulation performance. The ratio was different by test sites but the
decreasing tendency was similarly shown.
To compare the net reduction level, difference of single-number
quantity between bare concrete slab and floating floor was plotted in
Figure 5.11 and Figure 5.12. Figure 5.11 is the result by bang machine
excitation and Figure 5.12 is the result by impact ball excitation. The
result of both cases showed that net single-number quantity reduction
level was proportionally decreased as axial stiffness increases. The ratio
of single-number quantity reduction level and unit axial stiffness was
about 8 dB in both cases. And the results were quantitatively analyzed as
shown in Table 5.9 and Table 5.10.
91
Figure 5.9 Heavy-weight floor impact sound according to unit axial stiffness by bang
machine excitation
Figure 5.10 Heavy-weight floor impact sound according to unit axial stiffness by
impact ball excitation
92
Figure 5.11 Heavy-weight floor impact sound reduction according to unit axial
stiffness by bang machine excitation
Figure 5.12 Heavy-weight floor impact sound reduction according to unit axial
stiffness by bang machine excitation
93
Figure 5.13 Heavy-weight floor impact sound reduction according to axial stiffness by
bang machine excitation
Figure 5.14 Heavy-weight floor impact sound reduction according to axial stiffness by
impact ball excitation
94
Table 5.9 Floor impact sound reduction level according to unit axial stiffness

k/A
(MN/m4)
0<k/A≤100 9.0 9.0 9.0 1 7.0 7.0 7.0 1
100<k/A≤200 7.7 11.0 4.0 16 1.3 6.0 -2.0 12
200<k/A≤300 4.8 7.0 1.0 8 -0.9 2.0 -5.0 7
300<k/A≤400 4.4 6.0 5.0 7 -1.2 1.0 0.0 6
400<k/A≤600 4.3 6.0 2.0 3 1.7 4.0 -5.0 3
600<k/A≤700 5.0 5.0 5.0 1 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 1
700<k/A≤800 3.7 5.0 3.0 3 -2.0 0.0 -5.0 3
800<k/A≤1000 4.3 6.0 3.0 3 0.6 0.0 -2.0 4
Table 5.10 Floor impact sound reduction level according to axial stiffness

k
(kN/mm2)
0<k≤10 7.9 10.0 4.0 7 0.0 3.0 -2.0 5
10<k≤15 7.6 9.0 6.0 6 2.5 7.0 -1.0 4
15<k≤20 7.3 11.0 6.0 9 2.4 6.0 -2.0 7
20<k≤30 3.7 5.0 1.0 9 -1.9 1.0 -5.0 8
30<k≤40 3.7 6.0 2.0 3 0.0 2.0 -3.0 3
40<k≤50 5.0 5.0 5.0 1 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 1
50<k≤60 5.0 6.0 4.0 3 0.7 4.0 -1.0 3
60<k≤80 3.7 5.0 3.0 3 -2.0 0.0 -5.0 3
80<k≤100 4.5 6.0 3.0 2 -1.0 0.0 -2.0 2
100<k . - - 0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 1
95
5.4 Floor Plan Design
5.4.1 Floor Area
Floor impact sound level according to floor area was investigated by

numerical and experimental method. To analyze the floor plan parameter
with identical conditions, bare concrete slab without any floor coverings
was investigated. In this study, floor area is defined as receiving room
area where acoustic response is directly measured. It corresponds to
living room and kitchen in the household.
Numerical analysis was firstly performed. Total five kinds of
residential buildings were analyzed and floor area of the buildings is
varied from 31.2 m2 to 45.3 m2. The corresponding floor plan type is 59,
74, 84, 84 and 114 m2. Other design conditions and input properties of
numerical models were identically determined.
The analytical result of floor impact vibration and sound is shown in
Table 5.11 and Table 5.12. In case of floor impact vibration, it was
shown that the natural frequency tends to be lower as floor area
increases. And the vibration acceleration level was proportionally
reduced. In case of floor impact sound, it was shown that single-number
quantity level generally decreases as floor area increases. single-number
quantity level was reduced maximum 5 dB per floor area increase of 14
m2. It seems to be influence of floor impact vibration reduction and
acoustic intensity I, which is related to area.
96
Table 5.11 Analysis of floor impact vibration according to floor area
Floor area (m2) f1 (Hz) f2 (Hz) f3 (Hz) f4 (Hz) VAL (dB)
31.2 39 49 63 69 97.1
37.2 33 42 52 69 93.3
40.8 29 41 51 62 96.6
42.0 28 37 53 62 90.1
45.3 26 32 41 57 89.9
Table 5.12 Analysis of floor impact sound according to floor area
1/1 Octave floor impact sound (dB)

