[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Next Article in Journal
Microstructural and Electrochemical Study: Pitting Corrosion Mechanism on A390 Al–Si Alloy and Ce–Mo Treatment as a Better Corrosion Protection
Next Article in Special Issue
Study on the Influence of Walnut Shell Coarse Particles on the Slurry Permeation and the Air Tightness of Filter Cake
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Single Particle High-Speed Impingement on the Electrochemical Step Characteristics of a Stainless-Steel Surface
Previous Article in Special Issue
Bond Strength Assessment of Normal Strength Concrete–Ultra-High-Performance Fiber Reinforced Concrete Using Repeated Drop-Weight Impact Test: Experimental and Machine Learning Technique
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 17
Issue 12
10.3390/ma17123042
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Alternative Method for Determination of Vibroacoustic Material Parameters for Building Applications

by
Krzysztof Nering
1,* and
Konrad Nering
2
1
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Cracow University of Technology, 31-155 Cracow, Poland
2
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Cracow University of Technology, 31-155 Cracow, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2024, 17(12), 3042; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17123042
Submission received: 2 May 2024 / Revised: 10 June 2024 / Accepted: 17 June 2024 / Published: 20 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovative Material Design and Nondestructive Testing Applications for Infrastructure Materials)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Samples used for research in this article. Tested materials are rubber granulate (S), rubber granulate with rubber fibers (F), and rebound polyurethane (P).</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Physical model of the mass–damper–spring system with single degree of freedom (SDOF).</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Schematic presentation of the half-power bandwidth method using the displacement spectrum. <span class="html-italic">X<sub>r</sub></span>—displacement amplitude, <span class="html-italic">f<sub>r</sub></span>—resonant frequency, and <span class="html-italic">f</span><sub>1</sub> and <span class="html-italic">f</span><sub>2</sub>—correspond to frequencies to 0.7 value of resonance amplitude.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Dynamic stiffness test bench with loaded sample. One square in photograph is one centimeter.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Pseudo-displacement response spectrum of sample P150 (288 kg/m<sup>3</sup>) with resonant frequency of 35.2 Hz and critical damping factor 0.0645.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Test bench for ball-tracking experiment.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Test bench diagram.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Examples of ball-tracking results for the P150 sample with a density of 288 kg/m<sup>3</sup>. (<b>a</b>) shows full motion of the ball, and (<b>b</b>) shows magnification in ball drop area.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>Comparison of different models of dynamic stiffness and relative indentation relationship. (<b>a</b>) model Power1 val(x) = a·x<sup>b</sup>, where a = 7.834, b = −0.4115, and R<sup>2</sup> = 0.5435 and (<b>b</b>) model Linear val(x) = p1·x + p2, where p1 = −899.6, p2 = 61.65, and R<sup>2</sup> = 0.8587.</p> "> Figure 10
<p>Comparison of different models of dynamic stiffness and relative indentation relationship with exclusion of S1000 (relative indentation &lt; 0.01). (<b>a</b>) model Power1 val(x) = a·x<sup>b</sup>, where a = 2.000, b = −0.777, and R<sup>2</sup> = 0.8381 and (<b>b</b>) model Linear val(x) = p1·x + p2, where p1 = −1036, p2 = 66.95, and R<sup>2</sup> = 0.9468.</p> "> Figure 11
<p>Comparison of different models of critical damping factor and first relative rebound relationship. (<b>a</b>) model Logarithmic val(x) = a·log10(x), where a = −0.2492 and R<sup>2</sup> = 0.7654 and (<b>b</b>) model Linear val(x) = p1·x + p2, where p1 = −0.3325, p2 = 0.2368, and R<sup>2</sup> = 0.8149.</p> "> Figure 12
<p>Comparison of different models of critical damping factor and first and second relative rebound (averaged) relationship. (<b>a</b>) model Logarithmic val(x) = a·log10(x), where a = −0.2568 and R<sup>2</sup> = 0.7809 and (<b>b</b>) model Linear val(x) = p1·x + p2, where p1 = −0.3143, p2 = 0.2321, and R<sup>2</sup> = 0.8123.</p> "> Figure 13
<p>Models of Power2 (val(x) = a·x<sup>b</sup> + c) describing relationship between (<b>a</b>) dynamic stiffness and density where a = −1.422 × 10<sup>6</sup>, b = −2.105, c = 49.53, and R<sup>2</sup> = 0.8842 and (<b>b</b>) critical damping factor and density where a = 2.201 × 10<sup>−15</sup>, b = 4.433, c = 0.07053, and R<sup>2</sup> = 0.6301.</p> "> Figure 14
<p>The fraction Critical damping factor/Dynamic stiffness as a function of density described with the usage of Exp2 model (val(x) = a·exp(b·x) + c·exp(d·x)), a = 0.04442, b = −0.01349, c = 0.0005713, d = 0.001433, and R<sup>2</sup> = 0.9460.</p> "> Figure 15
<p>Rayleigh damping model (val(x) = 1/2·(a·x + b/x)), where a = 0.001935, b = 2.273, and R<sup>2</sup> = 0.2385.</p> "> Figure 16
<p>Rayleigh-ish damping model based on dynamic stiffness instead of resonant frequency (val(x) = 1/2·(a·x + b/x)), where a = 0.003327, b = 1.029, and R<sup>2</sup> = 0.3730.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The development of urbanization and the resulting expansion of residential and transport infrastructures pose new challenges related to ensuring comfort for city dwellers. The emission of transport vibrations and household noise reduces the quality of life in the city. To counteract this unfavorable phenomenon, vibration isolation is widely used to reduce the propagation of vibrations and noise. A proper selection of vibration isolation is necessary to ensure comfort. This selection can be made based on a deep understanding of the material parameters of the vibration isolation used. This mainly includes dynamic stiffness and damping. This article presents a comparison of the method for testing dynamic stiffness and damping using a single degree of freedom (SDOF) system and the method using image processing, which involves tracking the movement of a free-falling steel ball onto a sample of the tested material. Rubber granules, rubber granules with rubber fibers, and rebound polyurethanes were selected for testing. Strong correlations were found between the relative indentation and dynamic stiffness (at 10–60 MN/m3) and the relative rebound and damping (for 6–12%). Additionally, a very strong relationship was determined between the density and fraction of the critical damping factor/dynamic stiffness. The relative indentation and relative rebound measurement methods can be used as an alternative method to measure the dynamic stiffness and critical damping factor, respectively.

1. Introduction

More and more people live in cities, and this trend only seems likely to continue [1,2,3,4,5,6]. The growth of the urban population causes the development of urbanization and, consequently, the transport infrastructure, which must meet increasingly greater challenges [7,8,9,10,11]. Urban planners make compromises related to the proximity of residential buildings to the railway and road infrastructure. This translates into shortening the travel time of city residents, which is undoubtedly a desirable phenomenon [12,13,14]. However, the price for such a development is the increased presence of bothersome stimuli, such as noise and vibrations, especially from the railway infrastructure [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22].
The development of urbanization also imposes the need to increase population density, which is reflected not only in the way buildings are located, but also in the increase in the number of inhabitants in a single building [23,24,25,26,27]. This is a necessary response to the market situation [28,29,30], but the consequence is also a reduction in the comfort of residents by increasing the noise from neighbors to which residents are exposed [28,31,32,33].
The expansion of transport infrastructure and housing construction, undoubtedly beneficial to national economies, reduces the quality of life. Therefore, it is necessary to consciously design the infrastructure, taking into account the nuisance of its use. A reduction in harmful stimuli such as noise and vibration is required to ensure the health and well-being of urban inhabitants. The answer to the above challenges is the introduction of appropriate directives, regulations [34,35], and standards [36,37,38,39,40,41,42] that constitute the means and the goal to be achieved as well as the methodology for achieving this goal. The constantly developed approach to assessing comfort requires a good understanding of how humans perceive bothersome stimuli [21,43,44,45,46,47]. Ways to ensure comfort require a lot of information about the technology and materials used [48,49].
There are various ways to reduce the emission of harmful stimuli [50,51,52,53,54,55]. It is worth mentioning the use of vibration isolation on railway tracks, which allows for the reduction in the propagation of vibrations generated during the passage of a train [56,57,58]. This has a positive impact not only on buildings located in the vibration influence zone [59,60,61,62,63], but also on residents who are exposed to a smaller dose of annoying vibrations [64,65,66,67].
In residential and office buildings, i.e., places intended for people to stay over long periods at a time, noise protection is used in the form of floating floors or raised flooring [68,69,70,71,72]. Partitions are selected appropriately so that they increase acoustic insulation. This allows for the reduction in exposure to airborne and impact noise [73,74,75,76].
Also, with the increasing popularity of mechanical ventilation, which is dictated by energy efficiency [77,78,79], it is worth mentioning the use of passive vibration isolation of technical devices and duct silencers in order to reduce noise emissions related to the operation of ventilation system devices [80,81,82,83,84].
Vibration isolation also plays an important role in controlling seismic actions on the building. A proper assessment of vibration isolation parameters such as stiffness and damping is key to predict a building’s response to seismic actions [85,86,87]. An appropriate design of the structure allows for the control of resonance frequencies in the context of seismic forces and appropriate control over the internal forces in the structure [88,89,90].
The dominant material in passive vibration isolation used in various construction sectors is rubber [91,92,93,94,95]. This material has very good features related to stiffness, dimensional stability, and damping. Materials derived from waste are also used, such as rubber granules [96,97,98] or polyurethanes [99,100,101,102]. The fact that polyurethanes can be recycled materials increases their potential in terms of sustainable development. In residential construction, elastified polystyrene and mineral wool dominate as vibration-insulating materials for floors [103,104,105,106,107], but there is a potential to use rebound polyurethanes because they have appropriate stiffness parameters.
The most important material parameters from the point of view of vibration isolation are dynamic stiffness and damping [108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115]. These parameters allow for the adequate design of a passive vibration isolation system. This allows the designer to properly assess if a given material is suitable for the added solution. For residential construction, the material assessment method is determined according to the ISO 9052-1 standard [48], where the tests allow for the estimation of the dynamic stiffness under small stresses (2 kPa). Additionally, the second parameter, namely, the damping of the material, can also be assessed; this will have a significant impact when designing an experiment, considering the impact of vibrations on people [100,115,116].
The aim of this article is to validate an alternative method for estimating the value of dynamic stiffness at low stresses [48] and damping [100] using image analysis during a free ball drop. This study is intended to allow for a faster assessment of these parameters. The usefulness of the alternative method can be indicated especially during preliminary research—for the purpose of the preliminary selection of materials or estimation of the above-mentioned parameters for research purposes.

