Applied Acoustics 67 (2006) 918925 www.elsevier.

com/locate/apacoust

Technical note

Sound insulation of double frame partitions with an internal gypsum board layer
Antonio Uris *, Jose Maria Bravo, Vicente Gomez-Lozano, Patricio Ramirez, Jaime Llinares
Departamento de Fsica Aplicada, Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Camino de Vera, s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain Received 9 November 2004; received in revised form 18 November 2005; accepted 24 November 2005 Available online 17 January 2006

Abstract To avoid the undesirable eects of a faulty sealing of outlet boxes, it is common to insert a gypsum board layer in the middle of a double frame partition. In this paper, measured sound reduction index data for double frame partitions, with and without a gypsum board layer insert, are presented. The results obtained show that the sound insulation decreases at low frequencies due to the presence of the internal layer. The weighted sound reduction index, which is strongly aected by the low frequency sound insulation, decreases by 78 dB. Since these degradations are greater than those resulting from small gaps in partitions, it can be concluded that the insertion of a gypsum board layer in the middle of a double frame partition is not a suitable solution to the undesirable eects of faulty sealing of outlet boxes. 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Sound reduction index; Gypsum board; Lightweight partitions

1. Introduction The use of lightweight partitions as party walls between dwellings has become common because sound insulation requirements can be achieved with low overall surface weights. These partitions can be built by using a single frame partition assembly or, when high
*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 9 6387 7528; fax: +34 9 6387 9525. E-mail address: auris@s.upv.es (A. Uris).

0003-682X/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2005.11.006

A. Uris et al. / Applied Acoustics 67 (2006) 918925

919

sound insulation is required, by using a double frame partition assembly. Choosing a suitable combination of gypsum board layers, air cavity and sound absorbing material thickness, double frame partitions with a wide variety of high weighted sound reduction indices can be achieved. The sound insulation of lightweight partitions is highly sensitive to air leakage, and therefore the assemblies of these partitions must be as airtight as possible. Sometimes, the presence of electrical, telephone and other outlet boxes in party walls is unavoidable. These penetrations can cause a signicant degradation in sound insulation if a perfect sealing is not achieved. Nightingale and Quirt [1] presented a systematic study of the eect of electrical outlet boxes on sound insulation of cavity walls. Their results show that the degradation of sound insulation depends on a number of factors including the airtightness, the separation between boxes, the presence of cavity absorption and the method of installation. In the worst of the cases studied, the degradation on the STC index was in the range of 56 points (equivalent to 56 dB according to european standards). Inserting a gypsum board layer in the middle of a double frame partition, making it a triple leaf partition, is a common method used to prevent the undesirable eects of a faulty sealing of outlet boxes. Some authors have studied the sound insulation of triple partitions, but most of the previous work refer to triple-glazed windows [26]. In this paper, the inuence on sound reduction index of inserting a gypsum board layer in the middle of a double frame partition is studied. It will be also shown that the position, where the gypsum board is inserted strongly aects the sound reduction index of the whole partition. The experimental results are discussed in terms of available semi-empirical procedures [7]. 2. Test specimens Two double frame partitions and three triple leaf partitions were tested. Fig. 1 shows a schematic representation of the partitions considered. Double frame partition DF(2 + 1)

DF(2+1)

SF(1+1)_SF(1)

DF(2+2)

SF(2+1)_SF(1)

SF(1+1)_SF(2)

Fig. 1. Schematic plan section of the partitions tested.

