Effects of Wall-to-Wall Supported Ceilings on Impact Sound Insulation for Use in Residential Buildings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, the paper could beof some interest but some major revisions are nedeed.

line 38-43 some paramount literature is missing. Accordingly the most effiencient way to reduce impact noise is the foating floor. Just one discussed reference is not a comprehensive introduction. Please add and discuss some paramount works like
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2020.107339
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.176
10.3390/ma9070592
scopus code 2-s2.0-85066635334

Lines 66-83
Same comment as before
doi.org/10.3390/app11135938
doi.org/10.1121/1.1908488
http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/3163

line 132 what is a structural shape?

line 134 why is it vulnerable to floor impact sound?

lines 156-159 Which is the longer distance you can cover with this technology? indeed after some meters (6? 7? 8?) I think it could not be used...

Lines 182 - 187 why did you selected such rooms? are there motivations? or just the fact that they were the only available?

table 1: why did you choose such resilient layers? is this the only one? or...?

Section 2.3 Please, this is an international journal. The Korean standard are not known in the scientific community. Please describe the used mothods!
How the SNQ was aquired? which reference curve? Please describe both for tapping machine and especially for the rubber ball. Include and example of the procedure

Figure 8 and lines 273-289 I see that in the case of floating floor the ceiling does not reduce further the noise, significantly. This is also comfirmed by hdoi.org/10.3390/app11135938 Please discuss

Lines 297-315. This was already stated in 10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.05.015. A suggestion. Use this reference to boost your results and confirm them...

 

Figure 8-9-10-11: 1/3 octave bands instead of 1/1 results could be more interesting.

Do you think in the case of the susended ceiling coupled with floating floor, the dynamic stiffness of the materials could have some influece? a note on this micht be useful for the reader

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is of a high standard and is worth to be published. However, I recommend editing the language and improving all the figures. 

 It will be good if the authors can reduce the introduction part to make the paper easier to folw. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

My comments are mainly about the Tables.

I believe the paper would really benefit from better explanation of the symbol rows at Table 1. 

I am not exactly sure about the caption of Table 2. Is that really a polyester material?

I believe "Sound absorption coefficients of porous material" would be more appropriate. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Congratulations on your great article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, thank you very much, all comments have been addressed.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors did the required editing and correction and I recommend accepting the paper with its form.