2. Measurement Methodology and Setup

The selected materials for the research were vibration-isolating materials: rebound polyurethane, rubber granules, and rubber granules with rubber fibers. The dimensions of the samples were 200 mm × 200 mm × 50 mm. The compilation of material parameters is presented in Table 1.
The samples tested in this article are presented in Figure 1.
The choice of materials was dictated by several factors. First of all, the selected materials were to be used as passive vibration isolation. Another factor was the widest possible variation in the density of the materials. The fact that the materials had to differ in stiffness and compressibility was also taken into account.

2.1. Dynamic Stiffness and Critical Damping Factor Estimation with Reference Method

In this paper, measurements were made using a dynamic stiffness testing machine [48,100], which determined the dynamic stiffness of the material and the critical damping fraction.
This method involved determining the dynamic response of the system, which was modelled using a single degree of freedom (SDOF) system as shown in Figure 2. Based on the dynamic response, the resonant frequency and the critical damping fraction were determined.
The resonance frequency was estimated by locating the maximum value in the vibration acceleration response spectrum from the frequency domain analysis of the response. Then, the resonant frequency was converted using the formula for the dynamic stiffness of the frame with Equation (1).
D S = 4 π 2 m ′ f r 2
where DS is dynamic stiffness, m′ is total mass per unit area used during the test, and fr is resonant frequency
The critical damping fraction was estimated using the half-power method. The scheme for determining the critical damping fraction is shown in Figure 3.
Once obtaining the values according to the above scheme, the damping relationships were described mathematically using Equation (2) [100,117,118].
f 2 − f 1 f r = δ π 1 − δ 2 π 2
Equation (3) describes the relationship by which the critical damping fraction was determined [19,100].
δ = 2 π D 1 − D 2
The description of the parameters of the machine used for dynamic stiffness testing is presented in Table 2.
The machine depicted in Figure 4 was utilized for conducting tests on vibroacoustic parameters. Primarily designed for assessing dynamic stiffness, this machine incorporates a dynamic exciter, which applies harmonic force to the load plate via a force sensor. The load plate, weighing 8 kg, is positioned atop the test sample with a pre-load static force ranging from 0.1 to 0.4 N. The system’s response is measured using an IEPE (Integrated Electronics Piezo-Electric) accelerometer.
The testing system was dynamically excited using a sinusoidal force generated by the exciter. The amplitude of the applied sinusoidal force was maintained at 0.4 N with a tolerance of ±0.005 N. The frequency range spanned from 1 Hz to 100 Hz. The frequency was incremented by 0.1 Hz every second during the measurement period. The system response was registered using an IEPE accelerometer positioned at the load plate. Exemplary result is shown in Figure 5.

2.2. Alteranative Method

The image processing method was used as an alternative method proposed in this paper. This method involves tracking the movement of a steel ball in free fall from a given height and observing its behavior during and after rebound from the tested material. This method determines local extremes in the time course of the ball’s position.
A high-speed camera was used to record the position of the ball. In order to identify local maxima, the optical axis of the camera lens was set halfway between the starting (drop) point and the upper surface of the sample. To record local minima, the optical axis of the camera lens was set in the plane of the upper surface of the sample.
In the research using this method, an Olympus (Tokyo, Japan) I-Speed high-speed camera with a frame rate of 1000 fps was used. An electromagnet released by a toggle switch was used to free drop the steel ball. In order to ensure good contrast to the falling ball, the scene was illuminated using a high-performance nonflickering LED reflector. To standardize the lighting, a diffuser made of white matt plexiglass was used. The ball was dropped into the center of the sample surface in order to uniform the stress distribution in the sample. The measurement setup is shown in Figure 6. The diagram is shown in Figure 7.
Steel balls (with diameter of 34 mm and mass of 160.5 g) were used for the test. A steel ball was chosen due to the significant difference in stiffness between the tested material and steel. In order to reduce reflections on the ball, which would introduce contamination to the image (and the position of the ball), the ball was painted with matte black paint.
The height from which the ball was freely dropped was 180 mm. This height was chosen due to the capabilities of the camera lens and the ability to measurably observe the ball throughout its entire course. Another argument for this drop height was the possibility of recording the ball’s indentation in the material (local minimum of the ball’s position). In the case of preliminary tests at lower drop heights, there were problems with registering the local minimum. At higher altitudes, the speed of the ball falling right after the collision was so high that the error in determining the position of the ball at a given number of frames of the recorded image increased significantly.
The choice of two camera positions—close and far (15 cm and 40 cm away from the center of the ball, respectively)—was dictated by two requirements. The first one was to enable the recording of the first reflections and the beginning of the drop. The second was a more accurate recording of the indentation. Although the far position allowed us to achieve these two requirements with one camera position, a close position was also used to increase the accuracy of the indentation analysis.
Six ball drops were performed for one sample. This decision was made to increase the robustness of the results by determining the average ball path. After each drop, it was verified if any local yielding occurred at the point of contact between the sample and the ball. There were no permanent deformations of the tested materials.
As the last step, indentation was calculated based on ball tracking. Indentation was defined as the maximum absolute value of the ball bottom position during contact with sample (local minimum values are presented in Figure 8). Indentation was determined for each of the observed contacts. The rebound height was determined as local maximum values of ball tracking (with ball bottom position).

3. Results

The results for the reference method are presented in Table 3. The presented results are a summary of the averaged values of the critical damping factor (CDF), resonant frequency (Rf), and dynamic stiffness (DS) for each of the tested materials. Additionally, the values for the 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) are presented in parentheses.
The post-processed and averaged results of tracing the ball during free fall are presented in Table 4 and Table 5. Table 4 shows the results of the relative bounce height up to the 4th bounce. The relative bounce height was calculated in the following manner: The first relative rebound height was the ratio of the start height to the first rebound height (1st peak/start). The second relative rebound height was the ratio of the second to the first rebound height (2nd/1st peak). The third relative rebound height was the ratio of the third to the second rebound height (3rd/2nd peak). And the last and fourth rebound height was calculated in the same manner. Additionally, the values for the 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) of the calculated relative rebound heights are presented in parentheses.
Table 5 shows the results for the averaged and post-processed relative indentations. Similar to the results with the relative rebound height, it was decided to show the results only up to the 4th indentation. The relative indentation was calculated in the following manner: The first relative indentation (1st ind.*/start) was the ratio of the first indentation depth to the start position of the ball bottom. The second relative indentation (2nd/1st ind.) was the ratio of the second indentation depth to the first rebound height with the ball bottom position. The third and forth relative indentations were calculated in the same way. Additionally, the values for the 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) of the calculated relative indentations are presented in parentheses.
In the next part of the paper, an examination of any relationships between the reference method for testing dynamic stiffness and the relative values measured by ball tracking was performed.

4. Discussion

First of all, the question must be raised as to if the alternative method can be related to the reference method in any way. The reference method has its basis in the literature [100,115] and ISO standard [48].