920

A. Uris et al. / Applied Acoustics 67 (2006) 918925

had two layers of gypsum board on one side of two separate 50 50 mm steel frames, and on the other side a single layer of gypsum board. Each frame was tted with 50 mm thick mineral wool and the frames were separated by an air gap of 100 mm. Double frame partition DF(2 + 2) had two layers of gypsum board on each side of two separate 50 50 mm steel frames, with each frame tted with 50 mm thick mineral wool, and with an air gap of 100 mm between frames. Triple leaf partition SF(1 + 1)_SF(1) had two 50 50 mm steel frames separated by an air gap of 100 mm. One frame had a single layer of gypsum board on both inner and outer sides, and the other frame had one layer of gypsum board on outer side. Each frame was tted with 50 mm thick mineral wool. Triple leaf partition SF(2 + 1)_SF(1) had two 50 50 mm steel frames separated by an air gap of 100 mm. One frame had two layers of gypsum board on outer side and one layer of gypsum board on inner side, and the other frame had one layer of gypsum board on outer side. Each frame was tted with 50 mm thick mineral wool. The last triple leaf partition considered, identied as SF(1 + 1)_SF(2), had two 50 50 mm steel frames separated by an air gap of 100 mm. One frame had a single layer of gypsum board on both inner and outer sides, and the other frame had two layers of gypsum board on outer side. Each frame was tted with 50 mm thick mineral wool. For each of the frames built, the header and footer tracks were attached to the oor and ceiling of the test opening. To seal any possible leaks at the perimeter of the frames, an acrylic sealant was used. All gypsum panel joints were taped and plaster nished. Vertical channel studs were inserted in a regular manner at a distance of 600 mm. All layers of gypsum board were attached with screws spaced 600 mm centres. The gypsum boards dimensions were 3 1.2 0.0125 m, with a mass per unit area of 9.5 kg/m2. The properties of the rockwool used were as follows: bulk density = 50 kg/ m3, ow resistivity = 12,600 N s/m4, and porosity = 0.97. Table 1 shows the surface weights and the thicknesses of the partitions tested. Test specimens were installed between the adjoining source and receiver chambers of the Building Acoustics Laboratory at the Polytechnic University of Valencia in Spain. Walls, ceiling, and oor of each chamber were concrete. The dimensions of the source chamber were 4.4 m deep by 3.8 m wide by 3 m high with an internal volume of approximately 50 m3. The receiver chamber was larger, with internal dimensions of 5.1 m deep by 3.8 m wide by 3 m high with an internal volume of approximately 58 m3. Each chamber was equipped with sound-diuser panels. The sound elds were considered to be suciently diuse down to a frequency of 100 Hz. The sound insulation of the chambers walls limits the measured sound reduction indices to 8085 dB. Wall test specimens occupied the entire 3.8 m wide by 3 m high opening in the walls of the source and receiver chambers. Measurements were carried out using the ISO 140-3 standard [8].
Table 1 Surface weight and thickness of the partitions tested Partition DF(2 + 1) SF(1 + 1)_SF(1) DF(2 + 2) SF(2 + 1)_SF(1) SF(1 + 1)_SF(2) Surface weight (kg/m2) 33.5 33.5 43 43 43 Thickness (mm) 238 225 250 238 238

A. Uris et al. / Applied Acoustics 67 (2006) 918925

921

3. Results and discussion Fig. 2 shows the measured sound reduction indices for partitions DF(2 + 1) and SF(1 + 1)_SF(1). It is found that the sound reduction indices of the partition with the gypsum board layers on the outer faces, DF(2 + 1), are higher than those of the partition with an internal layer of gypsum board, SF(1 + 1)_SF(1), for frequencies between 100 and 200 Hz. On the contrary, for frequencies above 200 Hz, the sound reduction indices of partition SF(1 + 1)_SF(1) are higher than those of partition DF(2 + 1). Fig. 3 shows the measured sound reduction indices for partitions DF(2 + 2), SF(2 + 1)_SF(1) and SF(1 + 1)_SF(2). Again, the results obtained show that the sound reduction indices of the partition with the gypsum board layers on the outer faces, DF(2 + 2), are higher than those of the partitions with internal layer of gypsum board, SF(2 + 1)_SF(1) and SF(1 + 1)_SF(2), for frequencies between 100 and 200 Hz. Due to the limitations of the test chambers mentioned above, the performance at frequencies around the critical one should be higher than that measured. Table 2 shows the measured weighted sound reduction indices of the partitions tested. It is seen that a gypsum board layer insert causes a decrease on weighted sound reduction index by 78 dB, mainly due to the detrimental eect at low frequencies. The sound reduction indices of all the partitions have been calculated following Sharps procedure [7]. Fig. 4 shows the calculated sound reduction indices for partitions DF(2 + 1) and SF(1 + 1)_SF(1). Both partitions have a surface weight of 33.5 kg/m2. It is seen that for frequencies at and below 200 Hz the sound reduction indices of the partition with the gypsum board layers on the outer faces, DF(2 + 1), are higher than those of the partition with internal layer of gypsum board, SF(1 + 1)_SF(1). For frequencies above 200 Hz, the sound reduction indices of the partition with internal layer of gypsum board are slightly higher. Fig. 5 shows the calculated sound reduction indices for partitions DF(2 + 2),
90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000
SF(1+1)_SF(1) DF(2+1)

