In the "rst part of this paper the prediction models for both structural and leak transmission of doors were presented [1]. In this second part, results are presented for tested models comprising nine steel passage doors and nine timber passage doors. The results are presented in a form of two practical case studies. All measurements were made by the two-microphone sound intensity method. The structural SRI of a door was determined when the door was properly tape-sealed. The predicted structural R U was on an average 1)0$1)5 dB higher than measured R U of tape-sealed doors, the range of variation being !1 2 #3 dB (N"13). The average di!erence between the predicted and the measured SRI increased gradually with frequency from !3 up to #12 dB. The best structural solutions were those where two rigid panels formed a double panel without interpanel connections. The interpanel cavity was "lled with sound-absorbing material which does not form rigid interpanel connections. Structures with previous descriptions were found to give 8}10 dB better values of R U than structures comprising strong interpanel connections with the same mass. Gomperts' model for slit-shaped apertures predicted reasonably well the frequency behaviour of slit transmission when no seals were present (open apertures). When the door seams were sealed with rubber seals, the slits behaved in a more complex way probably because of the irregular shape of the slit. The total SRI of the door was calculated by the area-weighted sum of the predicted structural transmission and the predicted slit transmission. Approximating the slit transmission coe$cient by Gomperts' model and predicting the structural transmission by Sharp's model produced a good overall prediction accuracy for the total SRI of the doors throughout the frequency range of interest. 2000 Academic Press 1. MEASUREMENT METHODS **, rs0 ts0 pb0 24 dB; *; * , rs0 ts2 pb0 42 dB; *᭝* , rs2 ts0 pb0 44 dB; , rs0 ts0 pb1 29 dB; *)* , rs2 ts0 pb1 45 dB; , rs0 ts1 pb0 35 dB; , rs1 ts0 pb0 43 dB;