4.1. Dependencies between Relative Indentation and Dynamic Stiffness

As a first topic, it can be discussed if the indentation can provide direct information about the stiffness of the material. The indentation itself strongly depends on the height of the drop; hence, the decision was made to use relative indentation, which shows the ratio of the rebound height of subsequent indices. While examining various mathematical models of the relationship between the relative indentation and dynamic stiffness, it was decided to choose a linear model using a linear function. Goodness of fit is presented in Table 6.
From the data included in Table 6 it can be concluded that the first relative indentation to dynamic stiffness correlates best. However, this raises some doubts, because a linear function has a zero crossing (unless it is constantly positive) and also accepts negative arguments (which would mean that relative indentation can be negative). For this reason, it is worth considering another function describing the relationship between relative indentation and dynamic stiffness. As an alternative to the linear function, one can propose the rational function or power function, which is characterized by asymptotic behavior. The analyses show a better R2 for the power function, which was (however) still not satisfactory (R2~0.5). The matching results are shown in Figure 9.
Although the power function has a physical justification—it does not allow negative dynamic stiffness or relative indentation—the R2 for the linear function is much higher (R2~0.54 to R2~0.86, respectively). It can therefore be said that in a limited range of relative indentation (0.01 to 0.06), fitting with a linear function gives sufficient accuracy.
Focusing on the results, it can be noticed that in the relative indentation near value 0.01, there is a large dispersion of the results for dynamic stiffness. These are the results for samples S1000 (lowest relative indentation) and S850 (relative indentation ~0.015). There may be several reasons for this condition. The first reason is the apparent softening of the S1000 samples due to a lack of full contact with the pressure plate due to their granulation. The second reason may be limitations related to the accuracy of recording small indentations. Although the mentioned reasons constituting limitations of the methods used are not the subject of this paper, it is worth taking a closer look at this problem in order to draw conclusions for further studies.
Therefore, it was decided to remove the S1000 samples from the analysis and repeat the previously presented analysis. The results are shown in Figure 10.
After removing the S1000 samples from the analysis, a significant improvement in correlation was obtained for both models. For the power function, an increase in R2 was obtained from ~0.55 to ~0.85, which allowed us to demonstrate an acceptable correlation. For the linear function, an increase in R2 was obtained from ~0.85 to ~0.95, which indicates a very good correlation.
In conclusion, it can be indicated that it is possible to determine dynamic stiffness by examining relative indentation. However, the obtained results indicate that this possibility exists to a limited extent in the relative indentation (0.01–0.06) for the tested sample geometry. Attempts to use possible extrapolation using the power and linear functions do not provide appropriate results.

4.2. Dependencies between Relative Rebound and Critical Damping Factor

Damping is the second parameter examined in this paper. In the case of damping, it is expected that the relative height to which the ball bounces will be correlated with the critical damping factor. This is due to the dissipation of the total energy of the ball by the sample during the rebound process.
As in the case of relative indentation, various models were tested for the relationship between the critical damping factor and the relative rebound. Yet again, it was noticed that the linear function gives the highest R2 for the recorded measurements. The results of this correlation for the subsequent relative rebound are presented in Table 7.
In the case of the first and second relative rebounds, a high R2 (~0.8) was observed, while in further relative rebounds, a significant decrease in the R2 value was observed.
Relative rebound, similar to relative indentation, correlates well with the linear function. However, this does not change the fact that there is no physical justification for such a model. Hence, there is a need to propose another, more rational function. It is known that in the theoretical case, when the material has no damping, that the ball will bounce endlessly. Naturally, this was assuming no air resistance and no damping in the ball itself. Hence, at a relative rebound equal to 1, the CDF should be equal to 0. Moreover, when increasing the CDF for the sample, the relative rebound decreases. In theory, the material may have damping above the critical damping, but in practice, such materials are not used.
Therefore, two functions that can describe the dependencies between the CDF and the relative rebound have been proposed—linear and logarithmic functions. The match results for the first relative rebound are shown in Figure 11.
In the case of a logarithmic function that preserves the boundary condition associated with the lack of damping, R2~0.77 was demonstrated, which means an acceptable correlation. For the best-fitting linear function, R2 is ~0.81, which already means a good correlation. However, the R2 values are comparable with a slight advantage of the linear function.
Taking into account the fact that for the results presented in the Table 7, the R2 was ~0.8 for the 1st and 2nd relative rebounds, it was decided to average the results for these two relative rebounds and make the same adjustment again. The results are shown in Figure 12.
For the logarithmic function, an increase in R2 was observed from 0.765 to 0.781. For the linear function, there was a slight decrease in R2 from 0.815 to 0.812. Therefore, it can be said that both models correctly predict the behavior of the dependence of the CDF on the relative rebound. It is worth mentioning that the model using the logarithmic function allows for some extrapolation of the results.

4.3. Reference Method—Density, Dynamic Stiffness, and Critical Damping Factor

Using the results from the reference method for analysis, we checked if there were any relationships between the measured values for the tested samples. Considering that the tests were carried out using materials with different internal structures, and for which the only common feature was their use as passive vibration isolation, having such trivial data as density, it would be beneficial to estimate their other mechanical parameters. However, strong correlations should not be expected, because material density is one of many parameters responsible for stiffness or damping.
Various models were tested to examine the dependence of dynamic stiffness on density and the critical damping factor on density. The highest R2 in both cases was obtained for the power function summed with the free term. Figure 13 shows the results of the discussed adjustments.
For the tested set of samples, describing the relationship between dynamic stiffness and density gives an R2 of 0.884. Although this would indicate a good correlation, it is difficult to speak of a more general principle. Taking into account the 95% confidence bounds, it turns out that according to the proposed model, for a density of, e.g., 800 kg/m3, the dynamic stiffness results are between ~30 MN/m3 and ~65 MN/m3. Consequently, even for engineering applications, this is a rather rough estimate of dynamic stiffness. The reason for this arrangement can be seen in the fact that rubbers dominate in high densities and rebound polyurethanes in low densities. On the other hand, we have the problematic S1000 material, which appears to have lower dynamic stiffness compared to less dense materials of a similar type.
With the dependence of the CDF on density, an R2 of 0.630 was obtained. Here, R2 shows a reduced ability to make the CDF predictions based on density. Of course, the problems indicated above could be discussed, but the graph shows that the attenuation increases significantly only at higher densities. When the large scatter at the 95% confidence bounds is ignored, it can be concluded that the attenuation increases with the density of the material.
Bearing in mind that in the tested materials the increase in dynamic stiffness with density occurs rather at the beginning of the analyzed density and the damping increases in the second half of this range, an attempt can be made to find a resultant relationship. It was checked if the CDF/DS ratio depends to some extent on density. The proposed model was a linear combination of two exponential functions. The result is presented in Figure 14.
The value of R2 = 0.946 indicates a very good correlation. For rubber materials, regardless of their internal structure—whether it is just granules or granules with fibers—a constant increase is observed. For rebound polyurethane, the analyzed value quickly decreases depending on the density. This allowed us to conclude that although there is no direct relationship between the dynamic stiffness or the CDF and density, there is an indication that the ratio of CDF/DS may depend directly on the density even for different materials. It is definitely worth further study.

4.4. Reference Method—Rayleigh Damping

Rayleigh damping is widely used in computational methods [119,120,121] due to its simplicity and computational efficiency. Based on data from various materials, it was decided to check if Rayleigh damping can be considered on a dynamic stiffness testing machine. The results are shown in Figure 15.
In the case of the tested machine, for various materials subjected to the test procedure, no significant relationship was found that would indicate that there is Rayleigh damping in the form described in its definition, because R2 = 0.239 indicates the lack of a relationship.
As an alternative to pure Rayleigh damping, it was checked if Rayleigh’s relationship between the CDF and the DS could be used. The results of this adjustment are shown in Figure 16.
Although a slightly higher R2 = 0.373 was obtained, it indicated a lack of a relationship in this case as well.