Floor area
(m2) 31.5 Hz 63 Hz 125 Hz) 250 Hz 500 Hz Li,Fmax,AW
31.2 71 70 65 60 51 52
37.2 76 64 66 60 50 50
40.8 77 68 68 60 50 51
42.0 78 74 66 55 46 49
45.3 75 64 63 59 48 47
97
Secondly, through test database analysis, correlation of floor impact
sound and floor area was investigated in the same way. Various
construction sites which have identical construction conditions of bare
slabs were analyzed. Actual floor impact sound test result of the
numerical models is included in the test database.
The statistical result of single-number quantity level is plotted in
Figure 5.15 and Figure 5.16 according to impact source type. Regardless
of impact source, it showed no tendency on floor impact sound
according to floor area. single-number quantity level is randomly
distributed within the range of 48-53 dB. And the average single-number
quantity level according to floor plan type was investigated. The result
of 1/1 octave floor impact sound level at 31.5 Hz, 63 Hz, and 125 Hz is
plotted in Figure 5.17. They also showed low correlation with floor area
but it could give general distribution range of sound pressure level in
residential buildings. Experimental tendency result was not in good
agreement with the analytical result because of wide range of deviation.
It is estimated that the other factors such as construction error, material
properties, and aspect ratio multiply influence the floor impact sound in
actual buildings.
Thus, it is concluded that floor area itself has relatively low
correlation with floor impact sound compared to the other parameters.
But the statistical results give general range of floor impact sound level
of concrete slabs in residential buildings. Average, maximum, minimum,
and mode values of floor impact sound according to floor area were
summarized in Table 5.13. This result can be utilized for designers to
estimate if floor plan is designed with proper floor impact sound
insulation performance.
98
Figure 5.15 Heavy-weight floor impact sound level according to floor area by bang
machine excitation
Figure 5.16 Heavy-weight floor impact sound level according to floor area by impact
ball excitation
99
(a) Sound pressure level at 31.5 Hz
(b) Sound pressure level at 63 Hz
100
(c) Sound pressure level at 125 Hz
(d) Sound pressure level at 250 Hz
101
(e) Sound pressure level at 500 Hz
Figure 5.17 1/1 Octave floor impact sound level according to floor area
Table 5.13 Statistical result of floor impact sound level of bare concrete slabs
Heavy-weight impact source

Li,Fmax,AW (dB)
Impact ball excitation Bang machine excitation
Average value (dB) 50.3 49.1
Median value (dB) 51.0 49.0
Mode value (dB) 51.0 48.0
Maximum value (dB) 53.0 52.0
Minimum value (dB) 46.0 46.0
Standard deviation (dB) 1.6 1.7
102
5.4.2 Aspect Ratio
Correlation between aspect ratio of living room and floor impact

sound was investigated. This parameter is related to acoustic modes,
which determine the peak responses of sound pressure in a closed space.
The relationship between acoustic mode frequency and spatial
dimension of closed room is shown in equation (5.7).
2
 n   ny   n 
2 2
c
fn    x       z 
2  Lx   Ly   Lz 
(5.7)
In equation (5.7), c is sound speed, L is dimension of closed room,
and n is mode number. According to dimension, aspect ratio and natural
frequency is changed, which would affect the floor impact vibration and
sound. Table 5.14 shows the design property of numerical model.
Dimension of living room and kitchen is changed according to aspect
ratio but total floor area is same. Other conditions are identically
designed.
Table 5.14 Design property according to aspect ratio
Aspect ratio Dimension (m) Floor area (m2)
Living Living room Living room

Width Depth Living room
room and kitchen and kitchen
0.7 1.4 6.2 4.3 26.7 42.9
1.0 2.0 5.1 5.2 26.5 43.8
1.3 2.5 4.5 6.0 27.0 43.2
1.6 2.7 4.1 6.6 27.1 43.3
103
The analytical results are shown in Table 5.15 and Table 5.16. As the
aspect ratio increases, the floor impact vibration level was proportionally
reduced and natural frequency became higher. It is estimated that slab
rigidity increased as the supported span of floor slab became shorter
with higher aspect ratio. But in the case of floor impact sound, the
correlation was not clearly shown. single-number quantity level of each
model was analyzed as 51 dB, 50 dB, 51 dB and 49 dB according to
aspect ratio increasing.
Table 5.15 Floor impact vibration level by aspect ratio
Aspect ratio Floor impact vibration level

Living Living room
room
1 (Hz) 2 (Hz) 3 (Hz) 4 (Hz) VAL (dB)
and kitchen
0.7 1.4 17 32 42 50 98.1
1.0 2.0 23 34 42 52 97.7
1.3 2.5 25 33 41 49 97.1
1.6 2.7 30 38 44 53 93.8
Table 5.16 Floor impact sound level by aspect ratio
Aspect ratio 1/1 Octave floor impact sound level (dB)

Living Living room
room and kitchen
31.5 Hz 63 Hz 125 Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz Li,Fmax,AW
0.7 1.4 84.5 71.7 68.6 59.4 51.5 51
1.0 2.0 87.5 67.6 65.3 57.6 55 50
1.3 2.5 91.9 72.2 66.7 56.7 51.4 51
1.6 2.7 89.3 66.1 63.8 57.4 51.4 49
104
The experimental tendency results are as plotted in Figure 5.18(a) and
Figure 5.18(b). Both cases did not show clear tendency on floor impact
sound as same as analytical result. In conclusion, it is confirmed that
aspect ratio has low correlation with floor impact sound compared to
other design parameters.
(a) living room
(b) receiving room
Figure 5.18 Heavy-weight floor impact sound according to aspect ratio
105
5.5 Discussions
Floor impact sound according to actual building design parameters

was studied. The tendency of single-number quantity or 1/1 octave floor
impact sound level was analyzed by both numerical and experimental
method. Based on the results, quantitative analysis on correlation
between floor impact sound and design parameters could be performed.
Primary results are summarized in Table 5.17.
Table 5.17 Floor impact sound tendency
Design parameter Tendency on heavy-weight floor impact sound
Concrete strength Constant for 88-112 % of design value
Concrete slab Mass density Constant for 85-115 % of design value
Young’s modulus 1 dB Reduction for 115 % of design value
Dynamic stiffness 2-3 dB Reduction per 5 MN/m2
Resilient
Thickness 2-3 dB Reduction per thickness 30 mm
materials
Axial stiffness 7-8 dB Reduction per 1 MN/m2
Floor area Randomly distributed from 48 to 53 dB