Sound Reduction Index (dB)

1/3-Octave Band Center Frequency(Hz)

Fig. 2. Measured sound reduction index for transmission through partitions DF(2 + 1) and SF(1 + 1)_SF(1).

922
90 85 80 75

A. Uris et al. / Applied Acoustics 67 (2006) 918925

Sound Reduction Index (dB)

70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000
SF(1+1)_SF(2) SF(2+1)_SF(1) DF(2+2)

1/3-Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 3. Measured sound reduction index for transmission through partitions DF(2 + 2), SF(2 + 1)_SF(1) and SF(1 + 1)_SF(2).

Table 2 Weighted sound reduction indices (Rw) and natural frequencies (f0) of the partitions tested Partition DF(2 + 1) SF(1 + 1)_SF(1) DF(2 + 2) SF(2 + 1)_SF(1) SF(1 + 1)_SF(2) Rw (dB), measured 57 50 63 55 55 f0 (Hz), theoretical 82 74 67 72 175 58 158 174 Rw (dB), calculated 56 49 62 53 52

SF(2 + 1)_SF(1) and SF(1 + 1)_SF(2). All these partitions have a surface weight of 43 kg/ m2. It is also seen that for frequencies at and below 200 Hz the sound reduction indices of the partition without internal layer of gypsum board, DF(2 + 2), are higher than those of the partitions with internal layer of gypsum board. For frequencies above 200 Hz, there are no signicant dierences on the sound reduction index of the partitions considered. At frequencies below the mass-spring-mass resonance frequency, a double leaf partition behaves like a single leaf partition having a mass equal to the sum of the masses of the leaves [7]. The mass-air-mass resonance frequency, f0, of a double leaf partition is s 1 1:8qc2 m1 m2 ; 1 f0 2p m1 m2 d where q is the density of air, c is the speed of sound in air, m1 and m2 are the leaves surface weights and d is the thickness of the cavity separating the leaves. The empirical constant 1.8 is introduced into Eq. (1) in order to account for the presence of sound absorbing material [9].

A. Uris et al. / Applied Acoustics 67 (2006) 918925

90 85 80 75 70

923

Sound Reduction Index (dB)

65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 100 125 160 200 250 31 5 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000
SF(1+1)_SF(1) DF(2+1)

1/3-Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 4. Calculated sound reduction index for transmission through partitions DF(2 + 1) and SF(1 + 1)_SF(1).

90 85 80 75

Sound Reduction Index (dB)

70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000
SF(1+1)_SF(2) SF(2+1)_SF(1) DF(2+2)

1/3-Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 5. Calculated sound reduction index for transmission through partitions DF(2 + 2), SF(2 + 1)_SF(1) and SF(1 + 1)_SF(2).