5. Conclusions

General Conclusions and Further Studies

The following conclusions can be drawn from the research conducted for this paper.
The method using relative rebound and relative indentation gives a good prediction of the dynamic stiffness and critical damping factor parameters. Taking into account that the R2 in all models discussed is above 0.7, and in the case of certain limitations even above 0.9, it confirms that the alternative method of using image analysis is an effective estimate of material parameters.
It turns out that only the initial measurement (1st or eventually 2nd rebound) can be used for research. Moreover, when examining the relationship, it was in this region that the highest R2 values were obtained, which allows for the additional shortening of the test time without losing its accuracy. Very weak dependencies of dynamic stiffness on density and the critical damping factor on density were found. This makes it impossible to predict the above-mentioned parameters based on density. However, a certain trend can be identified where dynamic stiffness and damping increase with density.
An interesting observation is the strong relationship between the critical damping factor/dynamic stiffness fraction and material density. The R2 value is very high (~0.95). It can be concluded that for low densities, the damping is very effective per unit of dynamic stiffness. This efficiency drops to its minimum at approximately 400 kg/m3 and then gradually increases.
There is no strong relationship in the case of tests on a machine compliant with ISO 9052 [48] that would allow us to identify Rayleigh damping. In the case of the model using dynamic stiffness instead of resonant frequency, a certain trend can be noticed, showing an increase in the critical damping factor with the increase in dynamic stiffness.
The main disadvantage of an assessment using image processing is its accuracy. Although R2 values around 0.8 for the critical damping factor prediction and R2 values around 0.9 were obtained for the tested samples, the extrapolation of these results beyond the framework specified in the article for dynamic stiffness (at 10–60 MN/m3) and damping (for 6–12%) is problematic. Particular attention should be focused on the S1000 sample, which, although slightly lower in dynamic stiffness, showed lower relative indentation than the proposed models would indicate. It is worth emphasizing that the surface structure of the sample has a significant impact on the relative indentation. Samples with a large structure (large pore size on the surface) may appear softer when tested because the ball sinks deeper during contact.
The observed discrepancies related to the decrease in stiffness with increasing density for the S1000 material prompted an in-depth examination of the causes of this phenomenon. It is suspected that this may be related to the reduction in the contact surface of the pressure plate of the dynamic stiffness testing machine. The reason may also be found in the technology of making granules and the possibility to use a more resilient glue or reducing its amount compared to other granulates. Another way of distributing the granules can also be indicated. At this time, the cause of this condition is not clear; therefore, additional tests should be performed, taking into account the above considerations.
It is worth mentioning that ball tracking was performed using an algorithm that directly tracks the ball’s path. However, it is worth considering much more complex methods. One such method is Eulerian video magnification [122,123], which could allow for more accurate measurements, especially of the contact phenomenon during the free fall of the ball.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.N. (Krzysztof Nering) and K.N. (Konrad Nering); methodology, K.N. (Krzysztof Nering) and K.N. (Konrad Nering); software, K.N. (Krzysztof Nering) and K.N. (Konrad Nering); validation, K.N. (Krzysztof Nering) and K.N. (Konrad Nering); formal analysis, K.N. (Krzysztof Nering) and K.N. (Konrad Nering); investigation, K.N. (Krzysztof Nering) and K.N. (Konrad Nering); resources, K.N. (Krzysztof Nering) and K.N. (Konrad Nering); data curation, K.N. (Krzysztof Nering) and K.N. (Konrad Nering); writing—original draft preparation, K.N. (Krzysztof Nering) and K.N. (Konrad Nering); writing—review and editing, K.N. (Krzysztof Nering) and K.N. (Konrad Nering); visualization, K.N. (Krzysztof Nering) and K.N. (Konrad Nering); supervision, K.N. (Krzysztof Nering) and K.N. (Konrad Nering); project administration, K.N. (Krzysztof Nering) and K.N. (Konrad Nering); funding acquisition, K.N. (Krzysztof Nering) and K.N. (Krzysztof Nering). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The article was written based on the authors’ knowledge gained through work on the Vibroacoustic Testing Line PM&VL 7.3 “Vibro-acoustic comfort subjected to noise and vibrations—connectors influence” in the MEZeroE Measuring Envelope project for products and systems contributing to healthy, nearly zero-energy buildings, which received funding from EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under subsidy No. 953157.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Liu, S.; Jia, L.; Zhang, F.; Wang, R.; Liu, X.; Zou, L.; Tang, X. Do New Urbanization Policies Promote Sustainable Urbanization? Evidence from China’s Urban Agglomerations. Land 2024, 13, 412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Abulimiti, A.; Liu, Y.; Yang, L.; Abulikemu, A.; Mamitimin, Y.; Yuan, S.; Enwer, R.; Li, Z.; Abuduaini, A.; Kadier, Z. Urbanization Effect on Changes in Extreme Climate Events in Urumqi, China, from 1976 to 2018. Land 2024, 13, 285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Boanada-Fuchs, A.; Kuffer, M.; Samper, J. A Global Estimate of the Size and Location of Informal Settlements. Urban. Sci. 2024, 8, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ge, S.; Zhan, W.; Wang, S.; Du, H.; Liu, Z.; Wang, C.; Wang, C.; Jiang, S.; Dong, P. Spatiotemporal Heterogeneity in Global Urban Surface Warming. Remote Sens. Environ. 2024, 305, 114081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bian, H.; Gao, J.; Liu, Y.; Yang, D.; Wu, J. China’s Safe and Just Space during 40 Years of Rapid Urbanization and Changing Policies. Landsc. Ecol. 2024, 39, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Turemuratov, O.; Byulegenova, B.; Pogodin, S.; Onuchko, M.; Nurtazina, R. Urbanization Trends in Central Asian Countries: Aspects of Extensive and Intensive Agglomeration Growth. Public Organ. Rev. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chanieabate, M.; He, H.; Guo, C.; Abrahamgeremew, B.; Huang, Y. Examining the Relationship between Transportation Infrastructure, Urbanization Level and Rural-Urban Income Gap in China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mwanzu, A.; Nguyu, W.; Nato, J.; Mwangi, J. Promoting Sustainable Environments through Urban Green Spaces: Insights from Kenya. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Aguilera, M.A.; González, M.G. Urban Infrastructure Expansion and Artificial Light Pollution Degrade Coastal Ecosystems, Increasing Natural-to-Urban Structural Connectivity. Landsc. Urban. Plan. 2023, 229, 104609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dalla Longa, R. Urban Infrastructures. In Urban Infrastructure; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 1–42. [Google Scholar]
  11. Nicoletti, L.; Sirenko, M.; Verma, T. Disadvantaged Communities Have Lower Access to Urban Infrastructure. Environ. Plan. B Urban. Anal. City Sci. 2023, 50, 831–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Logachev, M.; Zhukova, G. Parametric Modeling of Traffic Flows for Predicting Sustainable Development of Urban Areas. BIO Web Conf. 2024, 83, 05002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Martínez-Corral, A.; Cárcel-Carrasco, J.; Fonseca, F.C.; Kannampallil, F.F. Urban–Spatial Analysis of European Historical Railway Stations: Qualitative Assessment of Significant Cases. Buildings 2023, 13, 226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ahac, M.; Ahac, S.; Majstorović, I.; Stepan, Ž. Contribution to Rail System Revitalization, Development, and Integration Projects Evaluation: A Case Study of the Zadar Urban Area. Infrastructures 2024, 9, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Megna, G.; Governi, L.; Carfagni, M.; Borchi, F.; Puggelli, L.; Buonamici, F. State of the Art about Solutions for Tram Noise Reduction in the Framework of the Life SNEAK Project. In Proceedings of the INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, 15–18 May 2023; Volume 265, pp. 6302–6313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Khan, I.; Khattak, K.; Khan, Z.H.; Gulliver, T.A. Impact of Road Pavement Condition on Vehicular Free Flow Speed, Vibration and In-Vehicle Noise. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2023, 3, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Khan, D.; Burdzik, R. Measurement and Analysis of Transport Noise and Vibration: A Review of Techniques, Case Studies, and Future Directions. Measurement 2023, 220, 113354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Liu, Q.; Xu, L.; Feng, Q. Intelligent Monitoring of Vibration and Structural-Borne Noise Induced by Rail Transit. Intell. Transp. Infrastruct. 2023, 2, liad013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kawecki, J.; Kowalska, A. Analysis of Vibration Influence on People in Buildings in Standards Approach. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2011, 148, 355–366. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kowalska-Koczwara, A. Influence of Location of Measurement Point on Evaluation of Human Perception of Vibration. J. Meas. Eng. 2019, 7, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nering, K.; Kowalska-Koczwara, A.; Stypuła, K. Annoyance Based Vibro-Acoustic Comfort Evaluation of as Summation of Stimuli Annoyance in the Context of Human Exposure to Noise and Vibration in Buildings. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fedorczak-Cisak, M.; Kowalska-Koczwara, A.; Nering, K.; Pachla, F.; Radziszewska-Zielina, E.; Śladowski, G.; Tatara, T.; Ziarko, B. Evaluation of the Criteria for Selecting Proposed Variants of Utility Functions in the Adaptation of Historic Regional Architecture. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Güneralp, B.; Reba, M.; Hales, B.U.; Wentz, E.A.; Seto, K.C. Trends in Urban Land Expansion, Density, and Land Transitions from 1970 to 2010: A Global Synthesis. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 044015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chakraborty, S.; Maity, I.; Dadashpoor, H.; Novotnẏ, J.; Banerji, S. Building in or out? Examining Urban Expansion Patterns and Land Use Efficiency across the Global Sample of 466 Cities with Million+ Inhabitants. Habitat. Int. 2022, 120, 102503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Amen, M.A.; Afara, A.; Nia, H.A. Exploring the Link between Street Layout Centrality and Walkability for Sustainable Tourism in Historical Urban Areas. Urban. Sci. 2023, 7, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. McDonald, R.I.; Aronson, M.F.J.; Beatley, T.; Beller, E.; Bazo, M.; Grossinger, R.; Jessup, K.; Mansur, A.V.; Puppim de Oliveira, J.A.; Panlasigui, S.; et al. Denser and Greener Cities: Green Interventions to Achieve Both Urban Density and Nature. People Nat. 2023, 5, 84–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. He, X.; Yu, Y.; Jiang, S. City Centrality, Population Density and Energy Efficiency. Energy Econ. 2023, 117, 106436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Goda, T.; Stewart, C.; Torres García, A. Absolute Income Inequality and Rising House Prices. Socioecon. Rev. 2021, 18, 941–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kettunen, H.; Ruonavaara, H. Rent Regulation in 21st Century Europe. Comparative Perspectives. Hous. Stud. 2021, 36, 1446–1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Manting, D.; Kleinepier, T.; Lennartz, C. Housing Trajectories of EU Migrants: Between Quick Emigration and Shared Housing as Temporary and Long-Term Solutions. Hous. Stud. 2024, 39, 1027–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Andargie, M.S.; Touchie, M.; O’Brien, W. Case Study: A Survey of Perceived Noise in Canadian Multi-Unit Residential Buildings to Study Long-Term Implications for Widespread Teleworking. Build. Acoust. 2021, 28, 443–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lee, P.J.; Jeong, J.H. Attitudes towards Outdoor and Neighbour Noise during the COVID-19 Lockdown: A Case Study in London. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 67, 102768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Deaconu, M.; Cican, G.; Cristea, L. Noise Impact Mitigation of Shopping Centres Located near Densely Populated Areas for a Better Quality of Life. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 Relating to the Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise—Declaration by the Commission in the Conciliation Committee on the Directive Relating to the Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002L0049:EN:HTML (accessed on 1 December 2022).
  35. Noise Control Act of 1972, P.L. 92-574, 86 Stat. 1234. Available online: https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/Noise_Control_Act_of_1972.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2022).
  36. ISO 9612:2009; Acoustics—Determination of Occupational Noise Exposure—Engineering Method. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
  37. ISO 2631-1:1997; Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-Body Vibration. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1997.
  38. ISO 16032:2004; Acoustics—Measurement of Sound Pressure Level from Service Equipment in Buildings—Engineering Method. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2004.
  39. ISO 2631-1:1985; Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-Body Vibration Part 1: General Requirements. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1958.
  40. ISO 12354-2:2017; Building Acoustics—Estimation of Acoustic Performance of Buildings from the Performance of Elements—Part 2: Impact Sound Insulation between Rooms. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  41. ISO 12354-1:2017; Building Acoustics—Estimation of Acoustic Performance of Buildings from the Performance of Elements—Part 1: Airborne Sound Insulation between Rooms. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  42. ISO 6897:1984; Guidelines for the Evaluation of the Response of Occupants of Fixed Structures, Especially Buildings and off-Shore Structures, to Low Frequency Horizontal Motion (0.063 to 1 Hz). ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1984.
  43. Howarth, H.V.C.; Griffin, M.J. The Annoyance Caused by Simultaneous Noise and Vibration from Railways. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1991, 89, 2317–2323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Howarth, H.V.C.; Griffin, M.J. The Relative Importance of Noise and Vibration from Railways. Appl. Ergon. 1990, 21, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Öhrström, E.; Skånberg, A.B. A Field Survey on Effects of Exposure to Noise and Vibration from Railway Traffic, Part I: Annoyance and Activity Disturbance Effects. J. Sound. Vib. 1996, 193, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wrótny, M.; Bohatkiewicz, J. Impact of Railway Noise on People Based on Strategic Acoustic Maps. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kowalska-Koczwara, A.; Pachla, F.; Nering, K. Environmental Protection Against Noise and Vibration. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 1203, 032026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. EN 29052-1:2011/ISO 9052-1; Acoustics—Determination of Dynamic Stiffness—Part 1: Materials Used under Floating Floors in Dwellings. Available online: https://Standards.Iteh.Ai/Catalog/Standards/Cen/04a2dad0-Ff01-4409-B2d4-6d6d62feb5c7/En-29052-1-1992 (accessed on 1 December 2022).
  49. Kumar, D.; Alam, M.; Zou, P.X.W.; Sanjayan, J.G.; Memon, R.A. Comparative Analysis of Building Insulation Material Properties and Performance. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 131, 110038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. He, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Yao, Y.; He, Y.; Sheng, X. Review on the Prediction and Control of Structural Vibration and Noise in Buildings Caused by Rail Transit. Buildings 2023, 13, 2310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chapain, S.; Aly, A.M. Vibration Attenuation in a High-Rise Hybrid-Timber Building: A Comparative Study. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jang, E.-S. Sound Absorbing Properties of Selected Green Material—A Review. Forests 2023, 14, 1366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kang, C.-W.; Jang, S.-S.; Hashitsume, K.; Kolya, H. Estimation of Impact Sound Reduction by Wood Flooring Installation in a Wooden Building in Korea. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 64, 105708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Butorina, M.; Kuklin, D.; Drozdova, L. Application of Soundproof Planning to Reduce Noise in Residential Building. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 666, 042006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sahana, S.; Karthigayini, S. Design Strategies to Reduce the Impact of Visual and Noise Pollution in Urban Areas. Asian Rev. Environ. Earth Sci. 2020, 7, 67–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ouakka, S.; Verlinden, O.; Kouroussis, G. Railway Ground Vibration and Mitigation Measures: Benchmarking of Best Practices. Railw. Eng. Sci. 2022, 30, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. He, W.; Zou, C.; Pang, Y.; Wang, X. Environmental Noise and Vibration Characteristics of Rubber-Spring Floating Slab Track. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 13671–13689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Deng, S.; Ren, J.; Zhang, K.; Xiao, Y.; Liu, J.; Du, W.; Ye, W.-L. Performance of Floating Slab Track with Rubber Vibration Isolator. Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 2024, 24, 2450065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Malmborg, J.; Flodén, O.; Persson, P.; Persson, K. Numerical Study on Train-Induced Vibrations: A Comparison of Timber and Concrete Buildings. Structures 2024, 62, 106215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ming, X.; Zheng, J.; Wang, L.; Zhao, C.; Wang, P.; Yao, L. A Case Study of Excessive Vibrations inside Buildings Due to an Underground Railway: Experimental Tests and Theoretical Analysis. J. Cent. South. Univ. 2022, 29, 313–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. López-Mendoza, D.; Connolly, D.P.; Romero, A.; Kouroussis, G.; Galvín, P. A Transfer Function Method to Predict Building Vibration and Its Application to Railway Defects. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 232, 117217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. He, C.; Zhou, S.; Guo, P. An Efficient Three-Dimensional Method for the Prediction of Building Vibrations from Underground Railway Networks. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2020, 139, 106269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hao, Y.; Qi, H.; Liu, S.; Nian, V.; Zhang, Z. Study of Noise and Vibration Impacts to Buildings Due to Urban Rail Transit and Mitigation Measures. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zheng, J.; Li, X.; Zhang, X.; Bi, R.; Qiu, X. Structure-Borne Noise of Fully Enclosed Sound Barriers Composed of Engineered Cementitious Composites on High-Speed Railway Bridges. Appl. Acoust. 2022, 192, 108705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sadeghi, J.; Vasheghani, M. Safety of Buildings against Train Induced Structure Borne Noise. Build. Environ. 2021, 197, 107784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sadeghi, J.; Vasheghani, M.; Khajehdezfuly, A. Propagation of Structure-Borne Noise in Building Adjacent to Subway Lines. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 401, 132765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Nering, K. Perception of Structure-Borne Sound in Buildings in Context of Vibration Comfort of Human in the Buildings. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 960, 022033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wang, S.; Su, D.; Zhu, S.; Zhang, Q. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Raised Flooring Products. In Sustainable Product Development; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 293–310. [Google Scholar]
  69. Kudryavtsev, M. Experimental Evaluation of the Seismic Resistance of the Raised Floor Structure; AIP Publishing: Long Island, NY, USA, 2023; p. 060007. [Google Scholar]
  70. Wang, J.; Du, B. Sound Insulation Performance of Foam Rubber Damping Pad and Polyurethane Foam Board in Floating Floors. Exp. Tech. 2023, 47, 839–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Scoczynski Ribeiro, R.; Henneberg, F.; Catai, R.; Arnela, M.; Avelar, M.; Amarilla, R.S.D.; Wille, V. Assessing Impact Sound Insulation in Floating Floors Assembled from Construction and Demolition Waste. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 416, 135196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Crispin, C.; Dijckmans, A.; Wuyts, D.; Prato, A.; Rizza, P.; Schiavi, A. Analytical Prediction of Floating Floors Impact Sound Insulation Including Thickness-Resonance Wave Effects. Appl. Acoust. 2023, 208, 109380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Schoenwald, S.; Vallely, S. Cross Laminated Timber Elements with Functional Grading and Localised Ballast to Improve Airborne and Impact Sound Insulation. In Proceedings of the 10th Convention of the European Acoustics Association Forum Acusticum 2023, Turin, Italy, 17 January 2024; European Acoustics Association: Turin, Italy; pp. 1529–1534. [Google Scholar]
  74. Nilsson, E.; Ménard, S.; Bard, D.; Hagberg, K. Effects of Building Height on the Sound Transmission in Cross-Laminated Timber Buildings—Airborne Sound Insulation. Build. Environ. 2023, 229, 109985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Mateus, D.; Pereira, A. The Strong Influence of Small Construction Errors on Sound Insulation of Buildings with Heavyweight Concrete Structure: A Portuguese Case Study. Build. Acoust. 2023, 30, 227–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Fedorczak-Cisak, M.; Kowalska-Koczwara, A.; Nering, K.; Pachla, F.; Radziszewska-Zielina, E.; Stecz, P.; Tatara, T.; Jeleński, T. Measurement and Diagnosis of Comfort in a Historic Building. Energies 2022, 15, 8963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Papadakis, N.; Katsaprakakis, D.A.l. A Review of Energy Efficiency Interventions in Public Buildings. Energies 2023, 16, 6329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Amanowicz, Ł.; Ratajczak, K.; Dudkiewicz, E. Recent Advancements in Ventilation Systems Used to Decrease Energy Consumption in Buildings—Literature Review. Energies 2023, 16, 1853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Tognon, G.; Marigo, M.; De Carli, M.; Zarrella, A. Mechanical, Natural and Hybrid Ventilation Systems in Different Building Types: Energy and Indoor Air Quality Analysis. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 76, 107060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Abramkina, D. Noise from Mechanical Ventilation Systems in Residential Buildings. In E3S Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2023; Volume 457, p. 02007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Zekic, S.; Gomez-Agustina, L.; Aygun, H.; Chaer, I. Experimental Acoustic Testing of Alternative Ventilation Ducts. In Proceedings of the INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, 15–18 May 2023; Volume 265, pp. 2785–2792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Nering, K.; Kowalska-Koczwara, A.; Shymanska, A.; Pawluś, M. The Possibility of Providing Acoustic Comfort in Hotel Rooms as an Element of Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Nalls, L.; Daroux, P. Case Study: Effect of Mechanical Short-Circuiting of Isolation Pads on Rooftop Equipment Noise and Vibration Transfer to Spaces Below. In Proceedings of the INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, 15–18 May 2023; Volume 266, pp. 234–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Mak, C.M.; Ma, K.W.; Wong, H.M. Prediction and Control of Noise and Vibration from Ventilation Systems; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2023; ISBN 9781003201168. [Google Scholar]
  85. Ruggieri, S.; Vukobratović, V. The Influence of Torsion on Acceleration Demands in Low-Rise RC Buildings. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2024, 22, 2433–2468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Pečnik, J.G.; Gavrić, I.; Sebera, V.; Kržan, M.; Kwiecień, A.; Zając, B.; Azinović, B. Mechanical Performance of Timber Connections Made of Thick Flexible Polyurethane Adhesives. Eng. Struct. 2021, 247, 113125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Rousakis, T.; Papadouli, E.; Sapalidis, A.; Vanian, V.; Ilki, A.; Halici, O.F.; Kwiecień, A.; Zając, B.; Hojdys, Ł.; Krajewski, P.; et al. Flexible Joints between RC Frames and Masonry Infill for Improved Seismic Performance—Shake Table Tests. In Brick and Block Masonry—From Historical to Sustainable Masonry; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020; pp. 499–507. [Google Scholar]
  88. Pessiki, S. Sustainable Seismic Design. Procedia Eng. 2017, 171, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Chaudhari, D.J.; Dhoot, G.O. Performance Based Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Building. Open J. Civil Eng. 2016, 06, 188–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Sullivan, T.J.; Welch, D.P.; Calvi, G.M. Simplified Seismic Performance Assessment and Implications for Seismic Design. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2014, 13, 95–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zhang, L. Vibration and Noise Reduction for Building Floor Structures Based on New Composite Material Vibration Isolation Pads. Mater. Express 2023, 13, 1944–1953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Luo, W.; Liang, Q.; Zhou, Y.; Lu, Z.; Li, J.; He, Z. A Novel Three-Dimensional Isolation Bearing for Buildings Subject to Metro- and Earthquake-Induced Vibrations: Laboratory Test and Application. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 86, 108798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Wu, D.; Tesfamariam, S.; Xiong, Y. FRP-Laminated Rubber Isolator: Theoretical Study and Shake Table Test on Isolated Building. J. Earthq. Eng. 2023, 27, 1302–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Li, Z.; Ma, M.; Liu, K.; Jiang, B. Performance of Rubber-Concrete Composite Periodic Barriers Applied in Attenuating Ground Vibrations Induced by Metro Trains. Eng. Struct. 2023, 285, 116027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Wang, T.; Jiang, B.; Sun, X. Train-Induced Vibration Prediction and Control of a Metro Depot and Over-Track Buildings. Buildings 2023, 13, 1995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Chiaro, G.; Palermo, A.; Banasiak, L.; Tasalloti, A.; Granello, G.; Hernandez, E. Seismic Response of Low-Rise Buildings with Eco-Rubber Geotechnical Seismic Isolation (ERGSI) Foundation System: Numerical Investigation. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2023, 21, 3797–3821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Major, M.; Adamczyk, I.; Kalinowski, J. An Innovative Absorption Propagation System Hollow Block Made of Concrete Modified with Styrene–Butadiene Rubber and Polyethylene Terephthalate Flakes to Reduce the Propagation of Mechanical Vibrations in Walls. Materials 2023, 16, 5028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Abate, G.; Fiamingo, A.; Massimino, M.R.; Pitilakis, D.; Anastasiadis, A.; Vratsikidis, A.; Kapouniaris, A. Gravel-Rubber Mixtures as Geotechnical Seismic Isolation Systems underneath Structures: Large-Scale Tests vs FEM Modelling. In Geosynthetics: Leading the Way to a Resilient Planet; CRC Press: London, UK, 2023; pp. 1170–1176. [Google Scholar]