Floor plan
Aspect ratio Dependent on vibration response
In case of bare concrete slab, material properties such as concrete

strength, mass density, and Young’s modulus had relatively little
influence on floor impact sound. It would not significantly affect floor
impact sound level in general design condition of residential buildings.
But it can make difference about 2-3 dB in floor impact sound level
when high-strength concrete material is used. Also, floor plan
parameters such as floor area and aspect ratio had low correlation with
floor impact sound. Single-number quantity level was randomly
106
distributed within the range of 48-53 dB, which gives general
distribution range of floor impact sound in bare concrete slabs.
In case of floating floor, floor impact sound according to various
parameters was investigated based on test database analysis. Firstly,
dynamic stiffness and thickness of resilient materials had clearly high
correlation with floor impact sound. And this two parameters can be
combined into one parameter which is same as axial stiffness of resilient
materials. It was clearly found that axial stiffness is proportional to
single-number quantity level regardless of test sites. On the other hand,
floor plan parameters such as floor area or aspect ratio had relatively low
correlation with floor impact sound as same as bare concrete slabs.
In conclusion, it is estimated that the most influential factors on floor
impact sound design is axial stiffness of resilient materials. Although
previous researchers found that increasing slab thickness of 30 mm has
floor impact sound reduction effect about 2-3 dB, it could not be good
alternative because it is not economical and eco-friendly way in terms of
structural design. If axial stiffness design can optimize vibration
response of floating floor structures, it can be one of the alternatives that
can lead to overall reduction on floor impact sound. Thus, optimal
design on axial stiffness of resilient materials needs to be studied for
floor impact sound reduction in residential buildings.
107
Chapter 6. Conclusions
In this study, to propose total floor impact sound prediction process to

designers in the practical field, experimental and numerical analysis was
conducted.
Experiments on floor impact sound and vibration were conducted in a
residential building. Experimental deviation of floor impact sound level
on bare concrete slabs was found to be 2-4 dB at each 1/1 octave band
center frequency. It indicates that actual concrete strength, mass density
and construction error can affect the floor impact sound of identical floor
plans. Also, it was shown that floor impact sound insulation performance
of floating floor is significantly influenced by dynamic stiffness,
thickness of resilient materials, and ceilings.
Finite element analysis of floor impact sound was performed for
various types of residential buildings. Total floor impact vibration and
sound analysis process was proposed for designers. Also, structural and
acoustic design properties were proposed on the basis of experimental
results. The analysis result showed that bare concrete slab models
successfully predicted the floor impact sound level within suitable error
range, which was less than the deviation of preceding experiments. Thus,
feasibility of applying the analysis process to actual floor impact sound
design could be verified.
Parametric study on floor impact sound design factors was conducted
by both numerical and experimental method. Quantitative analysis was
performed on each design parameter. In case of bare concrete slab, the
analysis results showed that concrete material property such as concrete
strength and Young’s modulus can affect floor impact sound. But it was
found that, if general concrete material is used, it would not be
108
significant influence factor on floor impact sound. Floor plan design
factors such as floor area and aspect ratio had relatively low correlation
with floor impact sound. In case of floating floor, it was shown that
thickness and dynamic stiffness of resilient materials have relatively
high correlation with floor impact sound. Considering influences of
these two parameters together, it is concluded that axial stiffness of
resilient materials is the most important parameter in floor impact sound
design.
For further studies, the numerical analysis method on floating floor
needs to be developed. The prediction error should be reduced as much
as the prediction accuracy of bare concrete slab. And it needs to be in
good agreement with actual behavior of finishing mortar. It can be
verified by comparing the acceleration, velocity, and displacement
response of finishing mortar with the analytical result. Then, parametric
analysis on floating floor can be performed by the proposed numerical
method. Also, this study proceeds test database accumulation in order to
investigate experimental tendency on floor impact sound with reliability.
Most of previous studies investigated floor impact sound insulation
performance on laboratories but it is different from the performance on
residential buildings. Thus, test data measured in actual buildings should
be accumulated for further development.
109
References
[1] “Canada National Research Council Annual Research Report”,
2010, Canada government
[2] “Provisions about Housing Construction Standards”, 2014,

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport
[3] KS F 2810-2 : 2001, “Field Measurements of Impact Sound

Insulation of Floors-Part2 : Method Using Standard Heavy
Impact Sources”, Korean Industrial Standards
[4] KS F 2863-2 : 2007, “Rating of Floor Impact Sound Insulation

for Impact Source in Buildings and of Building Elements-Part
2 : Floor Impact Sound Insulation Against Standard Heavy
Impact Source”, Korean Industrial Standards
[5] ISO 717-2 : 2013, “Acoustics - Rating of Sound Insulation in

Buildings and of Building Elements-Part 2 : Impact Sound
Insulation”, International Organization for Standardization
[6] Fahy, Frank J. and Gardonio, Paolo, 1987, “Sound and

Structural Vibration”, ELSEVIER
[7] J. W. S. Rayleigh, 1945, “The Theory of Sound”, Dover