A triple leaf partition acts as a mass-spring-mass-spring-mass system and there are two resonance frequencies that can be obtained by solving the following equation [6]
m1 m2 m3 x4 k 1 m3 m1 m2 k 2 m1 m2 m3 x2 k 1 k 2 m1 m2 m3 0; 2

924

A. Uris et al. / Applied Acoustics 67 (2006) 918925

where k1 = 1.8qc2/d1 and k2 = 1.8qc2/d2, d1 and d2 are the thicknesses of the cavities separating the leaves, and m1, m2 and m3 are the leaves surface weights. The resonance frequencies of the two double leaf partition tested are around 60 Hz while for the triple leaf partitions tested the rst resonance frequencies are around 70 Hz, but the second resonance frequencies are around 170 Hz, as shown in Table 2. Thus, at low frequencies (at and below second resonance frequency) the triple leaf partitions tested behave like a single leaf partition having a mass equal to the sum of the masses of the single leaves, and their sound reduction indices are lower than those corresponding to the double leaf partitions. On the contrary, for frequencies above the mass-air-mass resonance frequency, each frame of the partition acts almost independently, and the sound reduction index of the whole partition is dictated by the sound reduction index of the elements in each frame. Since the sound reduction index of the system gypsum boardmineral woolgypsum board is higher than that of gypsum boardgypsum board mineral wool, the sound reduction index of partition SF(1 + 1)_SF(1) is higher than that of partition DF(2 + 1) in the mid frequency range (see Fig. 2). This argument can be extended to partitions DF(2 + 2), SF(2 + 1)_SF(1) and SF(1 + 1)_SF(2) in Fig. 3. Table 2 also shows the calculated weighted sound reduction indices of the partitions tested. It is seen that a gypsum board layer inserted in the middle of the double frame partition causes a decrease on weighted sound reduction index by 79 dB, due to the weighted sound reduction index is strongly aected by the low frequency sound insulation; it mainly controlled by the 100200 Hz bands. 4. Conclusions The results of this paper have shown that inserting a gypsum board layer in the middle of a double frame partition decreases the sound reduction index for frequencies at and below the resonance frequency (around 170 Hz), because the internal layer reduces the depth of the partition cavity and then the triple leaf partitions behave like a single leaf partition having a mass equal to the sum of the masses of the single leaves. Since the weighted sound reduction index is in most cases controlled by the 100200 Hz bands, the insertion of a gypsum board layer in the middle of the double frame causes a noticeable decrease on the weighted sound reduction index, that can be as high as 78 dB. These degradations are certainly greater than those obtained when the eects of penetrations around electrical outlet boxes are evaluated [1]. Therefore, inserting a gypsum board layer in the middle of a double frame partition is not a suitable solution to the undesirable eects of faulty sealing of outlet boxes. References
[1] Nightingale TRT, Quirt JD. Eect of electrical outlet boxes on sound insulation cavity wall. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;104(1):26674. [2] Utley WA, Mulholland KA. Transmission loss of double and triple walls. Appl Acoust 1968;1:1520. [3] Brekke A. Calculation methods for the transmission loss of single, double and triple partitions. Appl Acoust 1981;14:22540. [4] Quirt JD. Sound transmission through windows II. Double and triple glazing. J Acoust Soc Am 1983;74(2):53442. [5] Vinokur RY. Transmission loss of triple partitions at low frequencies. Appl Acoust 1990;29:1524.

A. Uris et al. / Applied Acoustics 67 (2006) 918925

925

[6] Tadeu A, Mateus D. Sound transmission through single, double and triple glazing. Experimental evaluation. Appl Acoust 2001;62:30725. [7] Sharp BH. Prediction methods for the sound transmission of building elements. Noise Control Eng J 1978;11(2):5363. [8] ISO 140-3. Acoustics measurement of sound insulation in buildings and of building elements Part 3: laboratory measurements of airborne sound insulation of building elements. Geneve; 1995. [9] Sharp BH. A study of techniques to increase the sound insulation of building elements. Wi ley Laboratories Report WR 73-S, Prepared for Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC, Under Contract H-1095; 1973.