  99. Zhao, Z.; Jiang, H.; Li, X.; Su, X.; Wu, X.; Zhang, X.; Zou, M. Study on the Effect of Different Polysiloxane Surfactants on the Properties of Polyurethane Microcellular Eelastomers. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Energy Materials and Electrical Engineering (ICEMEE 2023), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 8–10 June 2023; Zhou, J., Aris, I.B., Eds.; SPIE: Pontoise, France, 2024; p. 151. [Google Scholar]
  100. Nering, K.; Kowalska-Koczwara, A. Determination of Vibroacoustic Parameters of Polyurethane Mats for Residential Building Purposes. Polymers 2022, 14, 314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. He, H.; Liu, Y.; Li, Y.; Shi, D.; Chen, Y.; Fan, H. Sandwich Meta-Panels for Vibration and Explosion Attenuation: Manufacturing, Testing, and Analyzing. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2023, 177, 104588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Huang, X.; Zeng, Z.; Li, Z.; Luo, X.; Yin, H.; Wang, W. Experimental Study on Vibration Characteristics of the Floating Slab with Under-Slab Polyurethane Mats Considering Fatigue Loading Effect. Eng. Struct. 2023, 276, 115322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Frescura, A.; Lee, P.J.; Schöpfer, F.; Schanda, U. Correlations between Standardised and Real Impact Sound Sources in Lightweight Wooden Structures. Appl. Acoust. 2021, 173, 107690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Nurzyński, J.; Nowotny, Ł. Acoustic Performance of Floors Made of Composite Panels. Materials 2023, 16, 2128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Nowotny, Ł.; Nurzyński, J. The Influence of Insulating Layers on the Acoustic Performance of Lightweight Frame Floors Intended for Use in Residential Buildings. Energies 2020, 13, 1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Kim, J.-H.; Park, H.-G.; Han, H.-K.; Mun, D.-H. Dynamic Properties of Floating Floor System and Its Influence on Heavy-Weight Impact Sound in Residential Buildings. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2021, 150, 1251–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Adžić, S.; Radičević, B.; Bjelić, M.; Šimunović, D.; Marašević, M.; Stojić, N. Measuring the Insulating Power from the Sound Impact of the Floor Covering of Pressed Expanded Polystyrene. J. Prod. Eng. 2023, 26, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Xu, G.; Guo, T.; Li, A.; Zhang, H.; Wang, K.; Xu, J.; Dang, L. Seismic Resilience Enhancement for Building Structures: A Comprehensive Review and Outlook. Structures 2024, 59, 105738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Hu, X.; Zhao, Z.; Barredo, E.; Dai, K.; Tang, Y.; Hong, N. Nonlinear Viscous Damping-Based Negative Stiffness Isolation System for Over-Track Complex Structures. J. Earthq. Eng. 2024, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Wang, Y.; He, Z.; Wang, K.; Li, P.; Yun, J. Research on the Damping Performance of a Sleeper Damping Track with Elastic Side-Supporting Pad. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 420, 135648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Cruz, C.; Miranda, E. Damping Ratios of the First Mode for the Seismic Analysis of Buildings. J. Struct. Eng. 2021, 147, 04020300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Tulebekova, S.; Malo, K.A.; Rønnquist, A.; Nåvik, P. Modeling Stiffness of Connections and Non-Structural Elements for Dynamic Response of Taller Glulam Timber Frame Buildings. Eng. Struct. 2022, 261, 114209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Mantakas, A.G.; Kapasakalis, K.A.; Alvertos, A.E.; Antoniadis, I.A.; Sapountzakis, E.J. A Negative Stiffness Dynamic Base Absorber for Seismic Retrofitting of Residential Buildings. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2022, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Giresini, L.; Taddei, F.; Solarino, F.; Mueller, G.; Croce, P. Influence of Stiffness and Damping Parameters of Passive Seismic Control Devices in One-Sided Rocking of Masonry Walls. J. Struct. Eng. 2022, 148, 04021257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Nering, K.; Nering, K. A Low-Stress Method for Determining Static and Dynamic Material Parameters for Vibration Isolation with the Use of VMQ Silicone. Materials 2023, 16, 2960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Nering, K. Damping Problem of Numerical Simulation of Structural Reverberation Time. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 960, 042083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Papagiannopoulos, G.A.; Hatzigeorgiou, G.D. On the Use of the Half-Power Bandwidth Method to Estimate Damping in Building Structures. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2011, 31, 1075–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Wu, B. A Correction of the Half-Power Bandwidth Method for Estimating Damping. Arch. Appl. Mech. 2015, 85, 315–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Yu, D.-H.; Li, G.; Li, H.-N. Implementation of Rayleigh Damping for Local Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis Based on a Matrix Perturbation Approach. J. Struct. Eng. 2021, 147, 04021130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Yılmaz, İ.; Arslan, E.; Kızıltaş, E.Ç.; Çavdar, K. Development of a Prediction Method of Rayleigh Damping Coefficients for Free Layer Damping Coatings through Machine Learning Algorithms. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2020, 166, 105237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Sánchez Iglesias, F.; Fernández López, A. Rayleigh Damping Parameters Estimation Using Hammer Impact Tests. Mech. Syst. Signal Process 2020, 135, 106391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Wu, H.-Y.; Rubinstein, M.; Shih, E.; Guttag, J.; Durand, F.; Freeman, W. Eulerian Video Magnification for Revealing Subtle Changes in the World. ACM Trans. Graph. 2012, 31, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Qiu, Q. Automated Defect Detection in FRP-Bonded Structures by Eulerian Video Magnification and Adaptive Background Mixture Model. Autom. Constr. 2020, 116, 103244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Materials 17 03042 g001
Figure 1. Samples used for research in this article. Tested materials are rubber granulate (S), rubber granulate with rubber fibers (F), and rebound polyurethane (P).
Figure 1. Samples used for research in this article. Tested materials are rubber granulate (S), rubber granulate with rubber fibers (F), and rebound polyurethane (P).
Materials 17 03042 g001
Materials 17 03042 g002
Figure 2. Physical model of the mass–damper–spring system with single degree of freedom (SDOF).
Figure 2. Physical model of the mass–damper–spring system with single degree of freedom (SDOF).
Materials 17 03042 g002
Materials 17 03042 g003
Figure 3. Schematic presentation of the half-power bandwidth method using the displacement spectrum. Xr—displacement amplitude, fr—resonant frequency, and f1 and f2—correspond to frequencies to 0.7 value of resonance amplitude.
Figure 3. Schematic presentation of the half-power bandwidth method using the displacement spectrum. Xr—displacement amplitude, fr—resonant frequency, and f1 and f2—correspond to frequencies to 0.7 value of resonance amplitude.
Materials 17 03042 g003
Materials 17 03042 g004
Figure 4. Dynamic stiffness test bench with loaded sample. One square in photograph is one centimeter.
Figure 4. Dynamic stiffness test bench with loaded sample. One square in photograph is one centimeter.
Materials 17 03042 g004
Materials 17 03042 g005
Figure 5. Pseudo-displacement response spectrum of sample P150 (288 kg/m3) with resonant frequency of 35.2 Hz and critical damping factor 0.0645.
Figure 5. Pseudo-displacement response spectrum of sample P150 (288 kg/m3) with resonant frequency of 35.2 Hz and critical damping factor 0.0645.
Materials 17 03042 g005
Materials 17 03042 g006
Figure 6. Test bench for ball-tracking experiment.
Figure 6. Test bench for ball-tracking experiment.
Materials 17 03042 g006
Materials 17 03042 g007
Figure 7. Test bench diagram.
Figure 7. Test bench diagram.
Materials 17 03042 g007
Materials 17 03042 g008
Figure 8. Examples of ball-tracking results for the P150 sample with a density of 288 kg/m3. (a) shows full motion of the ball, and (b) shows magnification in ball drop area.
Figure 8. Examples of ball-tracking results for the P150 sample with a density of 288 kg/m3. (a) shows full motion of the ball, and (b) shows magnification in ball drop area.
Materials 17 03042 g008
Materials 17 03042 g009
Figure 9. Comparison of different models of dynamic stiffness and relative indentation relationship. (a) model Power1 val(x) = a·xb, where a = 7.834, b = −0.4115, and R2 = 0.5435 and (b) model Linear val(x) = p1·x + p2, where p1 = −899.6, p2 = 61.65, and R2 = 0.8587.
Figure 9. Comparison of different models of dynamic stiffness and relative indentation relationship. (a) model Power1 val(x) = a·xb, where a = 7.834, b = −0.4115, and R2 = 0.5435 and (b) model Linear val(x) = p1·x + p2, where p1 = −899.6, p2 = 61.65, and R2 = 0.8587.
Materials 17 03042 g009
Materials 17 03042 g010
Figure 10. Comparison of different models of dynamic stiffness and relative indentation relationship with exclusion of S1000 (relative indentation < 0.01). (a) model Power1 val(x) = a·xb, where a = 2.000, b = −0.777, and R2 = 0.8381 and (b) model Linear val(x) = p1·x + p2, where p1 = −1036, p2 = 66.95, and R2 = 0.9468.
Figure 10. Comparison of different models of dynamic stiffness and relative indentation relationship with exclusion of S1000 (relative indentation < 0.01). (a) model Power1 val(x) = a·xb, where a = 2.000, b = −0.777, and R2 = 0.8381 and (b) model Linear val(x) = p1·x + p2, where p1 = −1036, p2 = 66.95, and R2 = 0.9468.