Publications
[8] Kim, M. J., Kim, H. S. and Kim, H. G., 2003, “Prediction of

Floor Impact Sound by Measuring the Vibration Acceleration
Level on the Interior Structures of Receiving Room in
Apartment Buildings”, Transaction of the Korean Society for
Noise and Vibration Engineering, Vol. 13(1), pp. 3-9
[9] Hwang, J. S., Mun, D. H., Park, H. G., Hong, S. G. and Hong,
110
G. H., 2009, “The Numerical Analysis of Heavy Weight Impact
Noise for an Apartment House”, Transaction of the Korean
Society for Noise and Vibration Engineering, Vol. 19(2), pp.
162-168
[10] Mun, D. H., Park, H. G. and Hwang, J. S., 2014, “Prediction of

Concrete Slab Acceleration and Floor Impact Noise Using
Frequency Response Function”, Transaction of the Korean
Society for Noise and Vibration Engineering, Vol. 24(6), pp.
483-492
[11] KS F 2868 : 2003, “Determination of Dynamic Stiffness of

Materials Used Under Floating Floors in Dwellings”, Korean
Industrial Standards
[12] “Criteria on floor impact sound insulation structure in

residential buildings”, 2015, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure
and Transport
[13] KS F 2437 : 2013, “Testing Methods for Dynamic Modulus of

Elasticity, Rigidity and Dynamic Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete
Specimens by Resonance Vibration”, Korean Industrial
Standards
[14] Seo, S. H. and Jeon, J. Y., 2005, “2-Dimensional Floor Impact

Vibration Analysis in Bare Reinforced Concrete Slab Using
Finite Element Method”, Transaction of the Korean Society for
Noise and Vibration Engineering, Vol. 15(5), pp.604-611
[15] Hwang, J. S., Kim, J. H., Mun, D. H. and Park, H. G., 2010,
“The Vibration and Noise Control of Slab Using a Visco-elastic
Stud System”, Transaction of the Korean Society for Noise and
Vibration Engineering, Vol. 2010(2), pp.93-94
[16] Mun, D. H., Park, H. G., Hwang, J. S., Hong, G. H. and Im, J.
H., 2012, “Numerical Analysis of Heavy-weight Impact Noise
111
for Apartment Units Considering Acoustic Mode”, Transaction
of the Korean Society for Noise and Vibration Engineering, Vol.
2012(7), pp.676-684
[17] Takahagi, T., Nakai, M. and Tamai, Y., 1995, “Near Field
Sound Radiation From Simply Supported Rectangular Plates”,
Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 185(3), pp.455-471
[18] Michael. A. Stewart and Robert. J. M. Craik, 2000, “Impact

Sound Transmission Through a Floating Floor on a Concrete
Slab”, Applied Acoustics, Vol. 59, pp. 353-372
[19] Kim, K. W., Jeong, G. C. and Sohn, J. Y., 2008, “Evaluation of

the Dynamic Stiffness and Heavy-weight Floor Impact Sound
Reduction by Composition of Resilient Materials”, Transaction
of the Korean Society for Noise and Vibration Engineering, Vol.
18(2), pp.247-254
[20] Baek, G. O., Mun, D. H., Han, H. K. and Park, H. G., 2015,
“Analysis of Heavy-weight Floor Impact Noise and Vibration
of Concrete Slabs in a Residential Building”, The 2015 World
Congress on Advances in Structural Engineering and
Mechanics
[21] Mun, D. H., Lee, S. H., Hwang, J. S., Baek, G. O. and Park, H.
G., 2015, “Prediction of Heavy-weight Floor Impact Sound in
Multi-unit House Using Finite Element Analysis”,
Computational Structural Engineering Institute of Korea, Vol.
28(6), pp.645-658
[22] LMS international, 2014, “Numerical Acoustics Theoretical

Manual”, LMS engineering innovation
[23] LMS international, 2014, “LMS Virtual.Lab Acoustic

Advanced Training”, SIEMENS
112
Appendix A: Test Database
Site Identifiaction of residential building site
Plan Floor plan type of residential building, m2
Room no. Receiving room of floor impact sound test
LR Living room
LRK Living room and kitchen
K Kitchen
w Width, m
d Depth, m
t Thickness of resilient materials, mm
Ed Dynamic stiffness of resilient materials, MN//m3
k Axial stiffness of resilient materials, MN//m2
Single number quantity of heavy-weight floor impact sound

Li,Fmax,AW
by KS F 2863-2, dB
EPS Expanded polystyrene
EVA Ethylene-vinyl acetate
PE Poly ethylene
113
Table A.1 Test database of bare concrete slab by impact ball excitation
Test Site Floor area (m2) Dimension (m) Aspect ratio

Li,Fmax,AW
No.
w d w d (dB)
Site Plan Room No. LR LRK LR LRK
(LR) (LR) (LRK) (LRK)
1 M6 59 512-301 10.6 18.1 3.9 2.7 3.7 4.7 0.7 1.2 50
2 M6 59 512-303 10.6 18.1 3.9 2.7 3.7 4.7 0.7 1.2 49
3 M6 59 512-304 10.6 18.1 3.9 2.7 3.7 4.7 0.7 1.2 48
4 M6 59 512-503 10.6 18.1 3.9 2.7 3.7 4.7 0.7 1.2 51
5 M6 59 512-504 10.6 18.1 3.9 2.7 3.7 4.7 0.7 1.2 53
6 M6 84 507-301 18.9 30.4 4.5 4.2 4.7 6.7 0.9 1.5 49
7 M6 84 507-303 18.9 30.4 4.5 4.2 4.7 6.7 0.9 1.5 49
8 M6 84 507-501 18.9 30.4 4.5 4.2 4.7 6.7 0.9 1.5 49
9 M6 84 507-503 18.9 30.4 4.5 4.2 4.7 6.7 0.9 1.5 49
10 M6 84 506-501 18.9 30.4 4.5 4.2 4.7 6.7 0.9 1.5 50
11 M6 84 506-503 18.9 30.4 4.5 4.2 4.7 6.7 0.9 1.5 51
12 M6 84 506-504 18.9 30.4 4.5 4.2 4.7 6.7 0.9 1.5 50
13 M6 84 506-601 18.9 30.4 4.5 4.2 4.7 6.7 0.9 1.5 48
14 M6 84 506-603 18.9 30.4 4.5 4.2 4.7 6.7 0.9 1.5 48
15 M6 84 506-604 18.9 30.4 4.5 4.2 4.7 6.7 0.9 1.5 49
16 A 59 108-8 19.6 31.2 3.6 5.5 6.5 7.2 1.5 2.0 51
17 A 59 108-9 19.6 31.2 3.6 5.5 6.5 7.2 1.5 2.0 53
18 A 59 108-10 19.6 31.2 3.6 5.5 6.5 7.2 1.5 2.0 51
19 A 59 108-11 19.6 31.2 3.6 5.5 6.5 7.2 1.5 2.0 50
20 A 59 108-12 19.6 31.2 3.6 5.5 6.5 7.2 1.5 2.0 52
21 A 59 108-13 19.6 31.2 3.6 5.5 6.5 7.2 1.5 2.0 52
22 IS 74 603-1 20.2 37.2 4.2 4.8 4.6 8.5 1.1 2.0 52
23 HD 84 01 23.4 45.3 4.5 5.2 4.7 9.9 1.2 2.2 48
24 B 84 106-8 27.0 40.8 4.5 6.0 3.4 10.0 1.3 2.2 51
25 B 84 106-8 27.0 40.8 4.5 6.0 3.4 10.0 1.3 2.2 52
114
Li,Fmax,AW
No.
w d w d (dB)
26 B 84 106-9 27.0 40.8 4.5 6.0 3.4 10.0 1.3 2.2 51
27 B 84 106-9 27.0 40.8 4.5 6.0 3.4 10.0 1.3 2.2 51
28 B 84 106-10 27.0 40.8 4.5 6.0 3.4 10.0 1.3 2.2 52
29 B 84 106-10 27.0 40.8 4.5 6.0 3.4 10.0 1.3 2.2 51
30 B 84 106-11 27.0 40.8 4.5 6.0 3.4 10.0 1.3 2.2 52
31 B 84 106-11 27.0 40.8 4.5 6.0 3.4 10.0 1.3 2.2 52
32 B 84 106-12 27.0 40.8 4.5 6.0 3.4 10.0 1.3 2.2 52
33 B 84 106-12 27.0 40.8 4.5 6.0 3.4 10.0 1.3 2.2 53
34 B 84 106-13 27.0 40.8 4.5 6.0 3.4 10.0 1.3 2.2 52
35 B 84 106-13 27.0 40.8 4.5 6.0 3.4 10.0 1.3 2.2 52
36 HH 59 102-401 17.6 25.2 3.9 4.5 3.2 6.9 1.2 1.8 50
37 HH 59 102-701 17.6 25.2 3.9 4.5 3.2 6.9 1.2 1.8 50
38 HH 59 102-801 17.6 25.2 3.9 4.5 3.2 6.9 1.2 1.8 51
39 HH 59 112-401 17.6 25.2 3.9 4.5 3.2 6.9 1.2 1.8 52
40 HH 59 112-701 17.6 25.2 3.9 4.5 3.2 6.9 1.2 1.8 51
41 HH 59 112-702 17.6 25.2 3.9 4.5 3.2 6.9 1.2 1.8 50
42 HH 59 112-901 17.6 25.2 3.9 4.5 3.2 6.9 1.2 1.8 50
43 LH 59 201-304 23.1 34.8 3.6 6.4 2.6 10.9 1.8 3.0 51
44 SH 84 102-4 26.1 40.2 4.5 5.8 4.0 9.3 1.3 2.1 46
45 SH 84 102-5 26.1 40.2 4.5 5.8 4.0 9.3 1.3 2.1 48
46 SH 84 102-301 21.9 36.1 4.5 4.9 3.8 8.6 1.1 1.9 48
47 SH 84 102-302 22.7 35.8 4.5 5.0 3.8 8.5 1.1 1.9 48
48 DL 84 104-303 17.5 44.0 4.5 3.9 7.0 7.7 0.9 1.7 51
49 DL 102 104-305 30.6 55.5 4.8 6.3 4.3 12.2 1.3 2.5 50
115
Table A.2 Test database of bare concrete slab by bang machine excitation

Li,Fmax,AW
No.
w d w d (dB)
1 M6 59 512-301 10.6 18.1 3.9 2.7 3.7 4.7 0.7 1.2 50
2 M6 59 512-303 10.6 18.1 3.9 2.7 3.7 4.7 0.7 1.2 50
3 M6 59 512-304 10.6 18.1 3.9 2.7 3.7 4.7 0.7 1.2 47
4 M6 59 512-503 10.6 18.1 3.9 2.7 3.7 4.7 0.7 1.2 51
5 M6 59 512-504 10.6 18.1 3.9 2.7 3.7 4.7 0.7 1.2 51
6 M6 84 507-301 18.9 30.4 4.5 4.2 4.7 6.7 0.9 1.5 48
7 M6 84 507-303 18.9 30.4 4.5 4.2 4.7 6.7 0.9 1.5 47
8 M6 84 507-501 18.9 30.4 4.5 4.2 4.7 6.7 0.9 1.5 48
9 M6 84 507-503 18.9 30.4 4.5 4.2 4.7 6.7 0.9 1.5 48
10 M6 84 506-501 18.9 30.4 4.5 4.2 4.7 6.7 0.9 1.5 48
11 M6 84 506-503 18.9 30.4 4.5 4.2 4.7 6.7 0.9 1.5 49
12 M6 84 506-504 18.9 30.4 4.5 4.2 4.7 6.7 0.9 1.5 48
13 M6 84 506-601 18.9 30.4 4.5 4.2 4.7 6.7 0.9 1.5 46
14 M6 84 506-603 18.9 30.4 4.5 4.2 4.7 6.7 0.9 1.5 46
15 M6 84 506-604 18.9 30.4 4.5 4.2 4.7 6.7 0.9 1.5 47
16 A 59 108-8 19.6 31.2 3.6 5.5 6.5 7.2 1.5 2.0 49
17 A 59 108-9 19.6 31.2 3.6 5.5 6.5 7.2 1.5 2.0 51
18 A 59 108-10 19.6 31.2 3.6 5.5 6.5 7.2 1.5 2.0 49
19 A 59 108-11 19.6 31.2 3.6 5.5 6.5 7.2 1.5 2.0 48
20 A 59 108-12 19.6 31.2 3.6 5.5 6.5 7.2 1.5 2.0 50
21 A 59 108-13 19.6 31.2 3.6 5.5 6.5 7.2 1.5 2.0 50
22 HD 84 01 23.4 45.3 4.5 5.2 4.7 9.9 1.2 2.2 47
23 DL 84 01 27.0 41.7 4.5 6.0 3.0 10.9 1.3 2.4 50
24 E 114 105 29.3 40.4 6.5 4.5 3.7 7.5 0.7 1.2 49
25 B 84 106-8 27.0 40.8 4.5 6.0 3.4 10.0 1.3 2.2 48
116
Li,Fmax,AW
No.
w d w d (dB)
26 B 84 106-8 27.0 40.8 4.5 6.0 3.4 10.0 1.3 2.2 48
27 B 84 106-9 27.0 40.8 4.5 6.0 3.4 10.0 1.3 2.2 48
28 B 84 106-9 27.0 40.8 4.5 6.0 3.4 10.0 1.3 2.2 48
29 B 84 106-10 27.0 40.8 4.5 6.0 3.4 10.0 1.3 2.2 49
30 B 84 106-10 27.0 40.8 4.5 6.0 3.4 10.0 1.3 2.2 49
31 B 84 106-11 27.0 40.8 4.5 6.0 3.4 10.0 1.3 2.2 50
32 B 84 106-11 27.0 40.8 4.5 6.0 3.4 10.0 1.3 2.2 50
33 B 84 106-12 27.0 40.8 4.5 6.0 3.4 10.0 1.3 2.2 49
34 B 84 106-12 27.0 40.8 4.5 6.0 3.4 10.0 1.3 2.2 49
35 B 84 106-13 27.0 40.8 4.5 6.0 3.4 10.0 1.3 2.2 49
36 B 84 106-13 27.0 40.8 4.5 6.0 3.4 10.0 1.3 2.2 49
37 HH 59 102-401 17.6 25.2 3.9 4.5 3.2 6.9 1.2 1.8 50
38 HH 59 102-701 17.6 25.2 3.9 4.5 3.2 6.9 1.2 1.8 51
39 HH 59 102-801 17.6 25.2 3.9 4.5 3.2 6.9 1.2 1.8 51
40 HH 59 112-401 17.6 25.2 3.9 4.5 3.2 6.9 1.2 1.8 52
41 HH 59 112-701 17.6 25.2 3.9 4.5 3.2 6.9 1.2 1.8 51
42 HH 59 112-702 17.6 25.2 3.9 4.5 3.2 6.9 1.2 1.8 52
43 HH 59 112-901 17.6 25.2 3.9 4.5 3.2 6.9 1.2 1.8 51
44 LH 59 201-304 23.1 34.8 3.6 6.4 2.6 10.9 1.8 3.0 52
45 SH 84 102-4 26.1 40.2 4.5 5.8 4 9.3 1.3 2.1 47
46 SH 84 102-5 26.1 40.2 4.5 5.8 4 9.3 1.3 2.1 52
47 SH 84 102-301 21.9 36.1 4.5 4.9 3.8 8.6 1.1 1.9 48
48 SH 84 102-302 22.7 35.8 4.5 5.0 3.8 8.5 1.1 1.9 48
49 DL 84 104-303 17.5 44.0 4.5 3.9 7 7.7 0.9 1.7 47
50 DL 102 104-305 30.6 55.5 4.8 6.3 4.3 12.2 1.3 2.5 47
117
Table A.3 Test database of floating floor
Test Site Resilient Materials

No.
Impact Li,Fmax,AW
t Ed k Source (dB)
Site Plan Room No. Type
(mm) (MN//m3) (MN//m2)
1 A 59 108-8 EPS+EVA+PE 60 6.1 0.10 Impact ball 46
2 A 59 108-8 EPS+EVA+PE 60 6.1 0.10 Bang machine 51
3 A 59 108-9 EVA 30 10.6 0.35 Impact ball 48
4 A 59 108-9 EVA 30 10.6 0.35 Bang machine 53
5 A 59 108-10 EVA 30 4.8 0.16 Impact ball 44
7 A 59 108-11 EPS 30 5.8 0.19 Impact ball 44
8 A 59 108-11 EPS 30 5.8 0.19 Bang machine 52
9 A 59 108-12 EPS 30 7.1 0.24 Impact ball 46
10 A 59 108-12 EPS 30 7.1 0.24 Bang machine 51
11 A 59 108-13 EVA 30 3.3 0.11 Impact ball 46
13 B 84 106-8 EPS+EVA+PE 60 6.1 0.10 Impact ball 41
14 B 84 106-8 EPS+EVA+PE 60 6.1 0.10 Impact ball 42
15 B 84 106-8 EPS+EVA+PE 60 6.1 0.10 Bang machine 48
16 B 84 106-9 EVA 30 10.6 0.35 Impact ball 46
17 B 84 106-9 EVA 30 10.6 0.35 Impact ball 46
18 B 84 106-9 EVA 30 10.6 0.35 Bang machine 50
19 B 84 106-10 EVA 30 4.8 0.16 Impact ball 43
20 B 84 106-10 EVA 30 4.8 0.16 Impact ball 43
22 B 84 106-11 EPS 30 5.8 0.19 Impact ball 45
23 B 84 106-11 EPS 30 5.8 0.19 Impact ball 45
24 B 84 106-11 EPS 30 5.8 0.19 Bang machine 53
25 B 84 106-12 EPS 30 7.1 0.24 Impact ball 45
26 B 84 106-12 EPS 30 7.1 0.24 Impact ball 46
27 B 84 106-12 EPS 30 7.1 0.24 Bang machine 49
118
No.
Impact Li,Fmax,AW
t Ed k Source (dB)
Site Plan Room No. Type
(mm) (MN//m3) (MN//m2)
28 B 84 106-13 EVA 30 3.3 0.11 Impact ball 43
29 B 84 106-13 EVA 30 3.3 0.11 Impact ball 43
31 C 84 01 EPS+PE+PE 30 4.7 0.16 Bang machine 45
32 C 84 02 EPS+Fiber 30 4.9 0.16 Bang machine 46
33 C 84 03 EPS+PE 30 6.6 0.22 Bang machine 45
34 C 84 04 EPS+PE 30 6.6 0.22 Bang machine 45
35 C 84 05 EPS 30 3.5 0.12 Bang machine 45
36 C 84 06 EPS+PE+PE 30 8.2 0.27 Bang machine 45
37 C 84 07 PE 20 9.7 0.49 Bang machine 47
40 C 84 10 PE 20 12.0 0.60 Bang machine 46
41 D 84 303-402 EPS 30 7.1 0.24 Impact ball 45
42 D 59 304-402 EPS 30 7.1 0.24 Impact ball 47
43 D 51 305-402 EPS 30 7.1 0.24 Impact ball 47
44 D 51 305-407 EPS 30 7.1 0.24 Impact ball 48
45 D 74 311-501 EPS 30 7.1 0.24 Impact ball 46
46 D 59 313-402 EPS 30 7.1 0.24 Impact ball 50
47 D 74 316-403 EPS 30 7.1 0.24 Impact ball 49
48 D 84 316-404 EPS 30 7.1 0.24 Impact ball 49
49 E 114 01 EPS 20 18.5 0.93 Bang machine 50
50 H 84 01 EPS 20 7.6 0.38 Impact ball 45
51 H 84 02 EPS 20 13.1 0.66 Impact ball 46
52 H 84 03 EVA 20 5.0 0.25 Impact ball 50
53 H 84 04 EVA 20 8.3 0.42 Impact ball 49
54 H 84 05 EPS 20 4.7 0.24 Impact ball 44
119
No.
Impact Li,Fmax,AW
Room t Ed k Source (dB)
Site Plan Type
No. (mm) (MN//m3) (MN//m2)
55 H 84 01 EPS 20 7.6 0.38 Bang machine 50
57 H 84 03 EVA 20 5.0 0.25 Bang machine 50
58 H 84 04 EVA 20 8.3 0.42 Bang machine 49
60 I 115 01 EPS 30 4.5 0.15 Impact ball 45
61 I 115 02 EPS 30 4.6 0.15 Impact ball 40
62 I 115 03 EVA 30 4.0 0.13 Impact ball 43
63 I 115 04 EVA 30 3.0 0.10 Impact ball 42
64 I 115 05 EPS 30 4.3 0.14 Impact ball 45
65 I 115 06 EPS 30 13.4 0.45 Impact ball 45
66 I 115 01 EPS 30 4.5 0.15 Bang machine 48
68 I 115 03 EVA 30 4.0 0.13 Bang machine 46
69 I 115 04 EVA 30 3.0 0.10 Bang machine 44
120
초 록
공동주택 바닥충격음 저감 설계를 위한

실험 및 해석 연구
백 길 옥
서울대학교 건축학과 대학원
국내 공동주택에서 빈번히 발생하는 층간 소음은 큰 사회적

이슈로 대두되어 왔다. 이 중 가장 큰 문제를 차지하는 소음은
주로 200 Hz 이하의 저주파 대역 소음에 해당하는
중량충격음이다. 중량충격음은 주로 아이들의 발걸음이나
뜀박질 등에 의해 발생한다.
Canada NRC Research Report (2010)에 따르면, 중량충격음은

슬래브 두께 및 질량, 경계조건, 평면 및 면적, 천장구조 등
구조적 요인에 큰 영향을 받는다. 이는 중량충격음이 슬래브
진동이 유발하는 구조방사소음의 특성을 갖고 있음을 의미한다.
따라서 중량충격음을 근본적으로 저감하기 위해서는, 설계자가
건물 설계 시 슬래브 진동과 연관된 구조적인 변수들을 우선
고려할 필요가 있다. 실제 건물에서 이러한 구조적인 변수에
따른 실험을 수행하는 것은 많은 시간과 비용이 소모되므로,
해석적인 연구가 특히 필요하다. 또한 공동주택 초기 설계
단계에서부터 슬래브 진동과 방사소음 예측이 고려될 필요가
121
있다. 바닥충격음을 포함하여 구조방사소음의 예측은 선행되는
진동 해석 모델이 실제 거동을 성공적으로 예측한다면, 비교적
높은 정확도를 갖고 수치해석적 결과를 도출할 수 있다.
본 연구는 실무에 종사하는 설계자를 위한 중량충격음 예측

프로세스를 제안하는 것에 초점을 두었다. 실무자가 건물에
대한 제한된 정보만을 갖고 중량충격음을 예측해야 하는 점을
고려하여, 설계 물성 및 세부적인 예측 프로세스를 제안하였다.
이는 모델링, 수치해석, 예측 및 검증 단계를 포함한다. 선행
실험으로써 공동주택 바닥충격음 및 바닥진동을 측정하고 표본
데이터를 도출하였다. 또한 유한요소해석을 이용한 중량충격음
예측 프로세스의 실무 적용가능성을 확인하기 위해 실험
결과와 해석 결과를 상호 비교하여 예측 정확도를 검증하였다.
최종적으로 본 연구의 해석 기법 및 실험 데이터를 바탕으로
실제 공동주택 설계 변수를 적용하여 바닥충격음과의 상관성을
정량 분석하였다.
연구 결과, 제안된 중량충격음 예측 프로세스는 실험 데이터

상 편차를 고려하였을 때 적정한 수준의 오차 범위 내에서
바닥충격음을 예측 가능하였다. 또한 설계 변수 연구를 통해
완충재 축강성 및 단면 설계 변수가 바닥충격음과의 상관성이
높으며, 콘크리트 재료 물성 및 평면 설계 변수는 상대적으로
상관성이 낮음을 확인하였다.
핵심용어: 바닥충격음, 구조기인소음, 유한요소해석, 공동주택
학번: 2014-20514
122

Impact Noise - Korea - Residential Building

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact Noise - Korea - Residential Building

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

공학석사 학위논문

Experimental and Numerical

공동주택 바닥충격음 저감 설계를 위한

Experimental and Numerical

In Korea, floor impact noise in apartment buildings frequently causes

Keywords : floor impact sound; structural-borne sound; finite element

List of Tables ............................................................ vi

List of Figures ........................................................ viii

List of Symbols ....................................................... xii

Chapter 1. Introduction ........................................... 1

Chapter 2. Review .................................................... 6

Chapter 3. Floor Impact Sound and Vibration

Chapter 4. Numerical Analysis of Floor Impact

Chapter 5. Parametric Study on Floor Impact

Chapter 6. Conclusions ........................................ 108

References ............................................................. 110

Appendix A: Test Database ................................. 113

Table 2.1 Floor impact sound insulation performance grade ................. 7

Figure 1.1 Floor impact sound transmission mechanism ....................... 1

c velocity of sound, m/s

Ec static modulus of elasticity of concrete, GPa

Ed dynamic stiffness of resilient materials, MN//m3

fc design concrete strength, MPa

k axial stiffness, MN//m2

k/A unit axial stiffness per floor area, MN//m4

LFmax maximum sound pressure level measured by sound

LFmax,k maximum sound pressure level at k-th impact point

Li,Fmax average value of maximum impact sound level at each

Li,Fmax,AW inverse A-weighted value of Li,Fmax assessed by inverse

Ln,AW inverse A-weighted value of Ln assessed by inverse A

R reflection coefficient of material

SNQ single-number quantity of floor impact sound, dB

SPL sound pressure level, dB

VAL vibration acceleration level, dB(ref. 1x10-6 m2/s)

t resilient material thickness, mm

vn surface normal velocity of structure, m/s

Z acoustic panel impedance, kg/m2/s

 sound absorption coefficient of material

 angular frequency, rad/s

n damping ratio of n-th normal vibration mode

ρ mass density, kg/m3

ρ·c acoustic characteristic impedance, kg/m2/s

1.1 Background of Research

In Korea, floor impact noise often causes disputes between the

Figure 1.1 Floor impact sound transmission mechanism

The objective of this research is to propose total floor impact sound

In Chapter 2, domestic laws and codes about floor impact sound in

Figure 1.2 Outline of research

2.1 Code Review

Before the revision of Korean housing laws, there was no specific

According to ‘Provisions about Housing Construction Standard’,

light-weight floor impact sound ( L 'n , AW ).

Table 2.1 Floor impact sound insulation performance grade

Grade L 'n, AW Grade L'i,Fmax,AW

2 43  L 'n, AW  48 2 40 < L'i,Fmax,AW  43

3 48  L 'n, AW  53 3 43 < L'i,Fmax,AW  47

4 53  L 'n, AW  58 4 47 < L'i,Fmax,AW  50

Standard floor structure is a floor structure which is recommended in

Figure 2.1 Section plan of typical standard floor

It is composed of concrete slab, resilient material, autoclaved

In Korea, there is no specific design code for floor impact sound in

measured by sound level meter with ‘F’ time calibration. Especially,

of Li ,F max is stated as follows.