Materials 17 03042 g010
Materials 17 03042 g011
Figure 11. Comparison of different models of critical damping factor and first relative rebound relationship. (a) model Logarithmic val(x) = a·log10(x), where a = −0.2492 and R2 = 0.7654 and (b) model Linear val(x) = p1·x + p2, where p1 = −0.3325, p2 = 0.2368, and R2 = 0.8149.
Figure 11. Comparison of different models of critical damping factor and first relative rebound relationship. (a) model Logarithmic val(x) = a·log10(x), where a = −0.2492 and R2 = 0.7654 and (b) model Linear val(x) = p1·x + p2, where p1 = −0.3325, p2 = 0.2368, and R2 = 0.8149.
Materials 17 03042 g011
Materials 17 03042 g012
Figure 12. Comparison of different models of critical damping factor and first and second relative rebound (averaged) relationship. (a) model Logarithmic val(x) = a·log10(x), where a = −0.2568 and R2 = 0.7809 and (b) model Linear val(x) = p1·x + p2, where p1 = −0.3143, p2 = 0.2321, and R2 = 0.8123.
Figure 12. Comparison of different models of critical damping factor and first and second relative rebound (averaged) relationship. (a) model Logarithmic val(x) = a·log10(x), where a = −0.2568 and R2 = 0.7809 and (b) model Linear val(x) = p1·x + p2, where p1 = −0.3143, p2 = 0.2321, and R2 = 0.8123.
Materials 17 03042 g012
Materials 17 03042 g013
Figure 13. Models of Power2 (val(x) = a·xb + c) describing relationship between (a) dynamic stiffness and density where a = −1.422 × 106, b = −2.105, c = 49.53, and R2 = 0.8842 and (b) critical damping factor and density where a = 2.201 × 10−15, b = 4.433, c = 0.07053, and R2 = 0.6301.
Figure 13. Models of Power2 (val(x) = a·xb + c) describing relationship between (a) dynamic stiffness and density where a = −1.422 × 106, b = −2.105, c = 49.53, and R2 = 0.8842 and (b) critical damping factor and density where a = 2.201 × 10−15, b = 4.433, c = 0.07053, and R2 = 0.6301.
Materials 17 03042 g013
Materials 17 03042 g014
Figure 14. The fraction Critical damping factor/Dynamic stiffness as a function of density described with the usage of Exp2 model (val(x) = a·exp(b·x) + c·exp(d·x)), a = 0.04442, b = −0.01349, c = 0.0005713, d = 0.001433, and R2 = 0.9460.
Figure 14. The fraction Critical damping factor/Dynamic stiffness as a function of density described with the usage of Exp2 model (val(x) = a·exp(b·x) + c·exp(d·x)), a = 0.04442, b = −0.01349, c = 0.0005713, d = 0.001433, and R2 = 0.9460.
Materials 17 03042 g014
Materials 17 03042 g015
Figure 15. Rayleigh damping model (val(x) = 1/2·(a·x + b/x)), where a = 0.001935, b = 2.273, and R2 = 0.2385.
Figure 15. Rayleigh damping model (val(x) = 1/2·(a·x + b/x)), where a = 0.001935, b = 2.273, and R2 = 0.2385.
Materials 17 03042 g015
Materials 17 03042 g016
Figure 16. Rayleigh-ish damping model based on dynamic stiffness instead of resonant frequency (val(x) = 1/2·(a·x + b/x)), where a = 0.003327, b = 1.029, and R2 = 0.3730.
Figure 16. Rayleigh-ish damping model based on dynamic stiffness instead of resonant frequency (val(x) = 1/2·(a·x + b/x)), where a = 0.003327, b = 1.029, and R2 = 0.3730.
Materials 17 03042 g016
Table 1. List of materials used for research.
Table 1. List of materials used for research.
Material NameSample IDDensity
(kg/m3)		Density Averaged
(kg/m3)
rubber granulate (S1000)S1000_011008.01017.25
S1000_021014.0
S1000_031023.0
S1000_041024.0
rubber granulate (S850)S850_01840.5865.25
S850_02848.0
S850_03870.5
S850_04902.0
rubber granulate with rubber fibers (F570)F570_01606.5622.5
F570_02621.5
F570_03626.0
F570_04636.0
rubber granulate with rubber fibers (F700)F700_01697.5719.5
F700_02709.5
F700_03723.5
F700_04747.5
rebound polyurethane (P150)P150_01142.0146.75
P150_02144.0
P150_03150.0
P150_04151.0
rebound polyurethane (P250)P250_01243.0257.25
P250_02254.0
P250_03262.0
P250_04270.0
Table 2. Parameters of machine used for dynamic stiffness test.
Table 2. Parameters of machine used for dynamic stiffness test.
Device Name/ManufacturerKey FeatureKey Value of Parameters
Dynamic exciter—Brüel & Kjær (Virum, Denmark) Mini-shaker Type 4810Provides sinusoidal forceSine peak max 10 N
Frequency range DC-18 kHz
IEPE accelerometer—MMF (Radebeul, Germany) KS78B.100 Measures acceleration of system responsePeak acceleration 60 g (~600 m/s2)
Linear frequency range (5% deviation)
0.6 Hz–14 kHz
Force sensor—Forsentek (Shenzhen, China) FSSM 50 NMeasures force applied to systemMax force 50 N
Rated output 2.0 mV/V
Hysteresis ± 0.1% R.O. (rated output)
Dynamic stiffness test benchMeasures resonant frequency of sample (200 mm × 200 mm × 50 mm) under load of 8 kgLinear frequency range upper limit
(5% deviation)
20–250 Hz—measured
Table 3. Results showing the critical damping factor, resonant frequency, and dynamic stiffness of the tested samples obtained from the reference method.
Table 3. Results showing the critical damping factor, resonant frequency, and dynamic stiffness of the tested samples obtained from the reference method.
Material NameCDF (−)
(95%CI)		Rf (Hz)
(95%CI)		DS (MN/m3)
(95%CI)
rubber granulate with rubber fibers (F570)0.067573.2842.4
(0.0581, 0.0769)(69.24, 77.31)(37.9, 47)
rubber granulate with rubber fibers (F700)0.067477.6147.6
(0.064, 0.0709)(74.32, 80.9)(43.6, 51.6)
rebound polyurethane (P150)0.069135.510.0
(0.0501, 0.0881)(33.8, 37.2)(9.0, 10.9)
rebound polyurethane (P250)0.080569.9738.7
(0.0699, 0.0911)(64.93, 75.02)(33.1, 44.3)
rubber granulate (S1000)0.112776.3146.1
(0.1023, 0.1231)(70.18, 82.43)(38.7, 53.4)
rubber granulate (S850)0.112384.3956.3
(0.0962, 0.1284)(78.88, 89.89)(49, 63.6)
Table 4. Results showing relative bounce height values obtained from ball tracking.
Table 4. Results showing relative bounce height values obtained from ball tracking.
1st Peak/Start
(95%CI)		2nd/1st Peak
(95%CI)		3rd/2nd Peak
(95%CI)		4th/3rd Peak
(95%CI)
rubber granulate with rubber fibers (F570)0.48770.51340.50910.497
(0.4703, 0.5052)(0.4995, 0.5272)(0.4985, 0.5197)(0.4845, 0.5095)
rubber granulate with rubber fibers (F700)0.51830.55490.55950.5547
(0.5027, 0.5338)(0.5356, 0.5743)(0.5485, 0.5705)(0.5455, 0.564)
rebound polyurethane (P150)0.47640.49730.48190.4455
(0.4625, 0.4903)(0.4893, 0.5053)(0.4623, 0.5014)(0.4271, 0.4639)
rebound polyurethane (P250)0.49350.51990.51580.4981
(0.4871, 0.4999)(0.5103, 0.5295)(0.5063, 0.5253)(0.4845, 0.5116)
rubber granulate (S1000)0.37010.37630.35550.363
(0.3353, 0.405)(0.3366, 0.4159)(0.3299, 0.3812)(0.3131, 0.4128)
rubber granulate (S850)0.39570.41830.41140.3902
(0.3259, 0.4654)(0.3648, 0.4718)(0.3703, 0.4525)(0.329, 0.4513)
Table 5. Results showing relative indentation values obtained from tracking the ball’s path.
Table 5. Results showing relative indentation values obtained from tracking the ball’s path.
1st Ind. */Start
(95%CI)		2nd/1st Ind.
(95%CI)		3rd/2nd Ind.
(95%CI)		4th/3rd Ind.
(95%CI)
rubber granulate with rubber fibers (F570)0.02010.02810.03730.0451
(0.0187, 0.0215)(0.0257, 0.0304)(0.0335, 0.0412)(0.0406, 0.0496)
rubber granulate with rubber fibers (F700)0.01770.02630.03230.0382
(0.0167, 0.0187)(0.0223, 0.0303)(0.0241, 0.0404)(0.027, 0.0494)
rebound polyurethane (P150)0.05470.08250.11320.1375
(0.0505, 0.0589)(0.0778, 0.0872)(0.1002, 0.1263)(0.1218, 0.1533)
rebound polyurethane (P250)0.02930.04150.05470.0675
(0.0252, 0.0335)(0.036, 0.0469)(0.0453, 0.064)(0.0567, 0.0782)
rubber granulate (S1000)0.00840.01720.02690.0348
(0.0064, 0.0104)(0.0136, 0.0208)(0.0205, 0.0333)(0.0229, 0.0467)
rubber granulate (S850)0.0130.02450.03780.0479
(0.0108, 0.0152)(0.0161, 0.0329)(0.0249, 0.0507)(0.0324, 0.0634)
* Ind. means indentation.
Table 6. Initial goodness of fit results for val(x) = p1·x + p2 function, where x is relative indentation and val(x) is dynamic stiffness.
Table 6. Initial goodness of fit results for val(x) = p1·x + p2 function, where x is relative indentation and val(x) is dynamic stiffness.
1st Ind./Start2nd/1st Ind.3rd/2nd Ind.4th/3rd Ind.5th/4th Ind.
SSE747.6245788.0932911.2817969.55231059.64
R20.8586810.8510320.8277460.8167320.799703
RMSE5.8294885.9851836.4359846.6385666.940134
Table 7. Initial goodness of fit results for val(x) = p1·x + p2 function, where x is relative rebound and y is critical damping factor.
Table 7. Initial goodness of fit results for val(x) = p1·x + p2 function, where x is relative rebound and y is critical damping factor.
1st Peak/Start2nd/1st Peak3rd/2nd Peak4th/3rd Peak
SSE0.0019820.0021380.0026460.003137
R20.8149220.8004110.7529470.707063
RMSE0.0094920.0098570.0109670.011942
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nering, K.; Nering, K. Alternative Method for Determination of Vibroacoustic Material Parameters for Building Applications. Materials 2024, 17, 3042. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17123042

AMA Style

Nering K, Nering K. Alternative Method for Determination of Vibroacoustic Material Parameters for Building Applications. Materials. 2024; 17(12):3042. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17123042

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nering, Krzysztof, and Konrad Nering. 2024. "Alternative Method for Determination of Vibroacoustic Material Parameters for Building Applications" Materials 17, no. 12: 3042. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17123042

APA Style

Nering, K., & Nering, K. (2024). Alternative Method for Determination of Vibroacoustic Material Parameters for Building Applications. Materials, 17(12), 3042. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17123042

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop