I

Vienna University of Technology

Department of Spatial Development, Infrastructure and Environmental Planning
Centre of Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy
In co-operation with Hon.-Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Judith Lang

SOUND INSULATION IN HOUSING

CONSTRUCTION
Results of an investigation commissioned by
SAINT-GOBAIN ISOVER

Project team
Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr. Wilfried Schnbck (Project leader)
Hon.-Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Judith Lang
Project Ass. Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Roger Pierrard
http://www.ifip.tuwien.ac.at/

Vienna, July 2006

II

Vienna University of Technology

Centre of Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy
Department of Spatial Development, Infrastructure and Environmental Planning
Resselgasse 5/2/2, A-1040 Vienna, Austria
Tel.: ++43/1/58801-26701 (Secretary)
Fax: ++43/1/58801-26799
E-Mail: ifip@tuwien.ac.at
Web: www.ifip.tuwien.ac.at
Judith Lang
A-1090 Wien, Latschkagasse 4
Tel.: ++43 1-317 53 94
Email: judith.lang@aon.at

Synopsis
The compilation of results obtained from environmental surveys in different European countries
shows that the second most frequent source of noise pollution are one's neighbours, after road
traffic noise which causes the majority of noise complaints.
In Austria, for instance, a survey conducted every 3 years as part of the microcensus found out
that neighbourhood noise - after traffic noise - was the second most frequently indicated cause
of strong to very strong noise disturbance until the mid-1980s. As a result of improved sound
insulation in housing construction and the strict observance of standard requirements in
subsidized housing construction, neighbourly noise is now perceived to be at nearly the same
level as industrial noise. It is, however, slightly exceeded by "other sources of noise" (e.g.
leisure facilities). In 2003, 7.7 % of the respondents who felt strongly or even extremely
disturbed by noise claimed neighbourhood noise was the cause of the disturbance.
In Germany it was deduced from an inquiry about the experienced noise annoyance that 17.3 %
are annoyed moderately, strongly or extremely by noise from the neighbours.
In the U.K. in 1999/2000, a National Survey of Attitudes to Environmental Noise was performed
with a detailed questionnaire. 84 % reported hearing road traffic noise, 81 % hearing noise from
their neighbours or other people nearby, 58 % hearing the neighbours inside their homes; 40 %
reported being annoyed or bothered by road traffic noise, 37 % by the noise of the neighbours
or other people nearby.
In France in 2004 41.2 % of the households felt disturbed by noise, 23.3 % by traffic noise and
19.6 % by neighbours.
In the Netherlands an investigation found that sound originating from the neighbouring flat can
be heard in about 75 % of apartments, and heard every day in 40 %. In about 1/3 of all
households this sound is found to be annoying, and for 13 % very annoying.
In a study in panel-block-buildings in Lithuania, Slovakia and Eastern Germany it was found that
in the investigated buildings 65 %, 40 % und 36 % respectively complained of noise, the
primary source of which was noise from neighbours (talking, music, DIY activities and TV).
As a result of a representative opinion poll among the population of Switzerland on the
perception of and affectedness by noise, the following results were sampled. In response to a
general question on the importance of the noise problem from a general point of view
(Switzerland as a whole) and for the individual in particular, a ranking was made on a scale
from 1 to 6 (1 = does not affect at all, 6 = strongly affects). According to the poll, road-traffic
noise ranked highest with 4.2 (general view) and 3 (personal view) among the respondents.
Neighbourhood noise ranked distinctly lower with 2.5 and 2 respectively. People dissatisfied
with their homes assess the environmental impact of neighbourhood noise in Switzerland
clearly higher (3.1) than those satisfied with their homes (2.4).
The survey of the sound insulation requirements for residential housing in European countries
conducted by Rasmussen shows that different quantities are used to define the requirements
(apparent sound reduction index, normalized sound level difference, standardized sound level
difference with or without spectrum adaptation term for different frequency ranges, normalized
impact sound pressure level, standardized impact sound pressure level with or without
spectrum adaptation term for different frequency ranges) and the differences in the
requirements in the various countries are very great up to 10 dB (a difference of 10 dB means
about double loudness of the noise).

II

A calculation to prove which sound levels are caused in the neighbouring flat with different
sound insulation by different activities (conversation between 6 people with normal loudness
and animated conversation with laughter, and music played with a single instrument or with 6
instruments) shows that the sound insulation required in the existing standards does not make
the neighbours activities inaudible at all.
In several European countries, therefore, classes for enhanced sound insulation besides the
minimum requirements dictated by building regulations have been defined in the last few years;
these are based mainly on the standardized sound level difference plus spectrum adaptation
term DnT,w+C (also written DnT,A ); in many cases the importance of the low frequency range
(C50-3150) is pointed out and partly especially in the higher sound insulation classes used in
the requirements. In several countries specifications of the classes are given in the form of how
many persons feel annoyed by the neighbours noise and how many are satisfied with the
sound insulation.
The impact sound insulation is mainly described by the normalized impact sound pressure level,
partly with the spectrum adaptation term CI, whereby especially for the higher classes the
low frequency range is also considered by CI,50-2500. Several specifications exist on the
correlation of subjective satisfaction and required impact sound insulation.
Requirements for airborne and impact sound insulation within a flat (or a single-family house)
exist only in some countries and only for the higher sound insulation classes.
In all considered countries sound insulation is planned on the basis of EN 12354-1 and -2; in
many countries, calculation programmes exist for the determination of the sound insulation in
the planning state and data have been published as a basis for the planning. Measurements of
the sound insulation in the finished building are partly scheduled for the classification
(ascertaining the acoustic class of a building or a space).
The development of sound insulation in housing construction in Austria is described in detail.
Based on calculations of the audibility of living activities on the one hand and on sound
insulation classes in different countries on the other, the following requirements for airborne
and impact sound insulation for 4 sound insulation classes are proposed.
Class
Music
Comfort
Airborne sound insulation
68
between flats
63
(C50-3150)
DnT,w +C (dB)
Airborne sound insulation
between the rooms within a flat
(without doors), also incl. one 48
48
family houses
DnT,w +C (dB)
Impact sound insulation
between flats
40
40
***)
LnT,w + CI,50-2500 (dB)
Impact sound insulation within a
flat, also incl. one-family houses
45
45
***)
LnT,w + CI,50-2500 (dB)
*) minimum requirements for terraced houses
**) if requested
***) for a transitional period LnT,w + CI, values decreased by 2 dB

Enhanced
58

45

*)

Standard
54

40

**)

45

50

50

55

Based on the results of measurements and calculations of the sound insulation in a number of
massive residential buildings in 2 Austrian provinces (Bundeslndern), it is shown that the
standard requirements are exceeded and partly far exceeded in a considerable percentage of
cases; the measures which can improve the sound insulation are also shown.
To investigate the sound insulation in wooden constructions, an example is shown of a multifamily house in Austria; furthermore, a comprehensive collection of data on the sound insulation

III
(and heat insulation) of wooden constructions available on the internet is referred to. The
influence of different details is shown by means of a series of wooden wall and floor
constructions from a German investigation. Two investigations from the Netherlands about
improvements in sound insulation in massive buildings and wooden constructions are dealt with
briefly.
Various studies have put the expenses incurred by improved sound insulation at between 1
and 7% of total construction costs.
Calculations for a sample of massive constructions in the federal provinces of Upper Austria
and Styria produced no significant correlation between the standard of sound insulation
achieved and total construction costs. From this it can be deduced that other features have a far
greater impact on construction costs than improved sound insulation, a result which is
supported by other studies. At the end of the day, this represents an important argument in
favour of achieving better levels of sound insulation in new constructions, as it is common
knowledge that the subsequent removal of shortcomings caused by insufficient standards of
sound insulation is only possible at enormous cost, if at all.
With regard to a small sample of lightweight wooden constructions in Styria, some with sound
insulation levels in accordance with the requirements of NORM and others with better but
unspecified sound insulation in comparison with NORM, no generally valid trend regarding the
impact of achieved sound insulation on total construction costs could be deduced. However, it
may be assumed that in particular as far as lightweight wooden buildings are concerned, the
effect of improved sound insulation on total building costs is far greater than with massive
constructions.
As far as externalities from neighbourhood noise are concerned, research is thin on the ground
in comparison with other types of environmental noise, such as road, rail and air traffic noise.
Currently only a small number of studies have been carried out which in some cases show a
significant willingness to pay in order to escape disturbance from neighbourhood noise or to
achieve an improved level of sound insulation in this respect. Investigations from an economic
perspective, in particular cost-benefit analyses of this problem, have not been performed, and
there is thus a great need for further research in this area.
However, the effects of annoyance from neighbourhood noise appear thus far to have been
underestimated in comparison with other sources. A more recent study argues that annoyance
from neighbourhood noise can manifest itself in the form of increased risk of illness, and goes
on to show that the negative impacts of neighbourhood noise on health cannot be differentiated
from those of traffic noise.

IV

List of contents
1 Significance of different sources of noise annoyance in residential buildings in Austria and
selected European countries...................................................................................................... 1
2 Sound insulation requirements for residential buildings........................................................... 7
2.1 Which units are used to describe sound insulation and which minimum requirements
must be fulfilled in the European countries? ........................................................................... 7
2.1.1 Airborne sound insulation........................................................................................... 7
2.1.2 Impact sound insulation............................................................................................ 11
2.2 Which requirements can ensure sufficient protection against noise annoyance caused
by neighbours activities in multi-family dwellings? Which proposals have been made? ....... 13
2.2.1 Protection against airborne sound transmission ....................................................... 13
2.2.2 Protection against impact sound ............................................................................. 24
2.3 How can the fulfilment of the requirements be ensured .................................................. 31
2.4 Sound insulation in Austrian dwellings............................................................................ 37
3 Suggested sound insulation classes for residential buildings ................................................ 44
4 Structural measures for improving the sound insulation in newly built residential houses...... 47
4.1 Residential buildings in massive construction ................................................................. 47
4.2 Lightweight construction of residential buildings (wooden structures) ............................. 63
5 The costs of improved sound insulation ................................................................................ 72
5.1 Proportion of building costs in overall construction costs ................................................ 72
5.2 Total net costs and sound insulation in massive residential constructions in Upper
Austria and Styria ................................................................................................................. 76
5.3 Total net construction costs and sound insulation in lightweight wooden residential
buildings in Styria ................................................................................................................. 80
6 Current thinking on the measurement of the effects of disturbance caused by noise and its
reduction .................................................................................................................................. 82
6.1 Effects of noise on health ............................................................................................... 83
6.2 Social effects of noise..................................................................................................... 84
6.3 Economic effects of noise the external costs of noise .................................................. 84
6.4 Economic effect of neighbourhood noise ........................................................................ 88
6.5 Proposals for further research ........................................................................................ 91
Literature .............................................................................................................................. 92
Standards............................................................................................................................. 96

List of figures
Figure 1: Annoyance by noise in communities with different numbers of inhabitants.................. 2
Figure 2: Sources of strong and very strong annoyance ............................................................ 2
Figure 3: Spectrum adaptation terms for walls ........................................................................... 9
Figure 4: Third octave band level in the neighbouring room transmitted from the source room
with music or talking 90 dB A-weighted for different sound insulation and
background level........................................................................................................ 15
Figure 5: Comparison of regression fits to average responses versus STC ............................ 23
Figure 6: Global relation between real walking and the normalized impact sound level
(spread zone is indicated by upper and lower line)..................................................... 27
Figure 7: Comparison of the A-weighted sound level for excitation with the rubber ball and
the weighted normalized impact sound level for excitation with the tapping machine
with the equivalent sound level of walking noise ........................................................ 30
Figure 8: Spectrum adaptation terms CI and CI,50-2500 from measurements made on timber
joist floors .................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 9: Difference calculated value measured value for measurements between rooms
side by side................................................................................................................ 33
Figure 10: Difference calculated value measured value for measurements between rooms
one on top of the other............................................................................................... 33
Figure 11: Percentage of people annoyed by noise from different living activities ................... 38
Figure 12: annoyance by noise in Austrian dwellings .............................................................. 40
Figure 13: Results of measurements of airborne and impact sound insulation in residential
buildings in Upper Austria .......................................................................................... 41
Figure 14: Results of sound insulations measurements in subsidized housing (built between
1990 and 1999) in the federal states of Steiermark (Styria) and Obersterreich
(Upper Austria) .......................................................................................................... 43
Figure 15: Sound level inside the building versus sound level in front of the facade with the
sound insulation of the external structure according to NORM B 8115-2................. 46
Figure 16: Sound transmission paths between two rooms ....................................................... 47
Figure 17: Section of the outer wall of bricks with the concrete floor and outside heat
insulation ................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 18: Elastic connection of lightweight massive partition walls with the floor and the
separating wall between flats ..................................................................................... 49
Figure 19: Weighted sound reduction index Rw and weighted standardized sound level
difference DnT,w of outer wall and inner wall when flanking a floor of 535 kg/m2 (bare
floor with grit), with floating floor with resonance frequency < 85 Hz .......................... 62
Figure 20: Example of construction of wall and floor and the relevant connections in a multifamily house in wooden construction.......................................................................... 64
Figure 21: Partition with junction to foundations and floor in the model-project in wooden
construction ............................................................................................................... 70
Figure 22: Partition with junction to the outer wall and the roof in the model project in wooden
construction (SBR 2003) ............................................................................................ 71
Figure 23: Comparison of the standard SIA 181 1988 and 2006 .............................................. 74

VI
Figure 24: Net cost per square metre and sound insulation for rooms above and next to one
another ...................................................................................................................... 78
Figure 25: Net building costs per square metre and the number of residences constructed
Source: IFIP, 2006 (based on the data from Table 37)............................................... 78
Figure 26: Net construction costs per square metre and sound insulation levels of massive
constructions in Styria................................................................................................ 80
Figure 27: Net construction costs per square metre and sound insulation levels of lightweight
wooden constructions in Styria................................................................................... 81
Figure 28: Trend over time of air-traffic noise level (LDN in dB(A)) associated with a constant
proportion of seriously affected individuals of 25%..................................................... 82
Figure 29: External costs because of noise in the EU 15 Member States, in EUR million per
year............................................................................................................................ 85
Figure 30: Overview of the key cost components of economic effects caused by noise ........... 86
Figure 31: Disturbance profile for noise from neighbours activity over a day according to
Grimwood und Ling.................................................................................................... 89

VII

List of tables
Table 1: Noise annoyance in Austrian dwellings...................................................................... 1
Table 2: Noise annoyance from various sound sources in Germany ....................................... 3
Table 3: Perception of the neighbours..................................................................................... 3
Table 4: Proportions of respondents who heard and reported being bothered, annoyed or
disturbed to various extents by general categories of environmental noise ............... 4
Table 5: Annoyance caused by noise in French households ................................................... 5
Table 6: Overview airborne sound insulation requirements in 24 European countries ........... 10
Table 7: Overview impact-sound insulation requirements in 24 European countries.............. 12
Table 8: Sound level in the receiving room for different sound levels in the source room and
different sound insulation ........................................................................................ 14
Table 9: Indicative planning values for the background level in flats in residential buildings
in different land use categories according to NORM B 8115-2.............................. 14
Table 10: Relation between airborne sound insulation in dwellings and the expected
percentage of people finding conditions satisfactory ............................................... 16
Table 11: Meaning of the sound reduction quality for dwellings ............................................. 17
Table 12: Requirements for airborne sound insulation in classes A, B, C, D in DS 490 ......... 17
Table 13: Airborne sound insulation in classes A, B, C, D according to SFS 5907 ................ 19
Table 14: Perception of noise from neighbouring flats assigned to the 3 sound insulation
classes SSt according to VDI 4100 ......................................................................... 19
Table 15: Subjective perception of the airborne sound insulation between rooms depending
on the background level (draft SIA 181) .................................................................. 20
Table 16: standard requirements for airborne sound insulation inside the building DnT,w+CCv according to draft SIA 181................................................................................... 21
Table 17: Relation between impact sound pressure level and the expected percentage of
people finding conditions satisfactory ...................................................................... 25
Table 18: Standard requirements for impact-sound insulation in draft SIA 181...................... 25
Table 19: Subjective perception of impact-sound insulation between rooms ......................... 26
Table 20: Results of laboratory experiment with impact sound and simulated constructions
with different sound insulation below 125 Hz........................................................... 26
Table 21: Requirements for impact-sound insulation in classes A, B, C, D (DS 490)............ 27
Table 22: Proposal for impact-sound insulation requirements in residential buildings in
Poland..................................................................................................................... 28
Table 23: Requirements and recommendations for impact-sound insulation in Norway (NS
8175)....................................................................................................................... 28
Table 24: Requirements for impact-sound insulation in classes A, B, C, D (SFS 5907)......... 29
Table 25: Mean values for the calculated value measured value difference for DnT,w .......... 34
Table 26: Proposed requirements for airborne and impact sound insulation in 4 sound
insulation classes .................................................................................................... 44
Table 27: Requirements for the sound insulation of the faade according to NORM B
8115-2..................................................................................................................... 45

VIII
Table 28: Maximum sound levels in rooms for living caused by a sound source outside the
building ................................................................................................................... 45
Table 29: Sound insulation between adjacent rooms............................................................. 50
Table 30: Sound insulation between rooms one above the other........................................... 55
Table 31: Weighted standardized sound level difference DnT,w required for flanking
elements and examples of their fulfilment................................................................ 63
Table 32: Sound insulation between adjacent flats in dwellings in wooden construction........ 66
Table 33: Sound insulation between flats one above the other in dwellings in wooden
construction............................................................................................................. 68
Table 34: Sound insulation requirements in accordance with the sound insulation levels laid
out in VDI 4100 ....................................................................................................... 75
Table 35: Differences in sound-insulation costs for sound insulation level II and III
compared with sound insulation level I in accordance with VDI 4100, with
reference to total construction costs in % ................................................................ 75
Table 36: Building costs index 2000 ...................................................................................... 76
Table 37: Sound insulation for rooms above and next to one another and costs per square
metre....................................................................................................................... 77
Table 38: Maximum difference in sound insulation versus the range of cost per square
metre....................................................................................................................... 77
Table 39: Net construction costs per square metre for massive constructions in Styria with
sound insulation levels in line with NORM or higher levels of sound insulation
than laid down in NORM....................................................................................... 79
Table 40: Net construction costs per square metre of lightweight wooden constructions in
Styria which meet the minimum requirements for sound insulation in accordance
with NORM or exceed the sound insulation requirements laid down in NORM .. 81
Table 41: Externalities from road traffic noise as % of GDP in selected European countries . 85
Table 42: Results from Stated Preference studies of road traffic noise; as experienced
inside the dwelling................................................................................................... 87
Table 43: Ranking of sources of noise leading to complaints about neighbours .................... 88
Table 44: Significantly ODDS Ratio (OR) for diseases calculated in the WHO-LARES study 90
Table 45: Monetary Evaluation of Noise Disturbance ............................................................ 91

1 Significance of different sources of noise annoyance in

residential buildings in Austria and selected European

countries

In Austria in 1970-1994, inquiries about the annoyance of people in their dwellings were
performed in 3-year periods within the scope of the microcensus. In the following years the
inquiries were performed at somewhat wider intervals in 1998 and 2003. So there exists a good
overview of the development of annoyance by noise in Austria in the last three decades. Up to
1998 the annoyance could be specified in 3 degrees: very strong, strong and slight. In 2003 the
rating of the annoyance was widened to 4 degrees: very strong, strong, medium and slight. By
inserting the grade medium the share of the other grades was reduced. In Table 1 below, the
results of the inquiries on noise annoyance since 1970 are shown according to the publications
of sterreichisches Statistisches Zentralamt (now Statistik Austria).
Table 1: Noise annoyance in Austrian dwellings

percentage annoyed

1970

1973

1976

1979

1982

1985

1988

1991

1994

1998

2003

in all

49.9

48.9

52.8

40.35

41.4

36.4

37.3

33.5

33.8
*)
35.3

28.4

29.1

slight

26.5

23.0

29.6

20.3

21.5

17.6

18.4

15.6

16.7
*)
17.5

12.5

10.0

medium
strongly

9.8
14.1

15.6

15.1

12.6

12.5

11.7

12.4

11.4

10.9
*)
11.5

10.8

6.2

6.2
5.1
3.2
*)
6.3
*)
Until 1988 the evaluations were performed referring to the households, while the results were evaluated
referring to households until 1994; from 1994 referring to people; for the year 1994 both evaluations are stated:
the upper number refers to households, the lower number to people.
very strongly

9.3

10.3

8.1

7.4

7.4

7.1

6.5

6.5

Source: Lang 2006

Evidently annoyance by noise in Austria has been reduced considerably by the measures which
have been taken especially to protect people against noise from road and rail traffic
The annoyance in small communities is considerably smaller than in towns, as is shown in
Figure 1.
Investigation into the sources of strong and very strong annoyance identified predominantly
traffic noise, with 70 to 80 %; further noise sources as factories, neighbours and others (with
construction sites, leisure time activities, tourist facilities) barely reached 10 %, as shown in
Figure 2.
Thus annoyance overall has been reduced considerably by measures against road traffic noise
and rail traffic noise, but the share of traffic stayed unchanged on the whole.

2
Figure 1: Annoyance by noise in communities with different numbers of inhabitants
70

60

percent annoyed

50

40

30

20

10

0
1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2000

2005

year
<20000inhabitants

20000-250000

Vienna

Austria

Source: Lang, 2006

Figure 2: Sources of strong and very strong annoyance

percent of strongly and verystrongly annoyed persons name as

cause

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

year
traffic

factories

neighbours

others

Source: Lang, 2006

Annoyance caused by noise from the neighbouring flat was the most frequently cited after traffic
noise in the inquiries in 1978, 1982 and 1985, mainly as a result of the low sound insulation in
the residential buildings constructed after the war. The annoyance from neighbours then
decreased with the introduction of new sound-insulation requirements and their observance for

3
subsidized buildings. In 2003, 7.7 % of strong and very strong annoyance was caused by noise
from the neighbours. 10.4 % of the people annoyed by noise (29.1 % of those interviewed)
cited noise from the neighbouring flat as a cause. From this one can derive that 3 % of the total
population are annoyed by noise from the neighbours. The share is different in Vienna, with
most people living in multi-family houses, and in the provinces, where more people live in
detached houses. So in 2003 12 % of the strongly and very strongly annoyed persons in Vienna
specified the neighbouring flat as a cause, compared to only 4.4 % in communities with up to
20,000 inhabitants and 9.6 % in communities with more than 20,000 inhabitants (except
Vienna). 15.03 % of the total of 35.2 % annoyed individuals in Vienna specified the
neighbouring flat as the noise source; from this it can be seen that in total 5.3 % of all
inhabitants of Vienna are annoyed by noise from the neighbours.
In Germany the Umweltbundesamt (Environmental Protection Agency) orders inquiries at
intervals of two years, where apart from the level of satisfaction with environmental policy, the
degree of the environmental awareness of the population, including the experienced annoyance
by noise is determined. The evaluations of the inquiry in 2004 (Ortscheid et al., 2006) produce
the following data (Table 2).
Table 2: Noise annoyance from various sound sources in Germany
sound source
not at all
somewhat
medium
strongly
extremely

percent annoyed by noise from

rail traffic
industry and
trade

road traffic

air traffic

neighbours

total

40.1

67.6

79.8

80.9

57.3

37.8

29.6

20.0

12.0

11.6

25.4

35.4

20.3

7.8

5.4

5.5

11.3

18.7

6.1

3.3

2.0

1.6

4.0

6.1

3.9

1.3

0.8

0.4

2.0

2.0

Source: Ortscheid et al., 2006, translation by Lang

Road traffic noise is evidently also the most annoying noise source in Germany; the second
frequently specified source is neighbourly noise.
There was also a question related to the quality of the acoustical sound insulation, which asked
about the extent to which the neighbours are perceptible through partitions and floors. The
results of this question are shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Perception of the neighbours
perception of the neighbours

very good
good
mediocre
somewhat
not at all
no neighbours

percent of all interviewed

percent of those which have

neighbours

4.3

5.6

8.0

10.4

12.4

16.0

26.7

34.5

25.9

33.5

22.8

--

Source: Ortscheid et al., 2006, translation by Lang

Evidently 2/3 of those interviewed who have direct neighbours perceive noise from their
neighbours living activities, and 16% well or very well. This points to the fact that the sound
insulation installed in the existing dwellings does not sufficiently protect the occupants against
being heard by their neighbours and against hearing their neighbours. When comparing the
results of the inquiries in 2004 and 2002 one can see that the share of those highly annoyed by
road traffic (7 percent points) and by air traffic, rail traffic and industry (1-2 percent points)
decreased. In contrast no decrease in the number of people highly annoyed by the neighbours
can be noticed.

4
When comparing at the end of 2002 the results of the inquiries from 1960 to 1988 and the
inquiries carried out by the Umweltbundesamt between 1984 and 1994, it was found that no
decrease in noise annoyance over time can be derived (Ortscheid, 2003).
In the United Kingdom BRE undertook a National Survey of Attitudes to Environmental Noise
1999/2000 with a detailed questionnaire (BRE, 2002). The key findings are: 18 % of
respondents reported noise as one of the top five from a list of environmental problems that
personally affected them. This placed it ninth in the list of 12 environmental problems.
69 % of respondents reported general satisfaction with their noise environment (i.e. liking the
amount (or absence) of noise around them at home to some extent (rated according to top 3
categories on a 7 point scale from definitely dont like to definitely do like).
84 % of respondents reported hearing noise from road traffic.
81 % of respondents reported hearing noise from neighbours and/or other people nearby.
71 % of respondents reported hearing noise from aircraft.
49 % of respondents reported hearing noise from building, construction, demolition, renovation
or road works.
40 % of respondents reported being bothered, annoyed or disturbed to some extent (a little,
moderately, very or extremely) by road traffic noise.
37 % of respondents reported being bothered, annoyed or disturbed to some extent by noise
from neighbours and/or other people nearby.
20 % of respondents reported being bothered, annoyed or disturbed to some extent by noise
from aircraft.
15 % of respondents reported being bothered, annoyed or disturbed to some extent by noise
from building, construction, demolition, renovation or road works.
21 % of respondents reported that noise spoilt their home life to some extent (a little, quite a lot,
or totally)
The grade of annoyance caused by the different sources is shown in Table 4. It gives the
answers to the question: When you are at home, to what extent are you personally bothered,
annoyed or disturbed by noise from.? Not at all A little Moderately Very Extremely.
Table 4: Proportions of respondents who heard and reported being bothered, annoyed or
disturbed to various extents by general categories of environmental noise
noise category
(n = 2876)

Road traffic
Neighbours (inside their
homes)
Neighbours (outside their
homes)
Other people nearby
Neighbours and/or other
people nearby (combined
category)
Aircraft/airports/airfields
Building, construction,
demolition, renovation or
road works
Trains or railway stations
Sports events
Other entertainment or
leisure
Community buildings
Forestry, farming or
agriculture
Factories or works
Other commercial premises
Sea, river or canal traffic
Any other noise

Source: BRE 2002

hear (%)
84 3

bothered, annoyed or disturbed (%)

to some extent
moderately, very
very or extremely
or extremely
40 3
22 2
81

58 4

18 2

91

41

71 4
68 4

22 2
20 3

10 1
81

41
31

81 3

37 3

19 2

91

71 4

20 4

72

21

49 5

15 2

72

21

36 4
34 4

61
41

21
10

10
00

31 4
30 3

61
41

21
10

10
00

26 4

31

00

00

23 3
23 4
16 3
15 3

41
31
00
41

20
10
00
31

10
10
00
10

5
The annoyance caused by neighbours was further investigated in detail for the single sources,
however not separated for the categories of neighbours; so details on the annoyance from the
neighbouring flat can not be reported.
In France the annoyance caused by traffic noise and by noise from the neighbours from 1998
to 2004 was reported (Le Jeannic et al., 2005). In Table 5 some results from this investigation
are shown.
Table 5: Annoyance caused by noise in French households

% of households often or sometimes disturbed

total
by traffic noise
by neighbourly
noise

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

20.6
22.9

38.9
21.2

39.0
21.2

42.3
22.1

40.4
21.9

40.5
21.6

41.2
23.3

95%
confidence
interval
40.0 : 42.4
22.3 : 24.4

19.0

18.8

18.5

21.3

19.9

19.8

19.6

18.6 : 20.6

Source: Le Jeannic et al., 2005

The table shows that annoyance caused by noise from the neighbours is about as high as that
caused by traffic noise (road, rail and air traffic).
Splitting up according to the population density shows e.g. for the year 2004 the highest
proportion of 29.7 in the most densely populated parts (>3500 inhabitants/m2) and the lowest
proportion of 14.0 in areas with < 70 inhabitants/m2.
A similar differentiation also results for the annoyance caused by noise from the neighbours:
42.8 % of those living in sensitive town quarters (Zone urbain sensible, ZUS) are disturbed by
noise from the neighbours, 24.8 % are disturbed in communities with ZUS in the parts outside
the ZUS and 19.5 % in communities without ZUS (except rural communities) and 8.6 % in the
rural communities.
The importance of annoyance by noise especially in urban areas is also shown in an
investigation on the annoyance by noise in large towns in France (Association des maires de
grandes villes de France, 2003). According to this investigation road traffic noise is important for
54 % and less important for 32 %, while noise from neighbours is important for 75 % and less
important for 14 %.
In the Netherlands studies showed that both the scale and the severity of noise annoyance
from neighbours is substantial and by order of size equates to the annoyance from traffic noise
(van Dongen, 2001). Sounds from neighbouring dwellings can be heard in approximately 75 %
of dwellings in the Netherlands and in 40 % of cases this is a daily event. In approximately 1/3
of all households (=2.2 million) at least some level of annoyance is experienced from these
sounds; in approximately 13 % (=850.000 households) to a severe degree. From a diagram on
annoyance versus sound insulation one can read that with a sound insulation according to Rw +
C = 53 dB 10 % are severely annoyed, 11 % are annoyed and 14 % slightly annoyed. The
grade of annoyance is correlated with the subjective assessment by the residents of the quality
of the sound insulation and with the objective measure for the sound insulation. The main sound
sources causing annoyance are special pop music, having the TV/radio/audio equipment on
loud, slamming doors, walking heavily on the stairs or on floors. An increase in annoyance from
noise from neighbouring dwellings can be expected if sound insulation in relation to the exterior
is improved, but not in relation to adjacent dwellings. Almost all respondents (approximately
95%) said they took the neighbours into account with their own behaviour.
In a study on housing conditions and self-reported health status in panel block buildings in
three cities of Eastern Europe (Bonnefoy, 2003) was found, that noise exposure is associated
with both self-assessed health and mental health and affects a large part of the population. With
65 %, 40 % and 36 % of the respondents in Vilnius, Bratislava and Schwedt-Oder claiming
frequent noise disturbances noise is identified as a priority challenge for housing and health.
The main reason for disturbances was neighbour noise (talking, music, do-it-yourself activities,
TV, etc). The level of self-assessed health status directly depended on the type of building, the

6
sound insulation of the flat (including noise from a neighbouring flat) and other influences. Noise
exposure was found to be one of the most constant factors influencing the perception of health
and well-being in this kind of housing.
In Switzerland a representative poll on the attitude to noise and noise annoyance has been
carried out within the scope of a thesis (Lorenz, 2000). From this one can find data on noise
annoyance in general and the sources. Answering the question of the relative importance of the
noise problem for Switzerland in general and from a personal perspective, road traffic noise was
ranked highest at 4.2 in general and with 3 in personal terms on a scale from 1 to 6 (1 = does
not concern at all, 6 = concerns very strongly). Noise from neighbours was ranked clearly lower
with 2.5 and 2. Persons not satisfied with their home rank the environmental pollution in
Switzerland caused by noise from the neighbours clearly higher (3.1) than those satisfied with
their home (2.4). The personal attitude towards noise from the neighbours is also ranked higher
(3.1) by the persons who are not satisfied with their home than by those satisfied, (1.9).
Evidently there exists a correlation between the problem of noise from the neighbours and
satisfaction with the home. A similar result is also illustrated by the fact that 57 % of people not
satisfied with their home feel disturbed by noise there, compared with only 21 % of those
satisfied. Noise annoyance in the home is also connected with the sound insulation of flats and
houses. 57 % of the respondents (also these not bothered by noise in their home) take the view
that houses and flats should be better isolated against noise. About 53 % and 47 % respectively
would like windows or walls with better insulation against external noise, about 37 % would
prefer better wall insulation against noise inside the property, nearly 25 % identified better
impact-sound insulation of the floors, and 54 % of the population would be prepared to pay a
higher rent for a quieter place of residence.

2 Sound insulation requirements for residential buildings

2.1 Which units are used to describe sound insulation and which
minimum requirements must be fulfilled in the European
countries?
In principle we have to distinguish between the units to describe the sound insulation of a
building element and the units to describe the sound insulation between rooms in a building
(which is determined by several building elements and their combination).
In a building one has to consider the propagation of airborne sound (pressure vibrations in the
air produced by some source of vibration like musical instruments, loudspeakers, people
speaking, etc.), as well as of impact sound (sound created by walking on floors, moving chairs,
dropping of objects, etc.) and sound caused by operating sanitary equipment and its
propagating as airborne and as structure-borne sound (propagating within the building
elements). In the present study only airborne sound and impact sound are covered.
All units are frequency dependent; for decades the frequency range of 100 3150 Hz has
usually been considered; in the last years the frequency range has been enlarged to 50 Hz to
lower frequencies and to 5000 Hz to higher frequencies. To simplify specifying sound insulation
also single number quantities for the different units are calculated and stated.

2.1.1 Airborne sound insulation

The airborne sound insulation of building elements is described by the sound reduction index R
(10 times the common logarithm of the ratio of the sound power which is incident on the
element to the sound power transmitted through the element) versus frequency. It is also called
transmission loss (TL). From the sound reduction index versus frequency, the single number
quantity, the weighted sound reduction index Rw is calculated by comparing the values with a
reference curve according to ISO 717-1.
In a new edition of ISO 717-1 two supplementary spectrum adaptation terms were introduced, C
for pink noise (equal levels over the whole frequency range, representing approximately living
activities like talking, music, radio, TV, and railway traffic at medium and high speed) and Ctr for
noise with predominantly low frequencies (representing approximately urban road traffic, many
factories, disco music and so on). With the sum of Rw and the relevant spectrum adaptation
term (according to the relevant spectrum) the difference of A-weighted levels may be
calculated. The spectrum adaptation terms may be stated for the frequency range 100-3150 Hz
(used for decades) as well as for the enlarged frequency ranges of 50-3150 Hz, 50-5000 Hz or
100-5000 Hz; the relevant frequency range has then to be stated as an index, e.g. C50-5000 or
Ctr,50-5000.
The airborne sound insulation between two rooms is described using different units in different
countries. Following the traditional assumption that the sound is transmitted in the building only
through the separating element, the sound reduction index is also used to describe the sound
insulation between two rooms; to take into account the fact that the sound is generally
transmitted in a building via the separating element and the flanking elements, the sound
reduction index in the building is called the apparent sound reduction index R1. The single
number quantities, weighted apparent sound reduction index Rw, and C and Ctr, are calculated
and stated as described above.

1 pronounced R-dash; the dash indicates that the given sound reduction index is measured in the
building.

8
To clearly differentiate between the sound insulation of a building element and the sound
insulation between two rooms in a building, the sound level difference D between two rooms is
stated. As the sound level in the receiving room is also determined by the sound absorption in
the room (the higher the sound absorption, the lower the sound level), this sound level
difference has to be referred to a standardized absorption; two units are standardized: the
normalized sound level difference Dn, referred to 10m2 of sound absorption area in the receiving
room and the standardized sound level difference DnT, referred to 0.5 seconds of reverberation
time in the receiving room. Numerous measurements have shown that the reverberation time in
living rooms is independent of the volume over 0.5 seconds and therefore the standardized
sound level difference is better in practice at representing the acoustic conditions in rooms2.
The sound insulation perceived by the occupants is best described by the standardized sound
level difference. E.g. in Austria it turned out after an extensive investigation into the sound
insulation in dwellings based on a wide range of measurements (Bruckmayer et al., 1974) that
the apparent sound reduction index is not the appropriate unit and should be substituted by the
sound level difference. After some time using the normalized sound level difference referring to
10 m2 sound absorption area, the reference was changed to 0.5 seconds reverberation time
(though the designation normalized sound level difference was kept up to 1994).
Supplementing apparent sound reduction index, normalized sound level difference and
standardized sound level difference, the spectrum adaptation terms are stated.
In the practice of building acoustics one may draw a clear differentiation to describe acoustic
quality:
The sound insulation of a building element is characterized by the sound reduction index; it can
only be measured in a normalized test facility; the single number stated is the weighted sound
reduction index Rw, and additionally the spectrum adaptation terms C and Ctr.
The sound insulation between two rooms in a building (no matter whether adjacent or one on
top of the other or not directly connected to each other) is characterized by the standardized
sound level difference; the single number stated is the weighted standardized sound level
difference DnT,w, and additionally the spectrum adaptation terms C and Ctr.
Usually RA is written for Rw + C. E.g. in the new regulations concerning acoustic performance
of buildings in Poland, RA1 is written for Rw + C and RA2 for Rw + Ctr (Nurzynski, 2003). In ISO
717-1 these terms are also specified as RA,1 und RA,2. Likewise DnT,A is written for DnT,A,1 =
DnT,w + C and DnT,A,tr for DnT,A,2 = DnT,w + Ctr, as also specified in ISO 717-1.
In the Swiss standard SIA 181, DnT,w + C is called spektralangepasste Pegeldifferenz
(spectrum-adjusted level difference).
The value for C is mostly -1 or -2 dB for massive building elements, for lightweight multilayered
walls it may range down to -12 dB. In buildings where sound usually is transmitted via several
building elements (separating element and flanking elements) partly massive and partly
lightweight (e.g. flexible layers of plaster board in front of massive walls), C may range from -1
to -10 dB. In any case however always DnT,A DnT,w.
The spectrum adaptation terms of all massive and lightweight elements, which are described in
Katalog fr schallschutztechnische Kennwerte von Wnden (ON, 2001), are shown in Figure 3
for 60 massive und 36 lightweight multilayered walls.

2 The sound absorption area A results from the volume V and the reverberation time T by A = 0.16.V/T;
evidently the sound absorption area grows with rising volume while the reverberation time remains
constant independent of volume.

9
Figure 3: Spectrum adaptation terms for walls
a) massive walls
0
C
average -1
-2
Ctr
average -4

C and Ctr dB

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12

-14
30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

55

60

65

70

Rw dB
C

Ctr

b) lightweight multilayered walls

0

-2
C
average -3

C and Ctr dB

-4

-6
Ctr
average -7

-8

-10

-12

-14
30

35

40

45

50
Rw dB
C

Ctr

Source: Lang, 2006

The different quantities described above to prescribe the required sound insulation are used in
the standards and regulations for sound insulation in European countries. As the different
quantities are connected via the volume of the receiving room and the area of the separating
element, the requirements cannot be compared exactly. So e.g. the most used quantities R and
DnT are connected by the following formula:
DnT = R-10.lg(S.0,5/0,16.V) = R 10.lg(3,125.S/V)
where S is the area of the separating element and V the volume of the receiving room3.

A statistical evaluation of 10,000 measurements in residential buildings in Germany showed that on the
average DnT,w Rw + 2,4 dB and for 26 % DnT,w < Rw and in the other 74 % DnT,w > Rw (Burkhart 2005).

10
A standardization of the quantities used to express acoustical requirements is advisable. A
working group EAA TC-RBA WG4 Sound insulation requirements and sound classification
Harmonization of concepts has been established for this purpose (Rasmussen, 2005).
In Table 6 below, an overview is given of the requirements for airborne sound insulation
between flats in European countries (Rasmussen 2004).
Table 6: Overview airborne sound insulation requirements in 24 European countries4

Source: Rasmussen 2004

In Croatia the following minimum requirements are prescribed in the standard JUS U.J6.201
(1989) (Henich, 2006): partitions between flats Rw,min = 52 dB, walls between garage and flat
Rw,min = 57 dB, walls between flats and business premises Rw,min = 55 dB, walls between flats in
terraced houses Rw,min = 52 dB; floors between flats Rw,min = 52 dB, floors above or beneath a
flat towards a room with other use Rw,min = 57 dB, floors between garage and flat Rw,min = 57 dB,
floors between flat and business premises Rw,min = 57 dB.

The quoted literature (11) and (12) see in literature Rasmussen 2004.

11

2.1.2 Impact sound insulation

The impact-sound insulation of floors is described by the normalized impact sound level, i.e.
the sound level which is measured in a test facility in the receiving room beneath the floor,
which is excited by a standardized tapping machine. This sound level refers to 10m2 sound
absorption area in the receiving room. From the sound level measured in third-octave or octave
bands, a single number is calculated according to ISO 717-2, the weighted normalized impact
sound level Ln,w.
In a new edition of ISO717-2 a supplementary spectrum adaptation term CI was defined. This
spectrum adaptation term may be determined for the frequency range of 100-3150 Hz, which
has been used for decades, and also for the enlarged frequency range of 50-3150 Hz or 502500 Hz; the frequency range has to be specified as an index, e.g. CI,50-2500. The sum of Ln,w
and CI characterizes the linear impact sound level and corresponds better to the A-weighted
sound level, produced by walking on the floor.
Floors in residential buildings mostly consist of a bare floor and a floor covering. Single bare
floors do not ensure sufficient impact sound insulation. The required impact sound insulation
can only be achieved with the additional impact sound insulation of a floor covering
It is therefore necessary for the planner to know the impact sound level of the bare floor and the
reduction in impact sound pressure level from the floor covering to calculate the impact sound
level of the entire floor. Single number quantities have been defined for the bare floor and the
floor covering for this purpose: the equivalent weighted normalized impact sound pressure level
Ln,eq,0,w of bare massive floors and the weighted reduction in impact sound pressure level Lw
for the floor covering. The weighted impact sound pressure level of a floor with covering is the
equivalent weighted normalized impact sound pressure level Ln,eq,0,w of the bare massive floor
less the weighted reduction in impact sound pressure level Lw for the floor covering.
For wooden floors it is not possible to use the weighted reduction in impact sound pressure
level Lw. However, a special quantity for the reduction in impact sound pressure level by floor
coverings on wooden floors has been defined in a new edition of ISO 717-2; this has to be
determined separately by measurement on a normalized timber joist floor and stated with the
single number Lt,w for the impact sound pressure level on timber joist floors and Ltv,w for the
impact sound pressure level on vertically laminated wooden floors5. In an investigation the
basis for the determination of these quantities and Lt,w und Ltv,w for a great number of usual
types of floor covering on wooden floors was measured (Lang, 2004). The airborne and impact
sound insulation of a series of timber joist floors with different floor coverings was also
measured in this investigation; furthermore, a connection between impact sound insulation
measured by the tapping machine and given for walking was determined by comparison with
the noise of persons walking on the floors (see Figure 7).
The impact sound insulation of floors in a building is measured with the tapping machine in the
same way as in test facilities. However, the sound level does not refer to 10 m2 sound
absorption area but to the reverberation time of 0.5 seconds (which is usual in living rooms in
practice regardless of their volume) and the result is called the standardized impact sound level
LnT and the single number weighted standardized impact sound level LnT,w .
However, in the standards in several countries, requirements for the impact sound insulation in
buildings are laid down based on the weighted normalized impact sound level Ln,w or on the
weighted standardized impact sound level LnT,w6, in some countries with the additional
adaptation term CI.

5)

The index t was chosen from the English word timber, the additional index v was chosen for the
English word vertically laminated. Ltv,w is not defined in ISO 717-2 but only in the Austrian standard
NORM B8115
6)

To make clear, that the number concerns sound insulation in the building a dash is added.

12
A precise comparison of the different values is not possible as LnT,w and Ln,w are connected via
the volume of the receiving room according to
LnT,w = Ln,w 10.lg 0,032.V That means: in rooms with a volume > 31 m3, LnT,w < Ln,w.
In Table 7 below, a survey of the requirements for impact-sound insulation between flats in
European countries is given.
Table 7: Overview impact-sound insulation requirements in 24 European countries

Source: Rasmussen, 2004

In Croatia the following minimum requirements for the normalized impact sound level are
prescribed in the standard JUS U.J6.201 (1989) (Henich, 2006): floors between flats Lw,maks =
68 dB, floors beneath flats above rooms for other use Lw,maks = 68 dB, floors above flats beneath
rooms for other use Lw,maks = 58 dB, floors beneath flats above garages Lw,maks = 68 dB, floors
above flats beneath a terrace for common use Lw,maks = 63 dB, floors in a noisy works to flats
adjacent or above Lw,maks = 48 dB, floors above a flat beneath a noisy works Lw,maks = 48 dB.
Table 7 shows that the quantities used to define the requirements are different and the
differences in the requirements in the various countries are considerable with a range from
about 50 dB in Austria up to about 60 dB in several other countries (a difference of 10 dB
represents a doubling of the loudness of the walking noise).

13

2.2 Which requirements can ensure sufficient protection against

noise annoyance caused by neighbours activities in multi-family
dwellings? Which proposals have been made?
The noise-producing living activities as well as the claim for protection against disturbing noise
from the occupants of multi-family houses are very different. It will therefore hardly be possible
to make all activities inaudible and to protect persons who are extremely sensitive to noise
against any disturbance. In the chapter on scope in NORM B 8115-2, the following sentence
is essential: In this standard requirements and indicative values for the minimum sound
insulation are defined with the aim to protect people with a normal degree of sensitivity against
disturbing transmission of airborne and impact sound in the case of usual behaviour. In this
NORM, additional requirements for enhanced sound insulation are stated; enhanced sound
insulation is especially recommended for buildings in quiet areas.

2.2.1 Protection against airborne sound transmission

In order to prove which protection against airborne sound (caused by typical activities)
transmitted from the neighbouring flat is given when observing the minimum standard
requirements and when improving the sound insulation, calculations were made on the sound
level produced in the neighbouring flat, assuming different sound sources in the flat and
different levels of sound insulation against noise from the neighbouring flat. The calculated
sound level was then compared with different requirements for quietness.
The following sound levels produced by living activities can be assumed according to NORM
S 5012:
Conversation (with guests, 6 persons in a 75 m3 living room with usual furnishing)
A-weighted equivalent sound level 73 dB talking with normal loudness
78 dB lively conversation with laughter
maximum level 82 dB or 87 dB A-weighted
music played at home (ensemble with 6 instruments in a 100 m3 living room with usual
furnishing)
A-weighted equivalent sound level 91 dB, maximum 98 dB
music played at home (1 violin in a 75 m3 living room with usual furnishing)
A-weighted equivalent sound level 78 dB, maximum 86 dB:
The last two mentioned sound levels may also be considered characteristic for playing loud
music on a hi-fi in a flat.
The frequency response can be assumed with pink noise (sound level equal in all third-octave
bands) for conversation and for music.
The sound level to be expected in the receiving room was calculated for different sound levels
in the source room and different degrees of sound insulation between the flats. It proved that
the calculation of the A-weighted sound level in the receiving room from the A-weighted sound
level in the source room and the weighted standardized sound level difference plus spectrum
adaptation term C was equal to the result of the detailed calculation in third octave bands.
In Table 8 the A-weighted sound levels are shown.

14
Table 8: Sound level in the receiving room for different sound levels in the source room
and different sound insulation
A-weighted sound level

A-weighted sound level in the receiving room (dB) for

sound insulation DnT,w

in the source room (dB)

55 dB

60 dB

65 dB

70 dB

73

19

14

78

24

19

14

86

32

27

22

17

91

37

32

27

22

98

44

39

34

29

Source: Lang, 2006

The sound levels in the receiving room may be compared with the levels prevailing in this room
at quiet times (learning, reading, sleeping).
According to NORM B 8115-2 the background level in a room may be assumed according to
the land use category, where the residential building is situated and the time of day, as shown
in Table 9.
Table 9: Indicative planning values for the background level in flats in residential
buildings in different land use categories according to NORM B 8115-2
land use category

quiet area
health resort area

residential area in
suburbs, rural
residential area

indicative values for

the background level
(dB) day/night

20/15

25/15

urban residential
area, agricultural
area with dwellings

core area, (trade,

offices, dwellings)
area for enterprises
without
sound emission

30/20

30/20

Source: NORM B 8115-2, translation by Lang

The frequency response is assumed with the inverse A-weighting curve. This corresponds well
with third-octave band analysis of background levels measured in practice. In Figure 4d some
examples are shown: limit curves for 25 and 35 dB A-weighted, a background level measured in
a flat (Nurzynski, 2003) and the background levels measured in the halls (without audience) in
the Vienna Musikverein building (Berger et al., 2005).
In Figure 4a) to c) the sound levels to be expected in the receiving room are represented for
some examples of different sound insulation between adjacent flats ((DnT,w = 55 to 68 dB)7
under the assumption that the A-weighted sound level in the source room is 90 dB (with a
frequency analysis for music or spoken conversation). For lower sound levels in the source
room the sound levels in the receiving room may be reduced by the corresponding amount.
The comparison of the values in Table 8 and Table 9 shows that the equivalent sound level of
normal conversation (which corresponds also to radio and television turned down to moderate
volume) is diminished to 19 dB in the neighbouring flat by the minimum required DnT,w = 55 dB
and will then not be audible with respect to the background level of 25 dB; the maximum levels
however may be heard. The table also shows that music at home with an ensemble of 6
musicians (may be only a theoretical case) with an equivalent level of 91 dB requires sound
insulation of DnT,w = 68 dB, to reduce the sound level to the background level of 25 dB in the
neighbouring room, while single peaks will exceed this. Music at home with one violin with the
equivalent level of 78 dB can be reduced below the background level of 25 dB in the
neighbouring flat with the minimum required sound insulation DnT,w = 55 dB; single peaks

7) D
nT,w = 55 dB corresponds to the minimum requirement in NORM B 8115-2, DnT,w = 68 dB
corresponds to the highest sound insulation determined in a series of random measurements in
subsidized residential buildings in Styria.

15
however will exceed this and will become audible. Enhancing the sound insulation above 60 dB
will give sufficient protection for the neighbour.
Figure 4: Third octave band level in the neighbouring room transmitted from the source
room with music or talking 90 dB A-weighted for different sound insulation and
background level
a) Minimum required sound insulation
b) Enhanced sound insulation
(Austria)

c) highest sound insulation measured

in subsidized residential building

d) limit value background level

Source: Lang, 2006

Here the result of laboratory experiments may be quoted on the correlation between sound
insulation characterized by a single number (weighted standardized sound level difference) and
speech intelligibility (Thaden, 2001 and Thaden et al., 2000). For loud speech with 80 dB Aweighted, the intelligibility in the neighbouring room was on average 0.43 and 0.6 with a sound
insulation of DnT,w = 54 dB.(2 examples with different frequency shape); it was only a little
smaller with 0.01 to 0.22 when the sound insulation was enhanced by 3 and 7 dB (the

16
intelligibility was dependent on the frequency shape of the sound insulation and with this on the
speech level in the neighbouring room).
A laboratory experiment (Mortensen, 1999) showed that 80 to 98 % feel annoyed by music from
the neighbouring room with a sound insulation of Rw 56 57 dB, depending on the share of the
low frequencies.
If one compares the above results with the minimum requirements for sound insulation in the
different countries, it does not come as a surprise that quite a significant percentage of the
residents in multi-family dwellings feel disturbed by neighbourly noise. It is also no wonder that
in the last few years recommendations for improved sound insulation, in addition to the existing
minimum requirements were worked out in several countries.
In the following paragraphs some example studies from the literature on the connection
between sound insulation and disturbance by neighbourly noise, as well as proposals for
enhanced sound insulation, are discussed.
The data in Table 10 show the high sound insulation required to ensure satisfaction with the
acoustical quality. When comparing the figures, one has to note that the airborne sound
insulation has been described with Rw + C50-3150. Depending on the situation (volume of the
receiving room and area of the separating component), the DnT,w value can either be the same,
or lower by up to 1 dB, or higher by up to 4 dB than Rw8. Please also note that C50-3150 is
negative (-3 to -10 dB, depending on the building style). Thus, DnT,w 68 dB more or less
corresponds to a value of Rw + C50-3150 = 63 dB.
Table 10: Relation between airborne sound insulation in dwellings and the expected
percentage of people finding conditions satisfactory
% finding conditions satisfactory
20
40
60
80

airborne sound insulation Rw + C50-3150 (dB)

48
53
58
63

Source: Rasmussen et al., 2003

In the Netherlands a comprehensive study has been carried out (Gerretsen, 2001) for the
appropriate unit to describe sound insulation and the requirements for 5 quality classes. The
requirements were deduced from an emission level of 70 dB(A) for neighbours radio on
regularly loud moments and the difference of 12 dB for speech and music, which gives 82 dB,
and an indoor reference sound level of 25 dB(A). That results in a required sound insulation of
DnT,w + C = 57 dB; the comparison with the results from several social surveys with respect to
sound in dwellings lead to the use of 5 classes covering the range from a just acceptable
acoustic climate for existing situations (k=5) till the maximum comfort which seems to be
practically achievable (k=1). The five quality classes with different numbers of occupants
disturbed by the neighbours noise are shown in Table 11 9.
To quality class III an airborne sound insulation of DnT,w + C 52 dB is assigned, to class II DnT,w
+ C 57 dB, this would be desirable. The requirements for the different classes differ each by
5 dB, class V is described as just acceptable for existing situations, class I with DnT,w + C
62 dB as corresponding to the maximum achievable comfort in practice.
Class III corresponds to the present legal requirements (designated as sufficient, gives
protection against unbearable disturbance under normal behaviour of the occupants, bearing in
minds the neighbours).Class II would be desirable (designated as good, giving normally a
good protection against intruding sound without to much restraints on behaviour of the
occupants) (Gerretsen, 2003).

8)

see 2.1.1

9)The table is also valid for the impact sound insulation and for the sound insulation against noise from
outside.

17
Table 11: Meaning of the sound reduction quality for dwellings

Source: Gerretsen, 2001

In Denmark in 2001 a sound classification for dwellings was defined in the DS 490 standard
(based on a proposal from the INSTA B-committee on sound classification). Requirements for
airborne-sound insulation, impact-sound insulation, noise of HVA and sound level of traffic
noise intruding through the outer building elements are given for 4 classes, A, B, C and D.
Class A corresponds to especially good sound insulation, where the occupants are only
occasionally disturbed by noise; more than 90% judge the acoustic conditions to be good or
very good. The sound insulation in class B is clearly better than the minimum requirements for
terraced houses; the occupants are disturbed by noise only to a limited degree; 70-75 % judge
the acoustic conditions as good or very good, less than 10 % as bad. In class C one may
expect that 55 65 % judge the acoustic conditions to be good or very good, with less than 20
% bad. Class D is for older buildings with unsatisfactory sound insulation and must not to be
used for new buildings. In class D one may expect that 30-45 % of people judge the acoustic
conditions as good or very good, and 25-40 % bad.
In Table 12 the requirements for airborne sound insulation are shown.
Table 12: Requirements for airborne sound insulation in classes A, B, C, D in DS 490
Room type

Between a flat and shop or

communal room with noisy
activities
Between a flat and a room
outside the flat

Class A
Rw + C50-3150 dB

Class B
Rw + C50-3150 dB

Class C
Rw dB

Class D
Rw dB

68

63

60

55

63

58

55

50

Source: DS 490, translation by Lang

For the better sound insulation classes A and B, Rw + C50-3150 is prescribed to protect the
occupants against low frequency noise.
In Belgium an investigation on the required sound insulation has been carried out in
connection with the transition to new quantities for sound insulation and with a higher demand
for higher quality residences (Vermeir, 2003). As best qualified quantity the standardized sound
level difference was chosen. As basic requirement an economic class of sound insulation, the
so called normal acoustic comfort class was defined. For this sound insulation class the
requirement should be as severe as possible without increasing the global building cost. A
further class should indicate what nowadays could be considered as a rather good sound

18
insulation that can be achieved with reasonable technical means. The requirements that should
guarantee this quality, accepting an increase in building costs define the improved acoustic
comfort class (Ingelaere et al., 2005). The basic requirement was defined with DnT,w 54 dB10
and for terrace houses when both adjacent houses are constructed at the same time and
dwellings in the improved acoustic comfort class DnT,w 58 dB11 was deduced. The requirement
is increased with 4 dB when a living space (living room, kitchen) is next to a bedroom of
another apartment. It is clear that an architect should avoid this kind of situation. The basic
requirement DnT,w 54 dB is already fulfilled in 50 % of the cases for common walls and floors
in Belgian building practice. Still in discussion is the question of low frequencies with respect to
the rapid evolution of new low frequency sources inside dwellings (Vermeir et al., 2003 and
Ingelaere et al., 2005).
In Sweden the 2nd edition of the SS 025267 standard not only contained the (former)
requirements for minimum sound insulation, supplemented by the prescription of Rw + C50-3150
instead of Rw (class C with minimum 53 dB), but also further classes B and A requiring higher
sound insulation; class B with Rw + C50-3150 57 dB is aimed at (Hagberg, 2002, quotes Rw +
C50-3150 56 dB); that means with respect to the negative values of C50-3150 an Rw in the range of
58 to 61 dB. In class A Rw + C50-3150 61 dB is required, which means about Rw in the range of
62 to 65 dB. Besides the requirements between flats quoted above higher values (61 and 65
dB) are also prescribed between flats and communal rooms and garages in the building.
Class A is indicated as very good sound insulation (very high acoustic quality), class B (high
acoustic quality) as clearly better sound insulation than class C, which is typical for the
acoustical quality of the existing buildings and corresponds to the legal prescriptions. Class D is
only a low acoustical quality and is only to be used if C cannot be achieved, e.g. for refurbishing
of old buildings.
In Finland an acoustic classification was introduced in the standard SFS 5907, published in
2004, concerning rooms in buildings such as dwellings, hotels and lodgings, facilities for the
elderly, office buildings, schools, educational establishments, day-care centres, health care
facilities and industrial workplaces. In the standard the limits are defined for airborne and
impact-sound insulation and for the levels of noise caused by heating, plumbing, airconditioning and electrical appliances inside and outside buildings and also the limits for room
acoustics in 4 classes A, B, C and D. Class A is the most demanding and class D the most
moderate. Acoustic class C represents the minimum requirements for new buildings. Acoustic
class D only applies to existing old buildings, class D is only meant to be used when the aim is
to give the acoustic qualities of an old building. The values representing classes A and B make
it possible to design buildings which incorporate a higher than normal acoustic standard. The
classification is performed both per space and per building.
The requirements for the airborne sound insulation are given in classes D and C for the
weighted apparent sound reduction index Rw only, in classes B and A for Rw + C50-3150. Besides
the requirements between flats in dwellings there are also requirements for the sound
insulation between a flat and a night-club or dance restaurant or similar within the building and
between a flat and a commercial space, office, restaurant or other noisy spaces and garages
within the building
In the following Table 13 the requirements are shown.

10)

This leads to an estimated 70 % of inhabitants that are satisfied with this sound insulation.

11)

With this more than 90% of the inhabitants are satisfied.

19
Table 13: Airborne sound insulation in classes A, B, C, D according to SFS 5907
Space

between two apartments and in

general between the spaces
surrounding an apartment
between an apartment and a
commercial space, office, restaurant,
or other noisy space within the
building, including a garage
between an apartment and a nightclub,
dance restaurant or other similar space
within the building

Class A
Rw + C50-3150

Class B
Rw + C50-3150

Class C
Rw

Class D
Rw

63

58

55

49

68

63

60

60

75

75

70

70

Source: SFS 5907

In Germany in DIN 4109, a minimum sound insulation is described with a weighted apparent
sound reduction index of 53 (horizontal) and 54 dB (vertical); in addition, in VDI 4100 an
enhanced sound insulation in sound insulation classes II and III with 56/57 dB and 59/60 dB is
proposed12. The perception of noise from neighbouring flats, which can be assigned to these
sound insulation classes, is shown in Table 14 below. For completeness the criteria for walking
noise and noise from sanitary installations are also included.
Table 14: Perception of noise from neighbouring flats assigned to the 3 sound insulation
classes SSt according to VDI 4100
type of noise emission

loud speech
speech with raised voice
normal speech
walking noise
noise from sanitary
equipment
music played at home, loud
radio and TV, parties

perception of noise from the neighbouring flat,

evening background noise 20 dB(A) provided
SSt I
SSt II
SSt III
intelligible
generally intelligible
generally not intelligible
generally intelligible
generally not intelligible
not intelligible
generally not intelligible
not intelligible
not audible
generally disturbing
generally not disturbing
not disturbing
unreasonable nuisance
not or only seldom
occasionally disturbing
generally avoided
disturbing
clearly audible

generally audible

Source: VDI 4100

The table shows that also with sound insulation class III with a weighted apparent sound
reduction index of 59/60 dB (horizontal/vertical), loud speech is audible, though generally not
intelligible, as is music played at home. This agrees in principle also with the data given in Table
8.
A concept of sound insulation classes with transition to the quantity DnT,w has been proposed as
follows (Burkhart, 2005):
E simple sound insulation (e.g. old buildings)
D minimum sound insulation
C enhanced sound insulation
B comfort sound insulation
A excellent sound insulation

DnT,w = 52 dB
DnT,w = 55 dB
DnT,w = 58 dB
DnT,w = 63 dB
DnT,w = 68 dB

From the compilation of results measured in cases of complaints about insufficient sound
insulation (expert opinions for courts, complaints from occupants) the following requirements
can be deduced based on this sound insulation, above which only 15 % of complaints
(especially sensitive occupants) are found (Kurz et al., 2003).
between adjacent rooms
Rw 54 dB
between rooms one on top of the other

Rw 57 dB

12) The draft DIN 4109-10 with analogue requirements for enhanced sound insulation, in which in July
2002 the switch over from the weighted apparent sound reduction index Rw, to the weighted
standardized sound level difference DnT,w had been planned, was withdrawn without any replacement.

20
The difference of 3 dB in the requirements results from the use of Rw (as the area of the floor is
larger than that of the partition Rw increases with the equal sound insulation). Both values may
be considered as equal to about DnT,w 55 dB.
Within the scope of the current revision of DIN 4109 the transition from the weighted apparent
sound reduction index Rw, which has been used for decades, to the standardized sound level
difference DnT,w, which describes the sound insulation between 2 rooms more correctly, is
planned; additionally, consideration of the spectrum adaptation terms and enlargement of the
frequency range to the low frequencies are also proposed by experts (Schmitz et al., 2003).
A comprehensive statistical evaluation of results of a large number of sound insulation
measurements in buildings shows the level of sound insulation prevailing at present in German
dwellings (Burkhart et al., 2004). The weighted apparent sound insulation index Rw is 53 dB
for 50% and 57 dB for 10% between adjacent flats; corresponding with this (considering the
sound insulation in DnT,w) the weighted apparent sound reduction index Rw is for 50% 56 dB
und for 10% 60 dB between flats one on top of the other. Thus the higher sound insulation
classes mentioned above are not being achieved in practise at the time being. This may also
explain the comparably widespread annoyance by noise from the neighbours reported in
chapter 1.
An investigation on a sensible gradation of classes of the sound reduction index in requirements
for airborne sound insulation has been carried out within the scope of the Enhanced sound
insulation working group in the Room and Building Acoustics committee of the Deutsche
Gesellschaft fr Akustik (DEGA) (Alphei et al., 2006). Starting from a sound source with pink
noise in the source room with an A-weighted equivalent sound level of 70 dB (corresponding to
typical levels in speech and music as background noise), the loudness in the receiving room
was calculated for a background level of 15 to 25 dB with a frequency response of a 6
dB/octave decrease with different insulation using a heavy and a lightweight wall. From the
results the step in sound insulation which corresponds to a halving of loudness in the receiving
room was deduced. With the lowest background level of 15 dB considered in the receiving
room, a functional gradation resulted for Rw 48.3 53 - 57.5 - 64.2 dB for a massive
separating element (C50-5000 = -3 dB) und nearly equal 48.0 53 57.5 63 for a lightweight
separating element (C50-5000 = -5 dB).
In Switzerland a new SIA standard, 181, draft 2003, has been worked out using the quantity
DnT,w +C to describe airborne sound insulation; the standard also indicates at which sound
insulation level a certain number of the neighbours activities are audible and to which degree
(see Table 15).
Table 15: Subjective perception of the airborne sound insulation between rooms
depending on the background level (draft SIA 181)
spectrum corrected weighted standardized sound level difference
DnT,w + C (dB)
background level 20 dB(A)
background level 30 dB(A)
64
54
54
44
49
39
39
29

speech intelligibility for normal conversation

scarcely audible
audible but not understandable
partly understandable
well understandable

Source: draft SIA 181

In this draft standard 3 classes of requirements are distinguished
Standard requirements correspond to the state of the art, offer a grade of sound insulation for
which it can be assumed that a large number of the occupants feel comfortable with respect to
the acoustic conditions. With this degree of sound insulation fulfilled, one can expect only a
small minority to be unsatisfied.
Minimum requirements ensure a sound insulation which only is able to protect against
considerable disturbance. With this degree of requirement one has to expect a clear minority to
be unsatisfied.

21
Special requirements have to be defined and agreed upon for special use or for claims for
special protection.
If, especially in rooms with low background level (below 25 dB (A)), a high level of protection
against noise is to be achieved, an increase in the standard requirements of 5dB is
recommended.
In Table 16 the standard requirements are shown. It is interesting that these are graded
according to the noise in the source room and the noise sensitivity in the receiving room. The
minimum requirements are 3 dB lower.
Table 16: standard requirements for airborne sound insulation inside the building
DnT,w+C-Cv13 according to draft SIA 181

Noise exposure
small
Examples for emitting low noise use:
room and use
reading room, waiting
(source room)
room, patients room,
medical service room,
archive

moderate
great
normal use:
noisy use:
living room, bedroom, home mechanics
kitchen, bath-room,
room, canteen,
WC, corridors,
assembly room,
staircase, office,
heating, garage, lift
conference room,
shaft, machinery
classroom, laboratory room
**)
noise sensitivity
required values
low
44 dB
49 dB
54 dB
medium
49 dB
54 dB
59 dB
high
54 dB
59 dB
64 dB
*)
special arrangements for special use (see)
**)
special arrangements for accesses (see..)

*)

very great
intensive noisy use:
works, room for
practising music,
gymnasium,
restaurant and rooms
belonging to it
59 dB
64 dB
69 dB

Source: draft SIA 181

The requirements in the right column, e.g. room for practising music, show in combination with
high noise sensitivity similarly high values to those deduced in Table 8. The requirements in
Table 16 also show that the minimum sound insulation DnT,w = 50 to 55 dB usually stated in
standards is only sufficient for low noise use or normal use in living or bedrooms with low or
medium noise sensitivity; when comparing the values one has to take into account also that the
requirements refer to DnT,w + C, which is at least 1 to 2 dB smaller than DnT,w, which means the
corresponding values of DnT,w still have to be higher than the values given in the table to ensure
equal sound insulation.
In the SIA 181 standard, published on 1 June 2006, the requirements are (diverging from the
draft standard) only distinguished into minimum requirements and enhanced requirements. The
values for the minimum requirements are 2 dB lower than those given in Table 16 above (out of
the draft) and the enhanced requirements are 1 dB higher than those given in Table 16 above.
In France apart from the legal sound insulation requirements (DnT,A = DnT,w +C = 53 dB), there
exists the "Certification Qualitel"14 (www.qualitel.org). According to this association, buildings
need to fulfil certain quality criteria with respect to sound insulation (interior and exterior sound),
thermal insulation (winter and summer), HVAC engineering, expenses made for the operation,
and accessibility for handicapped people (which is an optional criterion). Concerning sound
insulation, the association identifies 2 classes with requirements that exceed the legal
stipulations. With respect to airborne sound insulation, a value of DnT,w + C 53 dB is also
demanded for class CQ (Certification Qualitel). For class CQCA (Certification Qualitel Confort
Acoustique), the value DnT,w + C 55 dB is required for multi-family dwellings and DnT,w + C 58
dB between row houses. Sound insulation between side rooms should be DnT,w + C 50 dB for
both classes. Between flat and works a higher sound insulation DnT,w +C 58 dB is required for
both classes.
13)

According to draft SIA 181, CV has to be inserted for rooms with a volume 126 m , so it is only of
minor importance for dwellings; it is calculated by CV = 5.lg(V(100) and rounded to an integer. According
3
to the standard published in June 2006, CV is for rooms with a volume 200 m 0.
14

Formerly "Label Qualitel"

22
In England, new sound insulation requirements were published in 2003. They were based on
listening tests and a comparison between the subjective acceptability and the different singlenumber ratings for sound insulation against dance music with "pounding bass beat". The
requirements were fixed using the measurement unit DnT,w + Ctr. However, the correlation with
DnT,w + Ctr,50-5000 would have been even better (Seller, 2005). DnT,w + Ctr 45 dB must be fulfilled
for both floors and walls. No higher requirements were called for.
Also in Poland, new units for sound insulation were introduced in compliance with ISO 717,
resulting in new requirements (Nurzynski, 2003). The apparent sound reduction index R'w + C
was chosen as a suitable unit. The requirement to be met by residential houses was fixed at
Rw + C 50 dB. For terraced houses Rw+C 52 to 55 dB is stated. Additional safety factors
have been introduced. If the value of single number index obtained in laboratory measurements
is used in designing works it should be adjusted. The adjusted value is called calculation value
and designated by RAR =RA 2 dB. This factor is intended to take into account the accuracy of
laboratory measurements and the quality of workmanship. It is also emphasized, that low
frequencies should be taken into consideration, but introduction of sound insulation indicators
that include low frequency bands need more empirical experience due to concern about
precision and relation between laboratory and field behaviour of partitions.
In Hungary at present the requirements as shown in Table 6 exist. A switchover from Rw 52
dB to Rw + C 51 dB is being prepared. It is also planned for the future to give
recommendations for higher-quality insulation (Reis, 2006).
In Spain, new sound insulation requirements for residential buildings were worked out (Esteban
et al., 2004). At this time there was a switch from the original demand for building elements with
a sound insulation level measured in a test facility to the demand for the sound level difference
with spectrum adaptation term DnT,w + C in the building. This was fixed at a value of 50 dB
between living and bedrooms.
In Canada an investigation on acceptable values for party wall sound insulation was carried out
(Bradley, 2001). A total of 600 subjects were interviewed in 300 pairs of homes in 3 Canadian
cities. The 300 common walls had apparent STC ratings (i.e. including possible flanking paths)
varying from 38 to 60 with a mean of 49,8 dB15. The responses of subjects asked how satisfied
they were with the building in which they lived were significantly related to measured STC
values. Also a significant correlation was found when subjects were asked if they would like to
move from their present home. Subjects responses concerning how considerate their
neighbours were, were also significantly related to measured STC values and also the
responses to the question how often they were awakened by noises from neighbours in their
building. The evaluation of the answers showed, that for lower STC values the responses do
not vary with STC, but for higher STC > 50dB the responses systematically decrease with
increasing STC, similar for the different sources. However for music related sounds the sound
insulation must be greater than about STC 55 to reduce its impact on residents. Figure 5
compares the curves that were fitted to each set of average responses. It shows for most types
of sound that the benefits of sound insulation only occur when the STC rating of the wall is
substantially above STC 50; however for music related sounds the sound insulation is more
effective, if the party wall has an STC rating well over STC 55. Two of the average responses
reduce to a score of about 1 at STC 60 indicating that at this point residents would not hear
these sound from their neighbours at all and they were not at all annoyed by them. The other
two average responses in the figure are greatly reduced for a mean sound insulation rating of
STC 60 suggesting that walls with STC 60 would practically eliminate problems related to
inadequate sound insulation. STS 55 is therefore recommended as a realistic goal for

15) The sound insulation is given in values of STC for the apparent sound reduction index R; from
comparative calculations one can show, that in most cases the STC-value for the apparent sound
reduction index corresponds to the value for the weighted apparent sound reduction index and eventual
deviations are mainly in the range of 1 dB.

23
acceptable sound insulation and STC 60 as a more ideal goal that would practically eliminate
the negative effects of neighbours noises.
Figure 5: Comparison of regression fits to average responses versus STC

Source: Bradley, 2001

Several studies point out the importance of the 50-80 Hz frequency range, which is presently
not considered in the calculation of the single-number rating. In a laboratory test in Denmark
(Mortensen, 1999), 25 test persons were asked to assess the music transmitted from a
neighbouring room that had a different level of sound insulation for the low frequencies (below
160 Hz). While music, transmitted through a solid wall with a spectrum adaptation term of C503150 = -1 to - 2 dB was found to be disturbing by 80 to 83 % of the test persons, 98 % of them
found it disturbing when transmitted through a wall of C50-3150 = -7 dB although in both cases the
weighted apparent sound reduction index only differed by 1 dB. The investigation in Poland also
indicated the importance of considering the spectrum adaptation terms and pointed out that the
low frequencies should be considered, but that the experience was still lacking, especially with
reference to the precision of measurements.
To sum up, it can be said that, based on the studies conducted in many countries over the last
few years, a rather clear recommendation can be derived - both with respect to a well-suited
unit for describing airborne sound insulation and with respect to the required value.
The most suitable unit of description is the standardized sound level difference with the
additional spectrum adaptation term DnT,w + C. It would be useful to also include the low
frequencies, i.e. to apply the value C50-3150. However, we do not yet have sufficient experience
concerning the appropriate value for C50-3150. For this reason, the below-listed values for DnT,w +
C should be valid for DnT,w + C50-3150 after a transitional period that still needs to be fixed.
DnT,w + C 54 dB can be regarded as a standard requirement. This level protects only people
with a normal sensitivity against noise disturbance caused by normal neighbourly activities. On
the other hand, the residents themselves need to cut down their activities (children, musicmaking) out of consideration for their neighbours.
Classes for enhanced sound insulation should be defined. They can be based on the
requirements specified in Switzerland: depending on the sound emission during use on the one
hand, and on the noise sensitivity or people's need for quietness on the other (see Table 16).
Furthermore, the Scandinavian classes A and B as well as the Dutch sound insulation quality
classes I and II can be employed.

24
Netherlands
class I: DnT,w + C 62 dB
class II: DnT,w + C 57 dB
class B: DnT,w + C50.3150 58 dB
Finland, Denmark: class A: DnT,w + C50.3150 63 dB
Switzerland: moderate noise exposure:
high noise sensitivity:
DnT,w + C 59 dB
medium noise sensitivity:
DnT,w + C 54 dB
great noise exposure:
high noise sensitivity:
DnT,w + C 63 dB
medium noise sensitivity
DnT,w + C 58 dB
It will thus be possible to define a class of "Enhanced sound insulation" with DnT,w + C 58
dB and a "Comfort" class with DnT,w + C 63 dB. In any case, a further class should be
created which allows music-making in a flat without disturbing your neighbours. This class could
be defined as "Music" with DnT,w + C50-3150 68 dB16 (see Table 8 and Table 16). The sound
insulation class that needs to be fulfilled by a building or individual building parts must then be
defined as early as in the planning process.
Requirements for the airborne-sound insulation within a flat only exist in some countries:
in the Netherlands in the N 1070 standard, a minimum requirement for the sound insulation
between living rooms within a flat for the 5 quality classes is stated as DnT,w + C 52, 42, 32,
22, 12 dB (unless the rooms are connected or separated by a wall with a door). This
requirement also applies between rooms on 2 storeys in the same flat.
In Belgium in the new standard DnT,w 35 dB is required between two rooms within a flat (if at
least the function in one of these rooms is sensitive against the noise from the other room) and
DnT,w 43 dB for the class with the improved sound insulation.
In Finland Rw + C50-3150 = 48 and 43 dB is required in classes A and B between at least one
room and the other rooms within a flat.
In Sweden Rw = 44 and 40 dB is required in classes A and B between at least one room and
the other rooms within a flat.
In Spain DnT,w + C = 30 dB is proposed on trial for the sound insulation between rooms within
a flat (Pena, 2002).
As guide values for the functional insulation between the rooms within a flat data in the
SIA181 draft in Table 15 can be cited. With a minimum requirement of DnT,w + C 40 dB
speech from the neighbouring room is still well intelligible or partly intelligible. If one expects
that speech from the neighbouring room is not intelligible (and thus less disturbing) an
enhanced sound insulation with DnT,w + C 45 dB is required at any rate; for comfort sound
insulation DnT,w + C 48 dB can be stated. With this, conversational speech from the
neighbouring room is audible but hardly or even non-intelligible depending on the level of
background noise.

2.2.2 Protection against impact sound

For decades now, it has been the objective of various studies to find an appropriate method for
describing impact sound insulation. Other methods than the one using a standard tapping
machine have been repeatedly proposed - also in view of the demand that the method for
describing impact sound insulation must well be able to describe the insulation against footfall
sound (walking noise). Nevertheless, the tapping machine method was accepted for
international standardization (ISO 140-6) and also for all national standards as it is
comparatively easy to apply and delivers well reproducible values. In addition, the requirements
to be met were specified, together with single-number ratings according to ISO 717-2. Several
investigations were carried out on the correlation between the standardized impact sound level
and the A-weighted level of footfall sound caused by persons wearing different shoes. A more

16) For this case it is important to also consider the low frequencies. For a transitional period (until there
is sufficient experience with low frequencies) the value required for DnT,w + C should be valid.

25
recent study (Hagberg, 2001) found that the single-number rating Ln,w + CI,50-2500 correlates well
with the subjective assessment of walking noise, with
Ln,w + CI,50-2500 = 73.4 - 3.80 S,
where S stands for the subjective assessment on a scale of 1 to 7 (with 7 being the best
rating)17.
The quantity Ln,w + CI,50-2500 is at present only used in Sweden for the definition of the
requirements for impact-sound insulation (in Norway it is recommended). With the Swedish
requirement Ln,w + CI,50-2500 56 dB in class C, which corresponds to the building regulations, a
subjective assessment of 4.4 is achieved; the best rating S = 7 would be achieved with Ln,w +
CI,50-2500 47 dB (this is given with the recommendation in class B in the Norwegian standard
and in class A in the Swedish standard with Ln,w + CI,50-2500 48 dB). In the classes A and B
with enhanced sound insulation qualification recommended in the Scandinavian countries, the
requirements are based on Ln,w + CI,50-2500 (see Table 21 and Table 24). The most stringent
requirement in the best class A in Finland Ln,w + CI,50-2500 43 dB (see Table 24) would give a
subjective rating of S = 8.
From a study on the subjective assessment of impact sound (Nilsson et al., 2001) it can be
deduced that the rating of impact-sound insulation by means of the tapping machine is quite
similar to the assessment of the walking noise produced by test persons.
A correlation between the normalized impact sound level and satisfaction with the acoustic
conditions in shown in the following Table 17.
Table 17: Relation between impact sound pressure level and the expected percentage of
people finding conditions satisfactory
% finding conditions satisfactory
20
40
60
80

Impact sound pressure level Ln,w + CI,50-2500 (dB)

63
58
53
48

Source: Rasmussen et al., 2003

In Switzerland requirements in SIA 181 draft are based on the quantity LnT,w + CI. The value
Ln,w + CI 50 dB given in Table 7 corresponds to the requirement for normal use and
sensitivity. In the Swiss draft standard requirements are distinguished in standard requirements
and minimum requirements for impact-sound insulation as well as for airborne sound insulation;
for the standard requirement a classification according to the use of the room and the noise
sensitivity is given, as shown in the following Table 18.
Table 18: Standard requirements for impact-sound insulation in draft SIA 181

Noise exposure
small
Examples for emitting archive, reading
room and use
room, waiting room,
(source room)
balconies

noise sensitivity
low
medium
high

60 dB
55 dB
50 dB

moderate
great
living room, bedroom, restaurant, hall,
kitchen, bath-room,
gymnasium, workWC, office, heating
shop, rooms for
and air condition
practising music and
room, corridor,
rooms belonging to it
staircase, arcade,
garage, terrace
requirements
55 dB
50 dB
50 dB
45 dB
45 dB
40 dB

*)

very great
kinds of use defined
in class great , if
these occur also
during night 22.00 6.00 h

45 dB
40 dB
35 dB

Source: draft SIA 181

The minimum requirements are 5 dB higher.

17)

The values for Ln,w + CI,50-2500, on which this correlation is based, were in the range of 51-65 dB.

26
CI is in the range from 0 to 4 dB for floors with floor covering; thus the requirement LnT,w +CI
50 dB corresponds approximately to the Austrian requirement LnT,w 48 dB (the most stringent
requirement in the European countries according to Table 7).
In the SIA 181 standard, which was published on 1 June 2006 (differently from the draft)
minimum requirements and enhanced requirements are distinguished. The required values for
the minimum are 3 dB higher than the values stated in Table 18 above (for the draft) and the
enhanced requirements are equal to the values given in tTable 18.
In the SIA 181 draft, data on the subjective assessment of the impact sound insulation between
rooms are stated, as shown in Table 19.
Table 19: Subjective perception of impact-sound insulation between rooms

Spectrally adapted and weighted

standardized impact sound level
L'nT,w + Cl in dB
Background level
Background level
20 dB(A)
30 dB(A)
65
75
60
70
55
65
50
60
45
55
40
50
35
45
30
40

Normal walking
wearing walking
shoes or slippers

Running children,
walking barefoot

Moving furniture,
several romping
children

very well audible

well audible
audible
scarcely audible
inaudible
inaudible
inaudible
inaudible

extremely audible
very well audible
well audible
audible
scarcely audible
inaudible
inaudible
inaudible

extremely audible
extremely audible
extremely audible
very well audible
well audible
audible
scarcely audible
inaudible

Source: draft SIA 181

The table shows that not audible for very loud impact load in quiet surroundings can be
expected only with a weighted standardized impact sound level of LnT,w + CI 30 dB.
In the Netherlands when deciding on the acoustic quality classes for dwellings (see Table 11)
the quantity LnT,w +CI was chosen, and for class III LnT,w +CI 53 dB and for class II LnT,w +CI
48 dB were defined (Gerretsen, 2003).
In an investigation in Denmark (Rindel, 2003) it turned out that the low frequencies have to be
adequately considered to describe the impact sound especially for lightweight floors and the
quantity Ln,w + CI,50-2500 is much more appropriate than the quantity Ln,w . Table 20 shows the
different assessment.
Table 20: Results of laboratory experiment with impact sound and simulated
constructions with different sound insulation below 125 Hz

Source: Mortensen, 1999

Evidently the disturbance caused by impact sound is very different depending on the share of
low frequencies, which is described by CI,50-2500. Table 20 also shows that even with Ln,w + CI,502500 = 54 dB, 20 % are disturbed by walking and 47 % are disturbed by children.
The requirements for impact-sound insulation in classes A and B from the 4 sound insulation
classes (see Table 12 and the notes to the 4 classes) therefore are based on Ln,w + CI,50-2500 as
shown in Table 21 below.

27
Table 21: Requirements for impact-sound insulation in classes A, B, C, D (DS 490)
Type of room

In living rooms and kitchens in

business premises or communal
rooms with noisy activities
In living rooms and kitchens from
other flats or communal rooms
In living rooms and kitchens from
staircase, corridor, balcony, and
from toilet and bath in other flats

class A
Ln,w + CI,50-2500
(dB)

class B
Ln,w + CI,50-2500
(dB)

class C
Ln,w
(dB)

class D
Ln,w
(dB)

38

43

48

53

43

48

53

58

48

53

58

63

Source: DS 490, translation by Lang

As for airborne-sound insulation, for impact-sound insulation the protection against low
frequency noise is also specially considered with the spectrum adaptation term CI,50-2500 in the
classes with enhanced sound insulation.
The new standard in Belgium stipulates a limit value of LnT,w 58 dB for the weighted
standardized impact sound level (54 dB to a bedroom or studio) for the normal acoustic
comfort class, whereas LnT,w 50 dB is valid for the approved acoustic comfort class. Based
on information obtained from literature a general correlation can be established between the Aweighted sound level of walking noise and the normalized impact-sound level (Vermeir, 2003);
this is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Global relation between real walking and the normalized impact sound level
(spread zone is indicated by upper and lower line)

Source: Vermeir, 2003

Evidently a weighted normalized impact sound level below 39 dB (at best) or 47 dB (on
average) is required to reduce walking noise below 30 dB and a weighted normalized impactsound level below 31 dB or 39 dB to reduce walking noise below 25 dB.
In Poland the standard requirement Ln,w 58 dB is comparatively high. A study found that with
this level of impact-sound insulation approx. 60 % of the residents hear their neighbours walking
(Izewska, 2005). Even with an impact sound insulation of Ln,w = 50 dB the residents felt strongly
disturbed by impact sound, particularly in combination with a low background noise level.
Especially in the low frequency range from 50 to 250 Hz the sound level of walking noise is
clearly (more than 10 dB) above the background level. In a proposal for modifying the standard,
3 classes as well as 3 different levels of ambient noise are recommended, as shown in Table 22
below (Izewska, 2005).

28
Table 22: Proposal for impact-sound insulation requirements in residential buildings in
Poland
Impact sound classification
of dwellings

Class I (minimum)
Class II (medium quality)
Class III (comfortable)

Maximum weighted normalized impact sound level Ln,w (dB)

depending on LA,eq (dB) of background noise
Day = 35, night = 25
Day 40, night 30
Day 30, night 20
58
53
48
53
48
43
48
43
38

Source: Izewska, 2005

In Norway comprehensive studies on impact sound insulation were carried out, in particular of
timber floors and in this context also the low frequent impact sound. The studies confirmed the
high importance of considering low frequencies and of introducing the spectrum adaptation term
CI,50-2500 (Homb, 2005). In the following Table 23 requirements and recommendations in classes
A, B and C for impact-sound insulation in Norway are stated (in total 4 classes were defined)
Table 23: Requirements and recommendations for impact-sound insulation in Norway
(NS 8175)
Impact-sound insulation between flats
class C minimum-requirement
class B recommended
class A

Ln,w (dB)
53
legally required
-

Ln,w + CI,50-2500
recommended, but not
normative 53
48
43

Measurements made on wooden floors in the laboratory resulted in normalized impact sound
levels Ln,w in the range of 42 to 52 dB, with spectrum adaptation terms C I,50-2500 in the range of
+4 to +10 dB. The values for Ln,w + CI,50-2500 were in the range of 46 to 57 dB. This shows the
essential importance of considering low frequencies in the 50 to 80 Hz range. Measurements
made on wooden floors in buildings showed similar values for Ln,w in the range of 46 to 52 dB
and for Ln,w + CI,50-2500 in the range of 54 to 60 dB. Values in the range of +5 to +8 dB resulted
for CI,50-2500 . In the case of massive floors, the frequency range below 100 Hz is not so
important: the normalized impact sound level Ln,w for the tested massive concrete floors ranged
from 46 to 55 dB; the value Ln,w + CI,50-2500 ranged from 47 to 55 dB. The values measured for
CI,50-2500 were in the range of 0 to +2 dB for massive floors. For a lightweight concrete aggregate
element with ceiling and a resilient floor the values were clearly higher in the range from +3 to
+10 dB.
In Finland the required impact-sound insulation level was tightened in 2000 from Ln,w 58 dB
to Ln,w 53 dB. In a study (Sipari, 2002) with measurements on a great number of different
kinds of floors it was shown that this requirement can be fulfilled by massive floors with
adequate floor coverings and also with timber floors with adequate floor coverings. Considering
the spectrum adaptation term CI,50-2500 with values of 0 to 2 dB for massive floors shows that
also Ln,w + CI,50-2500 53 dB can be fulfilled. Though CI,50-2500 for timber floors is in the range of 0
to + 7 dB Ln,w + CI,50-2500 53 dB can be fulfilled also with timber floors with an adequate floor
covering.
In the SFS 5907 standard, published in 2004, the following requirements are defined in the 4
classes A to D apart from the value Ln,w 53 dB required in the building regulations
(corresponding to class C); there are also requirements for the insulation of flats against rooms
with higher impact load in the same building (see also the explanations related to the classes
above Table 13).

29
Table 24: Requirements for impact-sound insulation in classes A, B, C, D (SFS 5907)
Space

class A
Ln,w + CI,50-2500

class B
Ln,w + CI,50-2500

class C
Ln,w

From the spaces surrounding

43
49
53
an apartment to an apartment
1)
or a kitchen in general
From a commercial space,
office, restaurant, or other
noisy space within the
43
43
49
building, including a garage.
to an apartment
From a night-club, dance
restaurant or other similar
33
38
43
space within the building to
an apartment
1)
Use of the spectrum adaptation term CI,50-2500 is recommended also in class C.

class D
Ln,w
63

49

43

Source: SFS 5907

In Sweden Ln,w or Ln,w + CI,50-2500 48 dB is in class A, Ln,w or Ln,w + CI,50-2500 52 dB in class B
and Ln,w or Ln,w + CI,50-2500 56 in class C as defined in the SS 25267 standard.
In Germany the normalized impact sound level is given as Ln,w 46 and 39 dB for the sound
insulation classes II and III in the criteria for enhanced sound insulation in VDI 4100; according
to Table 14 the perception generally not disturbing and not disturbing is assigned to these
values.
A concept of sound insulation classes has also been proposed for impact sound insulation by
keeping the quantity normalized impact sound level for the requirement (Burkhart, 2005) with
the following values:
E Low sound insulation (e.g. old buildings)
D Minimum sound insulation
C Enhanced sound insulation
B Comfort sound insulation
A Excellent sound insulation

Ln,w = 53 dB
Ln,w = 48 dB
Ln,w = 43 dB
Ln,w = 38 dB
Ln,w = 33 dB

In fields of experts the inclusion of the spectrum adaptation term and the frequency range to be
considered is also being discussed for airborne sound as well as for impact sound.
In France in addition to the legal requirement LnT,w 58 dB, the fulfilment of LnT,w 55 dB has
been demanded for the criterion CQ (Certification Qualitel) and LnT,w 52 dB for the criterion
CQCA (Certification Qualitel Confort Acoustique).
In Spain, a weighted standard impact sound level of LnT,w 65 dB is required.
In Hungary it is planned to switch from Ln,w to Ln,w+ CI.
As the requirements for impact-sound insulation can only be fulfilled with an acoustically
adequate floor-covering design on the bare floor, methods which also use single numbers to
describe and measure the improvement of the impact sound insulation with floor coverings have
been developed and standardized. Though these can be used very well to describe the impact
sound insulation of a floor covering on all massive bare floors, these can not be used for
lightweight timber floors. A separate method for the measurement and a deduced single
number for the improvement of impact sound insulation on timber floors therefore has been
developed and standardized (see 2.1.2). In a comprehensive investigation with measurements
on 16 different types of floor coverings on a standardized timber joist floor the details of the
method were established and data for the impact sound insulation of the floor coverings
determined (Lang, 2004).
Additional measurements were also carried out with the heavy/soft impact source, which was
developed in Japan and included in ISO 140-11: This impact source is a rubber ball with
180 mm diameter and a mass of 2.6 kg dropping from a height of 100 cm; its impact is typical

30
for jumping of children. The measurements with the standardized tapping machine and those
with the rubber ball showed that the low frequencies prevail in impact sound18. Therefore it is
recommended to carry out impact sound measurements from 50 Hz and to use LnT,w + CI,50-2500
for defining requirements for impact sound insulation; with this a good correlation with the sound
level produced by the rubber ball (characterising the jumping of children) is also achieved.
Furthermore, in this investigation, the sound level of the walking noise below 6 different timber
joist floors was measured to prove the suitability of measurement results gained with the
tapping machine and with the rubber ball for the subjective assessment of the impact sound
insulation of floors. In Figure 7 the A-weighted equivalent sound level of the walking noise
(mean value of 3 different shoes worn by different persons) is compared to the weighted
normalized impact sound level19 Ln,w and Ln,w + CI and the maximum A-weighted sound level
caused by excitation with the rubber ball. The values for Ln,w correspond quite well to the spread
zone described in Figure 6. Figure 7 shows that a normalized impact sound level Ln,w = 48 dB
corresponds to an equivalent sound level of about 33 dB and walking with this impact sound
insulation can thus be clearly audible. In order to reduce the walking noise to less than 30 dB
the weighted normalized impact-sound level would have to be below 40 dB.
Figure 7: Comparison of the A-weighted sound level for excitation with the rubber ball
and the weighted normalized impact sound level for excitation with the tapping machine
with the equivalent sound level of walking noise
A-weighted sound level or normalized impact
sound level dB

85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
25

30

35

40

45

A-weighted equivalent sound level of walking noise dB

soft/heavy impact source

Lnw

Lnw+CI

Source: Lang, 2004

To sum up, the investigations carried out in many countries over the last years as well as the
recommendations given for higher impact sound insulation confirm that it is essential especially for lightweight wooden floors - to consider the low frequencies. Thus, it will also be
possible to cover the subjective perception of disturbance caused by the walking noise. For this
reason, the prescription of requirements for impact sound insulation in residential buildings
should always be based on the unit Ln,w + CI,50-2500. This hardly changes the requirement to be
met by massive floors, but is important for wooden floors in order to avoid disturbance caused
by the "drum sound" that residents frequently complain about. The Austrian requirement LnT,w
48 dB should be extended to LnT,w + CI,50-2500 50 dB. Higher requirements can be described
18)

The great amount of very low frequencies in the impact sound, which is caused by walking on timber
floors is also claimed as subjectively very disturbing by residents in buildings with timber floors.
19) The spectrum adaptation term C
I,50-2500 could not be evaluated, as the measurements with the tapping
machine had been carried out only from 100 Hz.

31
with LnT,w + CI,50-2500 45 dB, and very high requirements (comfort class) with LnT,w + CI,50-2500
40 dB. At present, there is however still a lack of experience in handling unit CI,50-2500 in
Austria and other countries. Therefore, a transitional period would have to be set during which
measuring experiences can be gained. Until the necessary measuring and planning experience
is available, the above requirements could be used, decreased by 2 dB for LnT,w + CI. The CI
values for solid floors only slightly differ from 0; for wooden floors they are in the range of 0 to
4 dB. Figure 8 shows the spectrum adaptation terms CI and CI,50-2500 that have been obtained
from measurements on 23 timber joist floors with different types of floor coverings.
Figure 8: Spectrum adaptation terms CI and CI,50-2500 from measurements made on timber
joist floors
14

12

CI,50-2500 average 7 , range 1 to 13 dB

CI, CI,50-2500 dB

10

CI average 2, range 0 to 4 dB
0
30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Ln,w dB
CI

CI50-2500

Source: Lang, 2006

Few requirements have been defined for the impact sound insulation within a (2-storey) flat.
In the Netherlands, standard NEN 1070 specifies a weighted normalized impact sound level of
LnT,w + CI 53, 63, 73, 83 93 dB for each of the 5 quality classes. The sound level required for
steps is 5 dB lower. In Finland, impact-sound insulation is only required for classes A and B
and only for at least one room in one and the same flat. However, the required values of LnT,w +
CI 53, 63, 73, 83, 93 dB are quite high. In Sweden as well, impact-sound insulation is required
for classes A and B for at least one room of the flat which, at a level of LnT,w 64 and 68 dB, is
even higher than the Finnish. In Switzerland, the appendix to the standard recommends L 55
dB (level 1) and L 50 dB (level 2) for separating elements within a flat.
Frequent complaints have been made about insufficient impact sound insulation in 2-storey
flats, particularly in one-family houses, for which no special requirements exist in Austria.
Consequently, a requirement should be fixed that corresponds to the one applicable between
the flats of a multi-family house or which possibly allows 5 dB higher levels. As wooden floors
are often installed in both split-level flats and one-family houses, it is important that the
requirements for these types are also based on the quantity LnT,w + CI,50-2500.

2.3 How can the fulfilment of the requirements be ensured

For the fulfilment of the requirements, it is absolutely essential to consider appropriate sound
insulation measures as early as possible in the planning phase. As a basis for the planning, the
following are necessary:

32
- data on the acoustic properties of building elements and building materials given in the
physically correct quantities
-- weighted sound reduction Rw for building elements measured in a test facility
-- weighted normalized impact sound pressure level Ln,w for floors
-- equivalent weighted normalized impact sound pressure level Ln,eq,0,w for bare massive
floors
-- weighted reduction of impact-sound pressure level Lw by floor coverings
-- weighted reduction of impact-sound pressure level Lt,w by floor coverings on
lightweight floors
-- dynamic stiffness s for materials used under floating floors in dwellings
- standardized calculation procedures for the determination of the sound insulation between
rooms side by side or one on top of the other (airborne and impact sound insulation) in the
building.
Furthermore, to ensure the required sound insulation in the construction, the following are also
required:
- specification to the details of correct construction work
- measurements of airborne and impact sound insulation at random samples between rooms
side by side as well as one on top of the other after finishing the construction work.
Standards published by ISO or EN exist which define methods to be used for measurements of
building elements and building materials in test facilities as well as for measurements of
airborne and impact sound insulation in buildings.
The statement of the acoustic properties of building elements and building materials is mainly
the task of producers (or importers). It is however also advisable to establish and publish
catalogues containing all the acoustic properties as stated by the producers. It is also a main
task of suppliers of building material, e.g. producers of isolating materials, plasterboard etc. to
specify all details for correct installation of their materials.
In Austria a catalogue of acoustic data for building elements has been published by the
Austrian Standards Institute with measurement results for the sound reduction index of walls,
windows and doors. A comprehensive data bank with a catalogue of wooden building elements
examined with respect to building physics and ecology has been established on the internet
(www.dataholz.com) by the Fachverband der Holzindustrie sterreichs. The basis for the
planning of sound insulation is NORM B 8115-4 containing the simplified calculation
procedure according to EN 12354-1 and EN 12354-2 and guiding values for the weighted sound
reduction index of building elements, the improvement of sound insulation using acoustical
linings, the equivalent weighted normalized impact sound level of bare floors, and the weighted
reduction of impact sound pressure level with floor coverings and floating floors and floor
coverings on timber joist floors and vertical laminated timber floors. An example of a calculation
according to EN 12354-1 is enclosed. Tables show which flanking elements are permitted or
required according to the type of separating element to fulfil the prescribed standardized sound
level difference between rooms side by side and one on top of the other.
In some provinces (Bundeslndern) the fulfilment of the required sound insulation according to
NORM B 8115 has to be proved for subsidized buildings at the planning stage before the start
of construction work and by measurement with random samples in the finished building.
The applicability of the new calculation procedure according to EN 12354-1 for the Austrian
types of construction system was proven before its integration into NORM by a comparison of
results of measurements of sound insulation in dwellings with the results of the calculation
according to EN 12354-1. Results of measurements of the standardized sound level difference
between rooms side by side (26 cases) and rooms one on top of the other (36 cases) in 28
residential buildings carried out in the years 1995-1999 were made available for the

33
comparison. The comparison between the results of the measurement and the calculation for
each of the cases is shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10 (Lang, 2001).
Figure 9: Difference calculated value measured value for measurements between
rooms side by side
5

calculated value - measured value dB

4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
55 55

56 57 57 57 58 58 58

58

58 59 60 60 60 60 61

61 61 62 63 64 64 65

66 67

measured value DnT,w dB

Source: Lang, 2001

Figure 10: Difference calculated value measured value for measurements between
rooms one on top of the other
5

calculated value - measured value dB

4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
54 54 54 55 55 55 55 55 56 56 56 56 57 57 57 57 57 57 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 59 59 60 60 61 62 62 63 68
measured value DnT,w dB

Source: Lang, 2001

Furthermore, measuring results for 17 rooms one on top of the other and 6 rooms side by side
were available from an investigation (Lang, 1985); for these the calculations were also carried
out for comparison.
The mean values of the calculated value - measured value difference for all comparisons are
given in Table 25.

34
Table 25: Mean values for the calculated value measured value difference for DnT,w
Measurement

Measurements in years 1995-1999

Between rooms side by side
Between rooms one on top of the other
Measurements 1985
Between rooms side by side
Between rooms one on top of the other

Difference calculated value measured value

(mean values) dB
- 0,4
0,6
0,3
0,3

Source: Lang, 2001

Within the scope of the investigation calculations were also carried out with the Bastian program
to compare the calculated results; they showed that the program used with the simplified
method yields the same results as the manual calculation. It gives the results very quickly, and
also conveniently separated for the single sound transmission paths; thus the planner can
identify immediately which sound transmission path plays a decisive role in sound transmission
and therefore may require improvement. The program is used in several institutions in Austria to
plan sound insulation.
In Belgium new building guidelines are established in several research projects to assist
building industry to create new products and building systems taking in account the new
requirements. When establishing the new standard it was decided, that the requirements should
concern the finished building only, but that the project should chose building elements and
techniques to obey these requirements, eventually using calculation models as can be found in
the EN 12354-series of standards or by using specific building prescriptions. The project should
not take into account the measurement tolerances; indeed to take in account uncertainties in
the prediction models and limitations in precision of the measurement techniques a tolerance is
included in the standard: measurement results up to 2 dB lower than the requirement are still
said to comply with the standard (Ingelaere et al., 2005)
In Germany a revision of DIN 4109 is being worked out which will also make data available for
massive constructions as well as for lightweight methods of construction as a basis for the
calculation of sound insulation in the building from the properties of the elements according to
EN 12354. Investigations of the reproducibility of measurements of the sound reduction index of
massive building elements showed considerable differences determined by the different loss
factors in the test facilities and standardized conditions were proposed. Details are still under
discussion. The applicability of the calculation procedure according to EN 12354 for the types of
construction usual in Germany has been tested (Metzen, 1999; Blessing, 2001; Sph, 2001).
The calculation procedure according to EN 12354 was extended to enable application for
massive double walls (Metzen et al., 2002).
How far the method according to EN 12354 is applicable for the planning of airborne and impact
sound insulation in wood-construction buildings was also tested or a new method developed
(Metzen et al., 2005). A comprehensive data bank was established for the sound reduction
index (including spectrum adaptation terms) and flanking level difference (including spectrum
adaptation terms) of wall constructions and the sound reduction index and normalized impact
sound level (each including spectrum adaptation terms) of wooden floors. The comparison of
results from calculations and measurements of the airborne sound insulation in buildings
yielded differences 2 dB for the calculation with the simplified method in EN 12354 in most of
the cases. Differences 4 dB resulted for impact-sound insulation of wooden floors when
calculating with the newly developed method, where the larger differences were also
determined by defects in the installation of the floating floors (Scholl et al., 2004).
In the Netherlands the guideline NPR 5070 has been established; in this flanking elements
appropriate for connection with separating elements are shown in detail. It is the responsibility
of local authorities to give permission to construct buildings and they will do so if it is made
plausible that the building will fulfil the requirements (fulfilling requirements stays the
responsibility of the builder/project developer). Local authorities will check the design of the
building using NEN guidelines (NPR 5070) and general knowledge (EN 12354 may be used but

35
it is not mandatory). Local authorities may check afterwards by measurements, but nowadays
this is seldom done, only a few localities still do it to promote and demonstrate good
workmanship. There is a system of a kind of insurance in case of buying houses; in that case
measurements are performed if in doubt about the promised acoustic quality (Gerretsen, 2006).
From various studies it shows that nowadays normally the legal requirements are met for new
built houses. The guideline NPR 5070 specifies also constructions for the higher quality class II
and gives also information for the correct design of floating floors (Gerretsen, 2003).
In Spain with the new draft standard (codigo tecnico de la edificacion CTE) not only new
requirements for the sound insulation in the building (instead of the former laboratory
requirement to each construction element) were introduced but also in situ measurements and
checking in the design stage. Sound transmission models are developed to provide architects
and designers with effective tools in their attempt to guarantee the acoustical requirements from
the very first stage of the building. Especially the required data for the use in EN 12354 shall be
established, taking into account the special methods of construction usual in Spain (hollow
bricks and beam and block floors) (Esteban et al., 2004). For that purpose multiple in situ loss
factor measurements were performed on several different hollow floors and walls used in Spain
and supplements for the calculation procedure proposed in order to approve the accuracy of EN
12354s calculations (Esteban et al., 2004). To make a calculation programme on basis of EN
12354 available for the planners the Acoubat software (developed by CSTB) was adapted to
Spanish constructions and for easiness of use. Training courses in building acoustics are being
carried out to spread that knowledge. Once the new building regulation will be applicable and
architects and building designer used to work with prediction models or other tools to fulfil in
situ requirements acoustic classification schemes will be implemented as exists currently for
thermal insulation. To check the accuracy of the calculation procedure according to EN 12354
for constructions used in Spain the results of measurements and calculations (with the
simplified and with the detailed model) in several buildings were compared (Esteban et al.,
2005). 24 real different situations have been studied concerning the airborne sound insulation in
vertical and horizontal directions. The average sound level difference DnT,w was in the range
from 32,5 to 59,5 dB. The average of the difference measured value - calculated value was 0,5
dB (standard deviation 1,9 dB) for the detailed procedure and 0,6 dB (standard deviation 3,2
dB) for the simplified model. In the conclusions a strong dependency between the prediction
accuracy and the reliability of the input data is emphasized. A further detailed comparison
measurement calculation was carried out in a building (Andrade et al., 2005); it showed that
the prediction models can be applied with good agreement to the Spanish constructions in the
case of single layer elements.
The fulfilment of the regulation can be achieved checking the design with:
- using approved solutions (i.e. combination of floors, walls. etc., known to work)
- calculation according to EN 12354.
At present the ministry is working on those approved solutions and each regional government
will decide how to check the correct design and workmanship.
Substantial work has been done adapting EN 12354 to Spanish constructions and developing a
Spanish version of Acoubat software (named Acoubat-dBMAT) together with CSTB (Esteban,
2006).
A simply to use software to predict acoustic insulation in buildings in accordance with EN 12354
including the necessary data was also described (Pena et al., 2002).
In Sweden the new standard on sound classification explicitly advises, that a building acoustic
documentation should be presented at an early stage of a project based on calculations or
measurements. Measurements in the building are often required. A database of sound
insulation of typical constructions suitable for the calculation of sound insulation in situ
according to EN 12354 has been established including data for suitable renovation measures
(Simmons, 2004). For calculations the programme Bastian was used. With respect to the
introduction of the spectrum adaptation terms in the standard with the prescription of Rw + C503150 for airborne sound insulation and Ln,w + CI,50-2500 for impact sound insulation the results of

36
calculations (with Bastian) and measurements for 4 typical building constructions were
compared with the requirements (Hagberg, 2002). For the constructions with heavy floors and
heavy walls or with heavy floors and lightweight walls the calculated and measured values
seem to give satisfactory correspondence, the requirements for class B can be achieved. For
the lightweight constructions with steel frame or wood frame floor structure with layers of
gypsum board it was not possible to calculate with the program. The measurements yielded
partly to low sound insulation, especially for impact sound. It was noticed, that the use of the
Swedish classification standard has ended up with more activity in the field of building acoustics
and it is sure that the building technique will be developed further to optimize different building
structures to various classes in the standard. A database has been established as input data to
EN 12354 and the influence of flanking conditions and structural reverberation were proved
(Simmons, 2001). A detailed investigation of uncertainty of measured and calculated sound
insulation in buildings was carried out. In an inter-laboratory comparison 8 laboratories made
sound insulation measurements on 7 partitions located in the same building; all values of the
standard deviation were in the range given in ISO 140-2. About 40 calculations of sound
insulation between rooms in real buildings (concrete floors) were made according to EN 12354
and the calculated values were compared to field measurements. Safety margins were deduced
2 dB for Rw and Ln,w and 3 dB for Rw + C50-3150 and Ln,w + CI,50-2500. These values are applicable
when input data are documented properly and the quality of workmanship is high (Simmons,
2005).
The fact, that in Sweden buildings largely are constructed with a higher sound insulation (class
B) than the minimum requirement was partly explained as follows (Simmons, 2006): The main
reason for the change of building practice in Sweden, was the political change made to the
system for subsidizing dwellings, in 1992. In the same time, forced limitations on allowable rents
of dwellings were removed. As a result, prices were then set by the market, less dwellings were
built, and there was a severe inflation in prices. But also, the dwellings built had to please "rich"
people, e.g. middle-aged who sold their house and wanted to move to a high-standard
apartment. These clients demanded better quality than basic, considering the prices they had to
pay. There was also a consensus on the standard constructions used to that day, that these
were not up-to-date and there were severe complaints. The change from "habitant", being
allocated to a dwelling, to "client" buying one, meant a big step for the industry.
In Finland according to the standard a building or space can only be stated as belonging to one
of the acoustic classes defined in the standard, if the values defined in the classification have
been verified by acoustic field measurements performed in the finished building. The
classification can be achieved for an individual space or for an entire building. When
ascertaining the acoustic class of a building the size of the samples for measurements of
airborne and impact sound insulation is 5 % of the structures separating spaces, however the
minimum to be measured is always two.
In France, in Rfrentiel Qualitel (a comprehensive handbook), besides the requirements on
airborne and impact sound insulation for the Certification Qualitel, detailed specifications are
given on how to fulfil these requirements for airborne sound insulation with the different types of
constructions. Additionally, prefabricated combinations of separating and flanking elements
(for standardized room dimensions) are quoted in large numbers, as well as the procedure for
calculating the sound insulation of any combination. The possibilities of by-paths by air
conditioning systems and similar installations are considered in detail. Tables for the
determination of Rw + C are given at the end. Precise data are also given to fulfil the required
impact sound insulation in vertical as well as horizontal and diagonal directions. The impact
sound insulation for stairs is also dealt with in detail.
In Poland a study on the verification of the calculation method in EN 12354-1 was carried out
and found, that the differences between the measurements and the calculations are to a large
extent dependable on the input results for the calculation (Szudrowicz, 2001).
In England constructions are to be tested to improve compliance with the requirements and
fulfil the Pre Completion Testing (PCT) since revision of the Approved Document (with raised
standards DnT,w + Ctr 45 dB). 2004 Robust details were introduced which have a demonstrated

37
performance of at least 47 dB DnT,w + Ctr . These constructions are exempt from PCT
requirements provided that the development is registered and approved Robust Detail methods
are used. A number of robust details are available for separating walls from masonry, timber,
steel and for separating floors from concrete, timber, steel-concrete composite. Each robust
detail has its own site work checklist. These are designed to help builders to ensure that
building work is carried out exactly in accordance with the robust details specifications. Trade
associations, manufacturers or other interested parties may wish to submit proposals for new
robust details. Before an application is made evidence is required to demonstrate that the
proposed design is likely to meet the required performance criteria. This requires the proposer
to undertake some initial sound testing before. The robust details must be practical to construct
on site and be reasonably tolerant to workmanship. The robust details handbook includes the
robust details specification sheets and site checklists to help builders and building control
bodies to ensure that separating walls and floors are built properly. To ensure that the
registered constructions are correct installed in all details seminars and interactive training aid is
offered. The system is also clearly legally covered (www.robustdetails.com).
In Hungary when the building is ready, local authorities don't need any document about sound
insulation. But the contractors, or the main organisation of building regularly orders sound
insulation measurements, for any case, only for control. Producers of building materials and
elements deliver their products with the required acoustic information to construct buildings
according to the standards (Reis,2006).
To sum up, from this overview it follows that in nearly all the considered countries the planning
of sound insulation is carried out based on EN 12354 and relevant programs (after having
established the applicability for the respective usual types of constructions). In several countries
a database with the required input data has been or is being established. An examination of the
planning is only compulsory in a few countries, and also sound insulation measurements in the
finished building are only carried out in a few countries. Partly comprehensive collections of
appropriate constructions are available, which may ensure the required sound insulation in the
building (provided that workmanship is of high quality).

2.4 Sound insulation in Austrian dwellings

Sound insulation in building construction has a long tradition in Austria. In 1936 NORM B
2115 Building construction Protection against sound and vibrations was published and in
1949 NORM B 8115 Building construction sound insulation and room acoustics according
to the state of the art at that time. In 1959 a new edition followed.
Determined by the growing volume in 1981 the standard was divided into 4 parts: Part 1 with
the definitions, Part 2 with the requirements, Part 3 with the basic room acoustics, Part 4 with
measures to fulfil the requirements on sound insulation.
While parts 1 and 2 were reedited several times, part 4 was not newly published until 1992. It
already considered the new knowledge on the sound transmission in buildings via separating
and flanking elements. In 2001 a new edition had to be published, especially with respect to the
adoption of EN 12354-1 and EN 12354-2 into Austrian standards, as these European standards
replaced parts of NORM B 8115.
The basis for the development of building acoustics in Austria was the results of research work
carried out from 1970-1973 (Bruckmayer et al., 1974) proposing guidelines for the application of
economic measures for sound insulation in housing construction. There the required sound
insulation in dwellings was deduced from a comprehensive inquiry into satisfaction with the
living conditions and measurements of the sound insulation in flats of selected interviewed
persons. Relevant information on how to install sound insulation was developed from numerous
measurements with selected examples of right and wrong. In a series of examples the extent
to which good sound insulation requires higher building costs was tested.

38
The inquiry, which evaluated about 10,000 questionnaires, showed a comparably high
percentage of people disturbed by noise in multi-family buildings; this was clearly different in
buildings constructed in different construction periods, as can be seen in Figure 11.
Figure 11: Percentage of people annoyed by noise from different living activities

Source: Bruckmayer et al., 1974, translation by Lang

The result showed that the sound insulation in houses erected after 1945 was essentially worse
than in houses erected before the war.
There was also a question in the questionnaire about whether people would be willing to pay
higher costs for better sound insulation in their flat. Nearly all (96 %) would probably have been
willing to pay 2-3 % more and 66 % of the persons feeling strongly annoyed in their flat would
definitely have been willing to do so. Also nearly all of those disturbed would probably have
been willing to pay, and 57 % definitely.
The weighted apparent sound reduction index Rw between flats side by side (separating walls)
was in the 42-56 dB range and between flats one on top of the other (separating floors) in the
46-59 dB range, thus from very low to very good.
The comparison of sound insulation measurement results with the statements of the occupants
on the annoyance by the neighbours noise showed that talking, radio and TV are not or nearly
not audible and do not disturb at a weighted apparent sound reduction index of in average 52
dB.
With a weighted apparent sound reduction index of 57 dB this is ensured in nearly all cases.
Thus it turned out that the sound insulation required in the standard is sufficient; but the great
number of annoyed people is caused by the fact that the requirements are not fulfilled. The
57 dB required for separating walls for buildings erected using the reconstruction funds under
the decree of the Federal Ministry for Trade and Reconstruction was sufficient in any case.
It was deduced from the result of the investigation that an obligatory prescription of the
requirement and a check of its fulfilment are essential. Furthermore it was deduced that the
fulfilment of the required sound insulation has to be considered early in the planning stage. Only
the timely consideration of the sound insulation aspects and their integration into the planning
can ensure a building with high-quality sound insulation without additional costs. An additional
requirement to the correct planning is careful workmanship, which has to be ensured by regular
inspection and measurements. A list of proposals for legislative measures to ensure the
required sound insulation in dwellings was established. These proposals were introduced for
subsidized dwellings e.g. in the province of Styria, and with this suitable sound insulation was

39
ensured. Sound transmission in the flanking elements was already considered as essential and
for the first time the adequate flanking elements to be combined with separating elements
depending on their construction were specified.
The comparison of the results for walls and floors also showed that declaring the sound
insulation using the apparent sound reduction index Rw was not functional, as this quantity
does not describe the real sound insulation between two rooms. Therefore the transition to the
normalized sound level difference was proposed and integrated into the standard. In this way
not only was a quantity defined which better describes the sound insulation between two rooms;
the fact that the sound reduction index specifies the sound insulation of an element, but the
normalized sound level difference indicates the sound insulation between two rooms, which not
only depends on the sound insulation of the separating element but also on that of the flanking
elements, was also clearly and understandably expressed for the planners.
In 1981 a proposal for a comprehensive table with separating elements and appropriate flanking
elements based on the first data deduced from the research work on the influence of the
flanking elements was published for the first time. In addition, a calculation procedure was
published which enabled the planners to calculate the sound insulation between two rooms
from the separating and the flanking elements. The easily to be used table was accepted
quickly in practice and was the basis for the data on separating elements and adequate flanking
elements in the standard.
In further research work in 1984-1985 on economic measures to fulfil the required sound
insulation according to the standard, the sound insulation in a great number of dwellings was
measured, especially to deduce general laws on sound transmission by separating and flanking
elements. With the detailed measurements a calculation procedure was deduced and its
suitability proved (Lang, 1985). The sound insulation in the examined buildings was, more than
10 years after the first major series of measurements, far higher, the normalized sound level
difference was in the range from 52-65 dB between rooms side by side and in the 55-58 dB
range between rooms one on top of the other. The measures which had been put into action
after the aforementioned research work, especially the indication of the importance of the
flanking elements with the simple description in a table, had entered the planning practice.
The calculation procedure and the (extended) table were included in the NORM B 8115-4
standard as the correctness and usefulness of the planning procedure, taking into consideration
the flanking elements dependent on the separating element, had been proved. A simple
computer program based on the procedure was developed and frequently used.
When the procedure according to EN 12354-1 was worked out in the CEN working group, the
basics of the procedure were already well-known and used in Austria; the introduction of EN
12354-1 in Austria, therefore, only required a transition to the new values for the vibration
reduction index and somewhat adjusted formulae. Before the new procedure was introduced in
the Austrian standard a series of calculations was carried out to prove the suitability for the
types of constructions common in Austria and the correlation with the results of sound insulation
measurements in existing buildings. The result of these comparisons was positive (see Figure 9
and Figure 10) and EN 12354-1 was therefore introduced into the national standards in Austria
(as the first country in Europe).
The fulfilment of the sound insulation requirements is prescribed for subsidized dwellings20, and
- depending on the respective Austrian province airborne and impact sound insulation has to
be proved in the planning stage and/or in the finished building by random measurements. This
has led to a visible improvement in the sound insulation in Austrian dwellings; this is also to be
seen from the results of the microcensus in 3-year periods with questions related to the noise
annoyance in dwellings (see Figure 12).

20)

Most of the multifamily houses in Austria are erected with subsidies.

40
Figure 12: annoyance by noise in Austrian dwellings
a) annoyance in general
60

percentage annoyed by noise

50

40

30

20

10

0
1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

year
total

strongly and very strongly

b) share of the neighbouring flats in the sources of strong and very strong annoyance
20
18
16
14

percent

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

year
Austria

Vienna

Source: Lang, 2006

Evidently noise from the neighbours had increased considerably as a source of annoyance with
the construction of new residential buildings in the years 1970-1980; it decreased again in the
following years with the increasing observation of the standard requirements and their
fulfilment21. The increase again in 2003 may have been caused by the increasing share of

21) The greater share in Vienna may be caused by the fact that the share of multifamily houses in Vienna
is higher than in the provinces, where the share of single houses is higher.

41
privately-financed dwellings, for which a test of the sound insulation before the start of
construction work and a measurement after finishing the construction is not required.
In the province of Styria, for subsidized buildings the fulfilment of the sound insulation
regulations has to be proved by a calculation before the start of construction work and
measurements are carried out in the finished building shortly before the delivery of the flat. With
this the following results were achieved:
1997: 216 measurements, requirements fulfilled:
97.9 % for impact sound insulation LnT,w 48 dB und
92.3 % for airborne sound insulation DnT,w 55 dB
1999: 137 measurements, requirements fulfilled:
93.8 % for impact sound insulation and
100 % for airborne sound insulation
There are no complaints about noise annoyance by the neighbours in those dwellings where
measurements have been carried out.
In the province of Upper Austria, the workmanship of builders of multi-family houses is
supervised with respect to the quality of the sound insulation. In any year about 70 housing
areas are supervised with respect to the legally required acoustic properties of the building. This
is about half of the subsidized buildings erected in Upper Austria. With this it is ensured that
every builder is tested at least once a year. As a result of this supervision of the acoustic quality
using measurements, over more than two decades the sound insulation in the subsidized
dwellings has clearly increased. Unfavourable developments in some building materials are
quickly discovered and appropriate countermeasures can be taken.
The results of measurements in Figure 13 show that the sound insulation has stabilised at a
high level in the last few years. This is valid for the sound level difference between flats side by
side and between flats one on top of the other, as well as for the impact-sound insulation.
Figure 13: Results of measurements of airborne and impact sound insulation in
residential buildings in Upper Austria
a) Airborne sound insulation between flats side by side (1988 2005)
Mean value of the standardized sound level difference DnT,w

year

42
b) Airborne sound insulation between flats one on top of the other (1988 2005)
Mean value of the standardized sound level difference DnT,w

year
c) Impact-sound insulation (1988 2005)
Mean value of the standardized impact sound level LnT,w

year
Source: Land O, Abteilung Wohnbaufrderung, 2005
The sound insulation measured in 28 subsidized residential buildings (62 measurements in
total) within the scope of the comparison of measured and calculated values is shown in Figure
14 with the frequency distribution of measured values. The percentage of buildings fulfilling the
minimum required value of DnT,w = 55 dB (according to the Austrian standard), the enhanced
sound insulation DnT,w = 58 dB (stated in the standard) and a proposed more stringent comfort
sound insulation DnT,w = 63 dB is marked.
It is obvious that a high percentage of the flats far exceeds the required minimum sound
insulation and also the higher recommended value.

43
Figure 14: Results of sound insulations measurements in subsidized housing (built
between 1990 and 1999) in the federal states of Steiermark (Styria) and Obersterreich
(Upper Austria)
sound insulation between adjacent flats
100%

100
90
80

77%

percentage fulfilling

70
60
50
40
30
23%
20
10
0
50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

66

68

70

standardized sound level difference DnT,w dB

sound insulation between flats one on top of the other

100%

100
90
80

percentage fulfilling

70
60
50%

50
40
30
20
10

5%
0
50

52

54

56

58

60

62

standardized sound level difference DnT,w dB

Source: Lang, 2006

64

44

3 Suggested sound insulation classes for residential

buildings
The different investigations show that the minimum sound insulation required in the countries,
which in some of them is also legally stipulated, only offers protection against noise caused by
normal living activities and for persons of normal sensitivity. At these levels of sound insulation,
the occupants of multi-family houses still complain about disturbance by neighbourly noise and
also about the need to restrict their own activities in order to protect their neighbours from noise.
In the last decade, several countries have therefore also worked out requirements for an
improved sound insulation and published sound insulation classes.
All buildings can be assigned to one of these classes, depending on their sound insulation.
When selling the building, this classification can be praised as an asset. Studies have shown
that there is a willingness to pay a higher price when the insulation is (provably) higher.
The proposals derived in section 2 and 3 from the investigations presented in this study have
been put together in Table 26 below for 4 sound insulation classes.
Table 26: Proposed requirements for airborne and impact sound insulation in 4 sound
insulation classes

Class
Music
Comfort
Airborne sound insulation
68
between flats
63
(C50-3150)
DnT,w +C (dB)
Airborne sound insulation
between the rooms within a flat
(without doors), also incl. one 48
48
family houses
DnT,w +C (dB)
Impact-sound insulation
between flats
40
40
***)
LnT,w + CI,50-2500 (dB)
Impact-sound insulation within a
flat, also incl. one-family houses
45
45
***)
LnT,w + CI,50-2500 (dB)
*) minimum requirements for terraced houses
**) if requested
***) for a transitional period LnT,w + CI, values decreased by 2 dB

Enhanced
58

45

*)

Standard
54

40

**)

45

50

50

55

Source: Lang, 2006

In some standards also in Austria separate, more stringent, requirements are defined for the
sound insulation between terraced houses. Separated requirements for terraced houses in the
classes A to C do not seem necessary. However, class C should be defined as the minimum
requirement for terraced houses.
A building may be assigned to a class by measurement of the sound insulation; an assignment
is only possible if all requirements of the respective class are fulfilled: airborne sound insulation
between flats side by side and between flats one on top of the other, airborne sound insulation
for at least one room within a flat, impact sound insulation from a room outside the flat, also
from the staircase, and impact sound insulation within a flat (split-level or single family house).
In multi-family houses at least two measurements for any of the requirements are necessary; if
there are more than 40 flats in one building, measurements have to be carried out for 5 % of the
flats (randomly chosen).
The sound insulation against noise intruding from sound sources outside the building through
the external elements is to be designed according to the requirements for the resultant sound
reduction index + Ctr (resultant from the sound reduction index of window and opaque external
element) in NORM B 8115-2. These requirements are staggered according to the sound level
in front of the faade. To prove the fulfilment, the rating level in front of the facade has to be
stated for day and night (according to a measurement or calculation, or taken from a noise map

45
or a strategic noise map), and the sound insulation of the faade has to be measured (2
measuring sites or 5 % of the flats).
In Table 27 the requirements for the resultant apparent sound reduction index Rw + Ctr are
shown versus the sound level in front of the faade.
Table 27: Requirements for the sound insulation of the faade according to NORM
B 8115-2
day
Rating level22 in
front of the facade night
(dB)
Rres,w + Ctr (dB)

50
40

51-55
41-45

56-60
46-50

61-65
51-55

66-70
56-60

71-75
61-65

75-80
65-70

28

33

33

38

38

43

48

Source: NORM B 8115-2, translation by Lang

These values also correspond approximately to the requirements of the Swiss SIA 181 standard
for medium noise sensitivity.
In Figure 15 the sound level in the room is shown which results from the A-weighted sound level
in front of the building and the sound reduction index required in NORM B 8115-2. For this
example a 30m3 room is assumed with an area of the outer element of 6 m2. For comparison,
the indicative planning value for the background level in the room is marked for the land use
category which is assigned to the sound level in front of the faade (see Table 9). These levels
inside the building can be compared with maximum levels defined for the design of the sound
insulation of the faade as given in other countries, e.g. in Finland and in Denmark (see Table
28).
Table 28: Maximum sound levels in rooms for living caused by a sound source outside
the building

class
Finland
maximum sound level LA,eq (dB)
day 7 22.00
night 22 7.00
Denmark
maximum sound level LA,eq,24h (dB)

25
20

30
25

35
30

35
30

20

25

30

35

Source: Lang, 2006

22) The rating level is determined from the A-weighted equivalent continuous sound level plus a possible
adaptation value (e.g. railway bonus 5 dB).

46
Figure 15: Sound level inside the building versus sound level in front of the facade with
the sound insulation of the external structure according to NORM B 8115-2
a) day
35

indicative planning value for A-weighted background level inside

A-weighted sound level inside the building dB

30

25

sound level inside LA,eq or Lr

20

15

10

0
45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

A-weighted sound level in front of the facade dB

b) night
25

A-weighted sound level inside the building dB

indicative planning value for A-weighted background level inside

20

15

sound level inside LA,eq or Lr

10

0
35

40

45

50

55

A-weighted sound level in front of the facade dB

Source: Lang, 2006

60

65

70

47

4 Structural measures for improving the sound insulation in

newly built residential houses
4.1 Residential buildings in massive construction
In order to obtain an overview of the presently existing sound insulation in residential buildings
and of the required measures for planning improved sound insulation, the results of a detailed
investigation were consulted. This investigation was carried out within the framework of a
research project on the acoustic insulation in 27 subsidized residential houses built in Styria and
Upper Austria. The results give an overview of the construction methods customary in the
second half of the 1990s, the sound insulation achieved and the contribution of the single sound
transmission paths.
The basis for the definition of measures to improve the sound insulation is knowledge of the
sound transmission paths in the buildings, as shown in Figure 16.
Figure 16: Sound transmission paths between two rooms

Source: Lang, 2001

Thus the sound is transmitted by the separating element (path Dd) and by the (usually) 4
flanking elements, following 3 paths within each: path Ff (the flanking element is excited by the
sound in the source room and the flanking element radiates sound in the receiving room), path
Fd (the flanking element is excited by the sound in the source room and the separating element
radiates sound in the receiving room) and path Df (the separating element is excited in the
source room and the flanking element radiates sound in the receiving room). The sound energy
is transmitted via the junction where flanking element and separating element are connected,
whereby the ratio of the masses of the two elements defines the vibration reduction index.
The standardized sound level difference between two rooms results from the sum of the values
for the standardized sound level difference for the single transmission paths. The calculation
procedure is defined in EN 12354-1 in a simplified and a detailed model. In Austria the
simplified model is used. In the investigation mentioned above the standardized sound level
difference was calculated for numerous examples according to this procedure and it was shown
that the simplified model is well suited to the calculation of the sound insulation which has been
measured (see the results of this comparison in Figure 9 and Figure 10).
The calculation procedure yields the contribution of each of the building elements (separating
element and flanking elements) to the sound transmission and thus identifies the element that
mainly defines the sound transmission and predominantly has to be improved to reduce the
sound transmission.
In Table 29 and Table 30 below, the measured sound insulation (standardized sound level
difference) between rooms side by side and between rooms one on top of the other is stated for
the 27 analysed residential buildings, together with the structure of each of the separating and
flanking elements and the standardized sound level difference achieved by each. In addition to

48
the measured value in parentheses, the calculated value for the (total) standardized sound level
difference is stated, which may differ somewhat from the measured value (see Figure 9 and
Figure 10). The minimum sound-level difference achieved by one of the separating or flanking
elements, which essentially defines the total sound level difference, is marked in green.
The results in Table 29 and Table 30 are grouped according to the sound insulation classes
proposed in chapter 3. The grouping is based on the assumption that for massive elements C=
-1 and thus DnT,w + C = DnT,w -1. Altogether the tables show that the sound insulation required in
the Austrian standard and much better sound insulation can be achieved in massive buildings.
The tables with the sound level difference for every single sound transmission path show that in
most of the cases, the separating element achieves a sufficiently high level of sound insulation
and the sound transmission between the rooms is not determined by the separating element but
by the flanking elements. Consequently, the important flanking elements (those which achieve
the lowest sound level difference) must be improved in order to improve the sound insulation
between the rooms. Comparative calculations show that when eliminating the element with the
lowest standardized sound level difference, which in many cases is the outer wall from vertically
perforated clay blocks, the total standard sound level difference can be increased by 2 to 4 dB.
It is thus possible to fulfil the conditions for next higher requirement class.
Recent investigations into this topic show that the flanking transmission in the outer walls
alongside the floor can be reduced if the solid reinforced concrete floor slab is installed over the
entire thickness of the outer wall instead of using (lightweight) clay blocks at ceiling level. With
the use of a continuous heat insulation layer on the outside of the outer wall, the necessary heat
insulation is ensured. Figure 17 shows a section.
Figure 17: Section of the outer wall of bricks with the concrete floor and outside heat
insulation

Source: Wienerberger Ziegelindustrie GmbH

The description of the sound transmission through individual building elements in Table 29 and
Table 30 also shows that lightweight partition walls made of 10 or 12 cm thick hollow bricks can
considerably influence the sound insulation. By contrast, the sound transmission through
partition walls made of gypsum plasterboard is negligible. By ensuring an elastic connection
between the lightweight, non-load-bearing massive partition walls and the floor above or below,
it is possible to improve the flanking transmission insulation in the massive partition walls. In
Figure 18 an example of the elastic layer in the connection between the light partition and the
floor or the separating wall is shown in a vertical and horizontal section

49
Figure 18: Elastic connection of lightweight massive partition walls with the floor and the
separating wall between flats

Source: Wienerberger Ziegelindustrie GmbH

A comparison of the results of sound insulation measurements between rooms one on top of
the other in dwellings with and without elastic layers beneath the load bearing and non-loadbearing partition walls showed an essential increase in sound insulation between rooms one
above the other due to the elastic layer. Several measurements yielded values for the weighted
standardized sound level difference of 54 to 59 dB (on average 56 dB for 6 measurements)
without an elastic layer and 61 to 64 dB (on average 62 dB for 4 measurements) with
Pronuovo-Wandlager (test report EMPA 92-11-04).

50
Table 29: Sound insulation between adjacent rooms
Construction of separating and flanking elements and contribution to sound transmission
Class DnT,w = 55 to 58 dB
dwelling
Rum

DnT,w
)
(dB)*
(55)

54,6
Leonding

(56)

Wels

(57)

Linz-Ko

(57)

Linz-Par

(57)

Oberzeiring

(58)

59.3

57.4

55.8

55.2

58.9

separating wall

outer wall

floor/floor covering

inner wall

25 cm hollow bricks
5 cm Roofing mineral wool
1.3 cm plaster board

3 cm isolating plaster
30 cm hollow bricks
5.5 cm isolating plaster

floating floor
18 cm concrete slab

10 cm hollow bricks

57.9

66.8 73.1

60.2

20 cm concrete
3.5 cm mineral wool
1.5 cm plaster

25 cm hollow bricks
mineral wool
facade from fibre-cement

6 cm floating screed
3 cm AWAKUST-polystyrene
2 cm loose fill
20cm reinforced concrete slab

10 cm hollow bricks

62.1

65.7

64.1

25 cm sound insulating bricks

3.5 cm mineral wool
1.5cm plaster

38 cm hollow bricks

63.0

61.6

71.0 75.4

64.9

6 cm floating screed
staircase wall as separating wall
3 cm AWAKUST-polystyrene
6 cm fill
20 cm reinforced concrete slab 63.5

68.5 72.7

30 cm hollow bricks
5.5 cm external thermal
insulating composite system
(ETICS)
61.7.
40 cm hollow bricks

7 cm floating screed
10 cm hollow bricks
3 cm AWAKUST-polystyrene
5 cm fill
18 cm reinforced concrete slab

67.7 71.6

63.5

60.0

62.1

67.1 71.3

25 cm hollow bricks
1.5 cm plaster
4 cm mineral wool
3 cm airspace
1.3 cm plasterboard on
adjusting bar

30 cm hollow bricks
6 cm polystyrene

6 cm floating screed
3 cm mineral wool TDP
8 cm fill
20cm reinforced concrete slab

59.4

61.2

71.7 75.3

30 cm sound insulating bricks

58.7

25 cm hollow bricks
5 cm mineral wool
1.3 cm plasterboard on
adjusting bar

64.3

6 cm floating screed
10 cm hollow bricks
3 cm AWAKUST-polystyrene
6 cm fill
20 cm reinforced concrete slab
10 cm plaster board stud wall

----

51

Class DnT,w = 55 to 58 dB (continued 1)

Gleisdorf

DnT,w
)
(dB)*
(58)

Graz-St

(58)

Bruck/Mur

(58)

dwelling

56.7

60.8

58.5

separating wall

outer wall

25 cm sound insulating bricks

1.5cmplaster
5 cm mineral wool
1.3cm plaster board

38 cm hollow bricks

25 cm sound insulating bricks

1.5cm plaster
7 cm mineral wool
1.3cm plasterboard on
adjusting bar

floor/floor covering

inner wall

6.5 cm floating screed

12 cm hollow bricks
2.5 cm mineral wool TDPT
9 cm fill glued.
18 cm reinforced concrete slab

66.9

58.5

38 cm hollow bricks

67.1 76.2

6cm floating screed

10 cm plaster board stud-wall
2.5cm mineral wool TDP
staircase wall as separating wall
7.5cm fill
18 cm reinforced concrete slab

64.7

65.3

64.9

70.8 75.2

25 cm sound insulating bricks

1 cm plaster
5 cm mineral wool WF 50
1 cm air space
1.3cm plasterboard

38 cm hollow bricks

6 cm floating screed
12 cm hollow bricks
2.5 cm mineral wool TDP
9.5 cm grit
18 cm reinforced concrete slab

70.0

60.3

72.1 75.5

67.6

66.4

52

Class DnT,w = 59 to 63 dB
Graz-Gri

DnT,w
)
(dB)*
(59)

Graz-Ze

(60)

dwelling

59.8

60.0

Graz-Zel

(60)

Graz-Zel

(61)

Frojach

(60)

Frojach

(61)

60.5
60.9

59.4
59.9

separating wall
25 cm Durisol wood-concrete
finshed overlay 25/18
1.5 cm plaster
4 cm mineral wool
3 cm air space
1.3 cm plaster board

outer wall
30 cm Durisol wood-concrete
modular chimney blocks
DS30
Wood concrete at inner side
passes separating wall; if it
would be separated by the
separating wall. then
DnTw 68

66.6

62

69.6

62.6

25 cm sound insulating bricks

2.3 cm EPS-T
10 cm hollow bricks, with elastic
layer separated from walls
and floors

38 cm hollow bricks

floor/floor covering

inner wall

6 cm floating screed
2.5 cm mineral wool. TDP
8.5cm grit
18 cm reinforced concrete slab

12 cm hollow bricks

75.2 75.8

68.8

6 cm floating screed
5 cm mineral wool TDPS 55/50
8.5cm fill
18 cm reinforced concrete slab

12 cm hollow bricks

30 cm hollow bricks
6 cm Polystyrene

76.1 77.7

6 cm floating screed
3 cm mineral wool TDP
8 cm grit
18 cm reinforced concrete slab

65.2

63.3

65.7

69.8 73.9

----

63.7

66.1

70.2 74.3

---staircase wall as separating

wall

68.0 73.1

70.9

66.3 74.1

71.9

25 cm hollow bricks
1.5 cm plaster
5 cm mineral wool
2 cm air space
1.3 cm plaster board on
adjusting bar
as above
25 cm Leca-concrete block
1.5 cm plaster
6 cm mineral wool
1.3cm plaster board

as above
38 cm Leca-concrete block
2 cm heat insulating plaster

62.8

64.9

63.8

65.9

as above

as above

as above

6 cm floating screed
2.5 cm mineral wool
7.5 cm gravel
16 cm reinforced concrete slab
as above

12 cm hollow bricks
with 3 cm mineral wool
separated from walls and
floors

as above

53

Class DnT,w = 59 to 63 dB (continued 1)

Linz-Par

DnT,w
)
(dB)*
(60)

Gleisdorf

(61)

Graz-Wi

(62)

dwelling

Graz-Gh

56.0

58.9

62.5

(63)

62.4

separating wall

outer wall

25 cm hollow bricks
5 cm mineral wool
1.3 cm plaster board on adjusting
bar

40 cm hollow bricks

25 cm sound insulating bricks

1.5cm plaster
5 cm mineral wool
1.3cm plaster board

38 cm hollow bricks

58.6

61.3

67.5

60.8

25 cm sound insulating bricks

1.5 cm plaster
7 cm mineral wool
1.3 cm plaster board on
adjusting bar

64.0

25 cm hollow bricks
1.5 cm plaster
5 cm mineral wool
1.3 cm plaster board

65.1

38 cm hollow bricks
in room for measurement only
French window
--38 cm hollow bricks
(only in one of the two rooms)

75.1

floor/floor covering

inner wall

6 cm floating screed
3 cm AWAKUST-polystyrene
6 cm grit
20 cm reinforced concrete slab

---

6.5 cm floating screed

2.5 cm mineral wool TDPT
9 cm grit glued
18 cm reinforced concrete slab

12 cm hollow bricks

6 cm floating screed
2.5 cm mineral wool TDP
6 cm grit
18 cm reinforced concrete slab

10 cm plasterboard
stud-wall

65.7 69.9

74.0 75.7

67.0

69.6 73.1

----

69.0 73.6

71.9

6 cm floating screed
2.5 cm mineral wool TDP
7.5 cm gravel
18 cm reinforced concrete slab

chimney on
12 cm hollow bricks

Class DnT,w 64 dB

54

Linz-Schu

DnT,w
)
(dB)*
(64)

Graz-L

(66)

1.3 cm plaster board

1 cm air space (glue)
22 cm concrete
4 cm wood wool-cementboard
3
860kg/m
1.5 cm plaster

65.2

67.8

70.3

as above,
as above
identical rooms, adverse direction
of sound transmission

as above

20 cm ISOSPAN-wood-concretemodular chimney blocks

3.5 cm mineral wool
1.5 cm plasterboard

25 cm Durisol wood-concrete
modular chimney blocks in the
rooms for measurements no
massive outer wall
---as above

6 cm floating screed
3 cm mineral wool TDPS
5 cm gravel
18 cm reinforced concrete slab

dwelling

65.3

Graz-L

(64)

Graz-Be

(65)**

Graz-Be

(67)**

63.1

63.0
64.8

separating wall

outer wall

22 cm concrete
3.5cm mineral wool TDPS
2 cm plaster

30 cm hollow bricks
6 cm external thermal insulating
composite system (ETICS)

69.8

70.7

64.4

as above

66.2

1.5 cm plaster
5 cm three layered woodwoolboard
21 cm concrete
4 cm Heraklith-board for
permanent concrete formwork
system
1.5 cm plaster

floor/floor covering

inner wall

6 cm floating screed
3 cm AWAKUST-polystyrene
8 cm grit
20 cm reinforced concrete slab

25 cm hollow bricks

6 cm floating screed
mineral wool
9.5 cm grit
18 cm reinforced concrete slab

12.5 cm plaster board

stud wall

75.1 78.3

72.3

----

75.2 78.1

69.9 74.5

as above

71.8 76.4

as above
---1.3 cm plaster board
stud wall
---as above
----

*) Measured value in parenthesis, all other values are calculated

**) The difference between the results of the two measurements with identical construction of separating and flanking elements is caused by the different volumes of the
receiving rooms.

Source: Lang, 2006 (based on calculations carried out in the scope of the investigation Lang (2001))

55
Table 30: Sound insulation between rooms one above the other
Construction of separating and flanking elements and contribution to sound transmission
Class DnT,w = 55 to 58 dB
dwelling
Bruck/Mur

DnT,w
separating floor
outer wall
)
(dB) *
(54)
6 cm floating screed
38 cm hollow brick
2.5 cm mineral wool TDP
9.5 cm grit
18 cm reinforced concrete slab

58.4

Graz-Bauernf.

(54)

Graz-Bauernf

(54)

Graz-Bauernf

(55)

Graz-Bauernf

(55)

Graz-Bauernf

(58)

Aussee

(55)

Leonding

(55)

55.5
55.5
55.4
55.4
60.0

57.3

58.0

inner wall

inner wall

25 cm hollow brick

12 cm hollow brick

25 cm pillar from bricks.

chimney

78.8 65.6

66.2

61.9

70.7

67.3

66.1

57.0

67.7

64.1

66.1

57.0

67.7

64.1

6 cm floating screed
38 cm hollow bricks
2.5 cm mineral wool. TDP
2 cm heat
8.5 cm grit
insolating plaster
18 cm reinforced concrete slab
as above
as above

66.2

as above

66.2

as above

as above
as above

25 cm hollow bricks

as above

12 cm hollow bricks.

as above
as above

57.1

61.7

57.1

61.7

as above

as above

as above

25 cm hollow bricks

66.2

63.4

65.7

64.1

60.3

67.0

6 cm floating screed
38 cm hollow bricks
2.5 cm mineral wool. TDP
7.5 cm grit glued
16 cm reinforced concrete slab

inner wall

25 cm hollow bricks

6 cm floating screed
25 cm hollow bricks
10 cm hollow bricks.
3 cm AWAKUST.polystyrene
mineral wool
2 cm grit
facade from fibre cement
20 cm reinforced concrete slab 63.5

61.7

25 cm sound insulating
bricks (separating wall)

73.9

12 cm hollow bricks

installation shaft

66.6

69.0

staircase wall
20 cm concrete

68.3

56

Class DnT,w = 55 to 58 dB (continued 1)

Leonding

DnT,w
separating floor
)
(dB) *
(57)
as above

Graz-Hie

57.9
(55)

Graz-Hie

(58)

Graz-St

(56)

Graz-St

(57)

Graz-Ze

(56)

Bruck/Mur

(56)

Bruck/Mur

(56)

Bruck/Mur

(57)

dwelling

58.9
56.6

59.7
57.2

56.3

56.2

outer wall
as above

65.2
63.2
6 cm floating screed
38 cm hollow bricks
2.5 cm mineral wool
8.5 cm grit
18 cm reinforced concrete slab

66.1

62.7

66.1

59.0

as above

as above

inner wall

25 cm hollow bricks

20 cm concrete
(separating wall)
70.7
10 cm hollow bricks

69.5

64.0

as above

61.2

6 cm floating screed
38 cm hollow bricks
2.5 cm mineral wool TDP
7.5cm grit
18 cm reinforced concrete slab

25 cm hollow bricks.

as above

as above

65.2

63.5

66.7

65.2

58.7

66.2

as above

6 cm floating screed
38 cm hollow bricks
5 cm mineral wool
TDPS55/50
8.5cm grit
18 cm reinforced concrete slab
66.2
59.3.
6 cm floating screed
30 cm floating screed
2.5 cm mineral wool.TDP
5 cm Polystyrene
8.5 cm grit
18 cm reinforced concrete slab

56.0

65.7

59.2

60.7

58.0

65.6

60.6

64.4

as above

70.3

10 cm plasterboard stud
wall
----

10 cm hollow bricks

61.3

as above

25 cm sound insulating
bricks (separating
wall)

60.3

58.6

as above

as above

61.6

12 cm hollow bricks

65.7

as above

inner wall

as above
as above

staircase wall
25 cm hollow bricks

67.4

25 cm hollow bricks
(separating wall)

70.5

inner wall

57

Class DnT,w = 55 to 58 dB (continued 2)

dwelling
Graz-Wi

DnT,w
separating floor
outer wall
)
(dB) *
(57)
6 cm floating screed
38 cm hollow bricks
2.5 cm mineral wool TDP
6 cm grit
18 cm reinforced concrete slab

inner wall

inner wall

25 cm sound insulating
bricks
(separating wall)

10 cm plaster board stud

wall

inner wall

59.4

65.1

61.5

69.0

25 cm hollow bricks

---12 cm hollow bricks

57.4

64.6

61.4

69.1

62.6

71.6

64.7

61.6

69.1

65.8

62.5

Unterpremsttten

(57)

Unterpremsttten

(58)

Zeltweg

(58)

St. Georgen

(58)

68.2

6 cm floating screed
30 cm Durisol-wood3 cm mineral wool TDPS
concrete modular
6 cm sand
chimney blocks DSs 30
18 cm reinforced concrete slab

59.7

68.8

Wels

(58)

57.7

65.2

60.6

70.7

Wels

(58)

6cm floating screed

38 cm hollow bricks
3 cm AWAKUST.polystyrene
6 cm grit
20 cm reinforced concrete slab
65.5
63.5.
as above
as above

59.0

65.4

57.0

58.7

58.7

6 cm floating screed
38 cm hollow bricks
2.5 cm mineral wool TDP
7.5 cm grit
16 cm reinforced concrete slab
as above

as above

6.5cm floating screed

38 cm hollow bricks
2.5 cm mineral wool .TDP
9 cm grit
18 cm reinforced concrete slab

63.4

as above
25 cm hollow bricks

25 cm Durisol finished
overlay 25/18

10 cm hollow bricks

64.7

as above

64.6

as above

staircase wall
38 cm hollow bricks

chimney

staircase wall
chimney
25 cm DMI finished
overlay with plaster board
on
4 cm mineral wool and
3 cm air space

80.6

63.4

25 cm sound insulating
bricks (separating
wall)

staircase wall
25 cm sound insulating
bricks

68.4

68.7

76.6

68.6

as above, with 3.5 cm

mineral wool and plaster

as above

58

Class DnT,w = 55 to 58 dB (continued 3)

dwelling
Linz-Par

Linz-Par

DnT,w
separating floor
outer wall
)
(dB) *
(58)
6 cm floating screed
40 cm hollow bricks
3 cm AWAKUST-polystyrene
6 cm grit
20 cm reinforced concrete slab

inner wall
10 cm hollow bricks

25 cm hollows bricks
(separating wall)

65.4

59.3

65.7

66.7

64.0

59.4

65.6

66.1

62.9

(58)

as above

as above

inner wall

as above

25 cm hollow bricks
5cm mineral wool with
plaster board on
adjusting bar(WTW)

69.1

inner wall

59

Class DnT,w = 59 to 63 dB
dwelling
Graz-Gh

DnT,w
separating floor
)
(dB) *
(59)
6 cm floating floor
2.5 cm mineral wool TDP
7.5 cm gravel
18 cm reinforced concrete slab

59.4

staircase wall
22 cm concrete

65.9

70.4

73.0

66.5

64.8

75.3

63.5

65.6

65.6

6 cm floating screed
3 cm AWAKUST-polystyrene
8 cm grit
20 cm reinforced concrete slab

Linz-Schu

(62)

60.8

66.2

Graz-Szy

(60)

60.8

66.2

blarn

(60)

blarn

(63)

61.7

as above

6 cm floating screed
2.5 cm mineral wool
8 cm grit glued
18 cm reinforced concrete slab

65.9

12 cm hollow bricks

63.5

64.4

67.1

inner wall

25 cm hollow bricks

65.1

38 cm hollow bricks

inner wall

staircase wall
as separating wall

(59)

58.7

inner wall

25 cm hollow bricks
5 cm mineral wool
1.3 cm plaster board
(separating wall)

Linz-Schu

59.1

outer wall

30 cm hollow bricks
6 cm external
thermal insulating
composite system
(ETICS)
as above, a part with
additional plaster board
on mineral wool
38 cm hollow bricks

10 cm hollow bricks

as above

22 cm concrete
3.5cm mineral wool TDPS
2 cm plaster

81.1

25 cm hollow bricks

25 cm sound insulating
bricks (separating wall)

65.1

69.0

70.7

61.8

68.7

65.4

66.6

69.3

72.4

6 cm floating screed
3 cm mineral wool TDP
8 cm grit
18 cm reinforced concrete slab

25 cm hollow concrete
blocks
6cm Polystyrene

as above

as above

10 cm hollow bricks

77.8

25 cm hollow concrete
blocks

as above

12 cm hollow concrete
blocks

plaster board stud wall

---12 cm hollow concrete
blocks (shaft wall)

staircase wall
25 cm hollow concrete
blocks
mineral wool with
plaster board

79.6

60

Class DnT,w = 59 to 63 dB (continued 1)

dwelling
Oberzeiring

Frojach

DnT,w
separating floor
)
(dB) *
(61)
6 cm floating screed
3 cm mineral wool TDP
8 cm grit
20 cm reinforced concrete slab

30 cm hollow bricks
6 cm Polystyrene

25 cm hollow bricks.

60.4

66.1

outer wall

inner wall

(62)

6 cm floating screed
2.5 cm mineral wool. TDP
7.5 cm gravel
16 cm reinforced concrete slab

62.7

38cm Leca-concrete
blocks
2 cm heat insulating
plaster

69.6

60.7

64.7

64.5

68.8

25 cm Leca concrete
blocks
(separating wall)

inner wall
25 cm hollow bricks
4 cm mineral wool
3 cm air space
1.3 cm plaster board on
adjusting bar

inner wall
12 cm plaster board
stud wall

76.8

---12 cm plaster board

stud wall

76.2

----

staircase wall
25cm Leca-concrete
blocks
5 cm mineral wool
1.2 cm plaster board

61

Class DnT,w 64 dB
dwelling
Graz-Be

DnT,w
separating floor
)
(dB) *
(68)
6 cm floating screed
3 cm mineral wool TDPS
5 cm gravel
18 cm reinforced concrete slab

outer wall
no massive outer wall in
the rooms where
measurements were
performed (only glass)

--64.8
65.2
*) Measured value in parenthesis, all other values are calculated.

inner wall
20 cm ISOSPAN woodconcrete modular
chimney blocks
3.5cm mineral wool
1.5 cm plaster board
(separating wall)

75.4

inner wall
12.5 cm plaster board
stud wall

----

Source: Lang, 2006 (based on calculations carried out in the scope of the investigation Lang (2001))

inner wall

62
The survey in Table 29 and Table 30 shows the importance of the flanking elements to the
sound insulation between rooms located next to or on top of each other. Therefore a general
condition was derived for the standardized sound level difference to be fulfilled by the flanking
elements in order to meet the required standardized sound level difference between rooms
located on top of each other. As a basis, a separating floor between flats was assumed,
consisting of a 20 cm reinforced concrete slab with 5 cm loose fill and a floating screed with a
resonance frequency below 85 Hz. This is a building style commonly used in Austrian housing
construction today. According to NORM B 8115-4, a weighted sound reduction index of 66 dB
can be assumed for this type of construction. When assuming a room of 3 x 4 m floor space
and 2.5 m room height, a volume of 30 m under the separating floor results for the receiving
room. In this case, the separating floor produces a standardized sound level difference of DnT,w
= 65,0 dB.
The standardized sound level difference that can be achieved with solid inner and solid outer
walls flanking this separating floor was calculated according to NORM B 8115-4, based on the
values for the vibration reduction index in compliance with EN 12354-1. It was calculated for an
inner wall with a mass of 100 to 400 kg/m and an outer wall with a mass of 200 to 600 kg/m.
On the simplistic assumption that all flanking elements deliver the same sound insulation level,
the following requirements for flanking elements result, as shown in Figure 19.
Figure 19: Weighted sound reduction index Rw and weighted standardized sound level
difference DnT,w of outer wall and inner wall when flanking a floor of 535 kg/m2 (bare floor
with grit), with floating floor with resonance frequency < 85 Hz
75
70

DnT,w

outer wall

inner wall
DnT,w for the flanking wall dB

65
60

Rw

55

calculated according mass

minus 2 dB

50
45
40
35
30
100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

mass per m2 for outer wall or partition wall kg/m2

Source: Lang, 2006

Usually there are 5 sound transmission paths, the separating and 4 flanking elements. All 5
transmission paths have to yield the required sound insulation to fulfil the requirements. On the
simplistic assumption that all flanking elements deliver the same sound insulation level, the
following requirements for flanking elements result (see Table 31 below).

63
Table 31: Weighted standardized sound level difference DnT,w required for flanking
elements and examples of their fulfilment
Required DnT,w (dB) between rooms
located on top of each other

Required DnT,w (dB) to be met by the

individual flanking elements

55

62

59

66

64

71

69

76

Can be fulfilled for example by:

2

Inner wall 100 kg/m

2
Outer wall 200 kg/m
2
Inner wall 300 kg/m or gypsum
plaster boards
2
Outer wall 420 kg/m
Inner wall gypsum plaster boards
Outer wall with additional flexible
lining of plaster board
Inner wall gypsum plasterboards
Outer wall with additional flexible
lining of plaster board

Source: Lang, 2006

The values shown in Figure 19 are calculated for the ratio volume to area of separating floor
V/S = 2.5. If this ratio is increased the values for DnT,w are increased.
The requirements for the flanking elements are similar, if the wall between flats is the separating
element. If the separating wall is a multilayer construction of plasterboards and the flanking
elements are totally separated by the separating wall or are also multilayer walls from plaster
board, no additional requirements exist; for a massive outer wall in this case an inner flexible
layer on the outer wall is necessary.
In the Netherlands in 1996/1997 an sample project was carried out with 14 flats with enhanced
sound insulation compared to the minimum sound insulation in a 5-storey block of flats in
massive construction with 233 flats altogether (SBR, 2000). Two versions were planned for the
wall separating the flats: a one-layer concrete wall and a two-layer concrete wall. The single
concrete wall was improved from 23 cm thickness (506 kg/m2) to 27 cm (594 kg/m2) in the
reference case. The double wall from 2 x 16 cm concrete with 2 cm PS-foam (704 kg/m2) in
between was the same in both cases; the flanking floor was in the reference case only covered
with a cement floor covering (534 kg/m2), in the improved case with a floating floor on 25/20
mineral wool (564 kg/m2). The load-bearing inner walls were 16 cm concrete (352 kg/m2) in both
cases; the non-load-bearing inner walls from 7 cm gypsum were isolated from floor and ceiling
for the improved case.
With these measures for improvement, the airborne sound insulation in the horizontal direction
was improved for the single wall from DnT,w + C = 54 and 56 dB to 57 and 58 dB and for the
double wall from 55 and 56 dB to 56 and 57 dB (this may be caused by the reduction in the
flanking transmission by the floor covered with the floating floor). The airborne sound insulation
in the vertical direction was improved by means of the floating floor by 3 to 5 dB to DnT,w + C =
55 to 59 dB. The impact sound insulation was, as expected, significantly improved using the
floating floor to Ln,w + CI = 42 to 49 dB. The additional costs for the measures were HFL 3500
per flat (including living room, 2 bedrooms, kitchen and bath).
The results show that in massive buildings in the Netherlands, sound insulation was achieved
as enhanced sound insulation, which is usually achieved or exceeded in Austrian massive
buildings (see Table 29 and Table 30). Also the floating floor on mineral wool (or another elastic
insulating layer) is the regular construction in Austria.

4.2 Lightweight construction of residential buildings (wooden

structures)
In the last few decades, a growing number of multi-storey apartment houses have been built in
Austria using timber constructions. When measuring the sound insulation of these buildings, it
was found that with proper workmanship (particularly for the wall and floor connections) a high
level of sound insulation can be achieved. For instance, when measuring the sound insulation in

64
a multi-family house where the walls and floors had been constructed according to Figure 20,
the following weighted standardized sound level differences were found: DnT,w = 69, 64 und 60
dB23 between adjacent rooms and 56 dB between rooms located on top of each other.
Figure 20: Example of construction of wall and floor and the relevant connections in a
multi-family house in wooden construction
a) Connection between wall separating flats and floor (vertical section)

b) Connection between outer wall and wall separating flats (horizontal section)

c) Connection between outer wall and floor (vertical section)

Source: Amt der Steiermrkischen Landesregierung, Abteilung fr Wohnbaufrderung

Also with wooden constructions it is necessary to consider the sound insulation of the
separating and flanking elements and their junctions. NORM B 8115-4 and EN 12354-1 do not
23 The value differences are partly due to different partition wall areas and volumes. In one case, they are
due to an additionally installed chipboard on the partition wall.

65
provide any information on how to calculate the standardized sound level difference for
buildings in lightweight construction. In a comprehensive study, including the calculation and
measurement of sound insulation in several residential buildings with timber construction, a
calculation method was used (Scholl et al., 2004). Based on the comparison of calculated and
measured results, it was found to be suitable. This method makes use of the weighted sound
reduction index of the separating and flanking elements. For flanking sound transmission, it
uses the values for the weighted normalized flanking level difference according to DIN 4109,
supplement 1, or a value of Dn,t,w = 75 dB when the flanking elements are completely interrupted
by the separating element.
At www.dataholz.com, the weighted sound reduction indices for numerous types of wall and
floor constructions have been compiled. They show that a very high sound insulation can be
achieved. In addition, this website provides illustrated examples of suitable structural
connections between floor and wall elements.
The detailed calculations presented in the above-mentioned report (Scholl et al., 2004) also
give insight into which sound insulation can be achieved and how the flanking elements
influence the sound insulation.
In Table 32 and Table 33 below, the results of the measurements and the calculations are
shown. Here and better suited for the comparison the apparent sound reduction index is
stated as given in the report. The standardized sound level difference is influenced by the area
of the partition and the volume of the receiving room at each of the measuring positions and
thus the comparison is distorted. The converted value for the standardized sound level
difference is given in parentheses by the measured value of the apparent sound reduction
index. The results show that high-quality sound insulation can be achieved in the wooden
dwellings.
When comparing the sound insulation for the different versions of adjacent rooms one can see
that the connection between the partition and outer wall has an important influence. With a total
separation of outer wall and partition at the junction, an apparent sound reduction index of 60
dB is achieved, and only 56 dB if there is no total separation. The separation can be substituted
by a shield (e.g. lining from plaster board) on the inner side of the outer wall, which is
interrupted by the partition.
The comparison of the results of the measurements of the sound insulation between rooms one
above the other shows also the influence of the outer wall. Even with the better sound insulation
of the separating floor, the sound insulation achieved is determined by the flanking outer wall.
The construction with an inner shielding on the outer wall is clearly advantageous.

66
Table 32: Sound insulation between adjacent flats in dwellings in wooden construction
No

Weighted apparent sound

reduction index (dB)

Separating wall (SW)

1.0+1.25 cm GF
14 cm MW, in it separated studs
60/60, space 62.5cm
1.0+1.25 cm GF
header joist separated

measured
60
(DnT,w = 61)

calculated
60.6

56
(DnT,w = 60)

66
58.1
as above
differing from
measuring
caused by
installation in
wall
66
as above

60
(DnT,w = 61)

No

60
(DnT,w = 63)

61.6

Weighted apparent sound

reduction index (dB)

61
(DnT,w = 61)

1.5 cm MD
16 cm MW, in it wood
studs 60/160, space
62.5cm
1.3 cm HW
68.1
as above

61
as above

60.5

66
as above

Outer wall (OW)

66

Separating wall (SW)

as above

62
66

68.4
1.5 cm MD
16 cm MW, in it wood
studs 60/160, space
62.5cm
1.3 cm HW
2.5 cm MW
1.25 cm GF on
spring hanger
68.1
Outer wall (OW)
no outer wall

OW-SW-junction
walls totally
separated, no
bridges by
screws, header
joist or frame of
the partition
separated studs
connected
header joist

walls totally
separated, no
bridges by
screws, header
joist or frame of
the partition
inner layer
continuous,
facing shell on
spring hanger,
separated by
partition

OW-SW-junction
-----

Ceiling

Floor

Inner wall

1.25+1.25 cmGKP on
spring hanger,
separated by partition

HSP on
2.5 cm MW
separated by
partition

wooden stud wall

separated by partition

67.7
as above

65.7
as above

75.1
as above

67.4
as above

65.4
as above

76.0
as above

67.4
as above

65.4
75.4
screed on
as above
mineral wool
screed and MW
separated by
partition

67.7

70.7

Ceiling

Pitched roof with

insulation between
rafters
1.25 GKP with 18 cm
MW on top
separated by partition
75.3

Floor

75. 1

Inner wall

HSP auf
2.5 cm MW
separated by
partition

2 inner walls
separated by partition

65.3

75.8 und 75.8

GF
GKP
MW
MD
HW

fibre reinforced gypsum panel

plasterboard
mineral wool
medium hard board
composite board

Source: Lang, 2006, from data in the report Scholl et al. 2004

67

68
Table 33: Sound insulation between flats one above the other in dwellings in wooden construction
No

Weighted apparent sound

reduction index (dB)

measured
64
(DnT,w = 63)

60
(DnT,w = 59)

61
(DnT,w = 60)

67
(DnT,w = 66)

calculated
64.6

60.3

57.5

66.3

Separating floor

OW-floor
connection
5 cm cement screed
1.5 cm MD
inner shielding
3 cm MW impact sound ins.board 16 cm MW, in between board separated
2.2 cm chipboard
wood studs 60/160,
by floor
22 cm timber joists,
space 62.5 cm
in-between 10 cm mineral wool
1.3 cm HW
2.7 cm spring hanger
2.5 cm MW
1.25 cm plaster board
1.25 GF
70
5 cm cement screed
3.5 cm MW impact sound insul.
4 cm concrete blocks as load
2.2 cm chipboard
22 cm timber joists, in
between 10 cm mineral wool
2.7 cm spring hanger
1.25 cm plaster board
79
5 cm cement screed
6 cm (2x32/30) MW impactsound insulation board
2.2 cm chipboard
22 cm timber joists, in
between 10 cm mineral wool
2.7 cm spring hanger
1.25 cm plaster board
71
5 cm cement screed
1.5 cm MW impact-sound
insulation board
3 cm bulk filling
Trickling protection/Protective foil
2.2 cm chipboard
22 cm timber joists, in
between 10 cm mineral wool
2.7 cm spring hanger
1.25 cm plaster board
68

Outer wall (OW)

Inner wall

Inner wall

wooden stud wall

separated by floor

wooden stud wall

separated by floor

68.2
inner shielding
non rectangular
board separated
ground plan
2 outer walls as above by floor

75.2
separating wall
wooden stud wall
with separated
studs

75.2
wooden stud wall
separated by floor

68.1 and 70.3

2 outer walls
1.5 cm MD
16 cm MW, in between
wooden studs 60/160,
space 62.5 cm
1.3 cm HW

62.3
wooden stud wall
separated by floor

75.1
wooden stud wall
separated by floor

74.7
wooden stud wall
separated by floor

74.9

60.7 and 60.9

3 outer walls
wooden construction
no further data

76.9, 76.9 und 77.3

outer wall
separated by
floor

77.3

inner wall
outer wall
1.5 cm MD
16 cm MW, in
between wood studs
60/160, space 62.5
cm
1.3 cm HW
on the floor
75.2
non rectangular
ground plan
2 walls wooden stud
walls

75.1 and 75.1

69

No

10

11

12

13

14

Weighted apparent sound

reduction index (dB)

57
(DnT,w =
56)

63
(DnT,w =
62)

56.1

63.8

63
(DnT,w =
62)

63.1

67
(DnT,w =
66)

63.5
differing from
measurement
caused by
rooms one
above the
other shifted
and elastic
layer under
floor

62
(DnT,w =
61)

60.4

Separating floor

Outer wall (OW)

2.2 cm cement-bound chipboard

2 cm MW impact sound ins.board
6 cm bulk filling
Trickling protection
2.2 cm chipboard
22 cm timber joists, in
between 10 cm mineral wool
2.4 cm lathing
1.25 cm plaster board
61
5 cm cement screed
1.5 cm MW impact-sound
insulation board
2.2 cm chipboard
22 cm timber joists, in
between 10 cm mineral wool
2.7 cm spring hanger
1.25 cm plaster board
69
as above

2 outer walls
1.5 cm MD
16 cm MW, in between
wooden studs60/160,
space 62.5 cm
1.3 cm HW

69
5 cm cement screed
3 cm MW impact sound ins.board
3 cm bulk filling
Trickling protection
2.2 cm chipboard
22 cm timber joists, in
between 10 cm mineral wool
2.7 cm spring hanger
1.25 cm plaster board
73
5 cm cement screed
3 cm MW impact sound ins.board
4 cm bulk filling
Trickling protection
12 cm stacked-plank floor, glued
68

OW-floorconnection
no data

Inner wall

Inner wall

wooden stud wall

separated by floor

wooden stud wall

separated by floor

60.9 and 61.1

3 outer walls
outer wall
1.5 cm MD
separated by
16 cm MW, in between floor
wooden studs 60/160,
space 62.5 cm
1.3 cm HW

74.9
wooden stud wall
separated by floor

75.1

72.1, 72.1 and 68.5

75.5

2 outer walls
as above
68.4 and 68.0
2 outer walls
as above

67.5 and 68.1

as above

61.9

no data

inner wall

wooden stud wall

separated by floor

wooden stud wall

separated by floor

no data

75.4
wooden stud wall
separated by floor

75.0
wooden stud wall
separated by floor

no data

75.1
wooden stud wall
separated by floor

74.5
wooden stud wall
separated by floor

wooden stud wall

separated by floor

74.1

74.1

75.9

70
In the Netherlands in 2000/2001 a model project was constructed with terraced houses with
three storeys in wooden construction with a sound insulation level clearly higher than the
minimum requirement (SBR, 2003). A weighted standardized sound level difference between
adjacent flats in the range of DnT,w + C 60 to 68 dB was measured with the improved separating
wall (see Figure 21).
Figure 21: Partition with junction to foundations and floor in the model-project in wooden
construction

71
To achieve the better sound insulation between adjacent flats the double-leaf outer wall was
constructed with an inner leaf from plaster board on wooden studs and an outer leaf consisting
of a 10 cm brick wall with a separating joint at the position of the partition (see Figure 22).
Besides the sound insulation of the partition the horizontal impact sound transmission and the
sound insulation in the air inlet and air outlet ducts were especially considered by installing
silencers.
Figure 22: Partition with junction to the outer wall and the roof in the model project in
wooden construction (SBR 2003)

72

5 The costs of improved sound insulation

A precise determination of the costs of improved sound insulation, and in particular the
proportion of total costs accounted for by sound insulation, requires a bottom-up analysis for a
broad range of various types of construction, building methods, insulation materials and
alternatives for implementation. However, such an approach would go far beyond the limits of
this particular study. Consequently, in this chapter, results taken from literature on this subject
are primarily quoted.
Finally, however, for the small sample of massive structures shown in Tables 29 and 30, the
assumption that the proportion of total construction costs attributable to various types of sound
insulation is far exceeded by that of other features, and therefore that improved sound
insulation is not a priori directly reflected in higher total construction costs, will be shown to be
correct.
In addition to this observation of massive structures, the situation for lightweight wooden
constructions will also be examined.

5.1 Proportion of building costs in overall construction costs

Klemp (2005) estimates the proportion of costs represented by good sound insulation in a newly
constructed residential building at 2-3% of the overall construction cost, whereby no further
definition of what is to be understood by good sound insulation is provided. Furthermore, it is
found that measures to improve sound insulation in existing buildings can be implemented only
at considerably higher cost.
These findings are confirmed by Ktz und Blecken (1999), who note that the subsequent repair
of deficiencies in sound insulation is often connected with serious problems, either because
such deficiencies cannot be eliminated at all or because of the great effort and high cost
involved in rectifying them.
Just how comprehensive such measures can be is illustrated by several examples:
1.
The two leafs of a double leaf brick wall are connected by mortar bridges.However, only
a small number of such badly placed acoustical bridges cause a drastic reduction in sound
insulation. The necessary rectification of such defects is carried out by using a large stonesawing strand - which separates the two leafs at great expense. This problem could easily have
been avoided by a more careful construction of the masonry or the inclusion of an insulation
layer.
2.
If masonry of insufficient gross density is used, the wall will not provide enough sound
insulation. Subsequent facing of the wall with a flexible leaf attachment is necessary to provide
that degree / level of protection against airborne noise which is required. The damage can only
be repaired at high cost and with a loss of living space. The use of masonry with the requisite
stone density would have resulted in only minimal additional costs.
3.
In the case of a flight of stairs made of reinforced concrete, the corbels were not
correctly placed on the platforms, which meant that acoustical bridges developed in the
grouting. A neoprene bearing (at a cost of around EUR 50 per flight of stairs) would have
resulted in the damage being avoided. Subsequent elimination of this problem is impossible,
and the residents must live with the foot fall sound produced by users of the stairs. This
deficiency leads to a 10% reduction in rental or sales value.
4.
As a consequence of the poor planning of a terraced-housing construction (continuous
foundations and floor slabs for both houses), sound transmissions to the neighbours are
inevitable. Subsequent improvements in the sound insulation are only possible with costly
additional constructions, namely floating floor screed on the ground floor, as well as flexible

73
shell attachments. The separation of the foundations of these houses, which is far more
effective in sound insulation terms, would have been possible at only minimal additional
expense.
These examples illustrate clearly that only minor shortcomings in planning and execution can
lead to major deficiencies in sound insulation. As a rule, the correction of such inadequacies
results in substantial additional costs (Ktz, Blecken, 1999).
An unpublished study commissioned by the Swiss Ministry of the Environment, Forestry and
Agriculture (Bundesamt fr Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft, BUWAL) and carried out in 2003 by
the EMPA (Eidgenssischen Materialprfungs- und Forschungsanstalt) Swiss Materials
Science and Technology Research Institute (Walk et. al., 2003), looks at the cost implications of
improvements in sound insulation in residential housing in Switzerland.
In their study, Walk et al. (2003) refer to three earlier German studies which estimate the
additional costs for massive structures of between 1.5% and 5% of the total expenses, not
taking into consideration the loss of living space for an improvement of 2-3 dB in protection
against airborne noise (interior noise only) of 7 dB in protection against foot fall noise and of 5
dB in protection against noise from domestic installations. Therefore, the additional cost, not
taking into consideration the loss of available living space and without an improvement in
protection against exterior noise, may amount to around 0.5-1% per dB of improved sound
insulation.
Walk et al. (2003) then go on to examine the cost of additional sound insulation compared with
the 1988 edition of the standard SIA 181 for various types of multiple-family dwelling (buildings
with 1 to 3 apartments per floor) in different massive structures (brickwork, reinforced concrete,
flat-roofed, steep-roofed). The aim of the study was to estimate the cost consequences of a
slight tightening of the sound-insulation requirements of SIA 181 with respect to the
establishment of the minimum requirements for sound insulation in structural engineering
contained in the noise-protection regulations. The available options for implementation which
were examined correspond with the three levels of requirements below:

Level 1: Sound insulation in accordance with the minimum requirements of SIA 181
(1988)

Level 2: A 2 dB improvement in sound insulation over level 1, in accordance with the

minimum requirements of SIA 181 (2006);

Level 3: A 5 dB improvement in sound insulation over level 1, in accordance with the

increased requirements of SIA 181 (1988 and 2006); see Figure 23.

The improvements in sound insulation of 2 dB and 5 dB, respectively, refer to all forms of noise
referred to in SIA 181, namely: exterior noise (airborne noise), interior noise (airborne and
impact sound), as well as noise from domestic installations.
The study comes to the following conclusions:
The additional expenditure for improved insulation against external noise, representing a shift
from level 1 to level 2, averages 1% of the total construction costs, while an improvement in
insulation against external noise from level 1 to level 3 would result in extra expenses on an
average of 2.5%. Therefore, protection against external noise can be seen to represent, on
average, a proportion of 33% of the total additional costs.
As far as internal noise (airborne and impact sound) is concerned, meeting the requirements
which correspond to improved level 2 protection would, in comparison to level 1 insulation,
likewise involve, on average, additional costs of 1% of the overall expense. However, an
improvement in protection against internal noise from the level 1 to level 3 standard brings
about an average increase in costs of 5,5%. Consequently, an average proportion of 53% of
total additional costs can be attributed to protection against internal noise.

74
Figure 23: Comparison of the standard SIA 181 1988 and 2006

Source: Emrich, 2006; translation by IFIP

In comparison with level 1, improving protection against noise from domestic installations to
meet level 2 requirements would lead to average additional expenses of 0.5% of the total
construction costs, while an additional expenditure of 1-2% can be expected from improving to
level 3. On average, then, this means that 20% of total additional expenses can be traced back
to protection against noise from domestic installations.
From this we can conclude that, taking the minimum requirements of SIA 181 edition1988 as a
starting point, a 2 dB improvement in sound insulation will typically bring about extra expenses
of 2.5% of total construction costs. From the same starting point, a 5 dB improvement in sound
insulation will, on average, result in 10% more expenditure on overall construction. The ratio of
additional costs in the areas of protection against internal noise, external noise and noise from
domestic appliances is in each case around 50%:30%:20%.
In the German study Sound insulation costs in residential construction examples of
cost-effective solutions (Kosten des Schallschutzes im Wohnungsbau Beispiel fr
kostengnstige Lsungen), Ktz und Blecken (1999), referring to total construction
expenditure, calculate the costs of sound insulation of model buildings in massive and light
weight constructions for various types of ground plan and building methods. Here, the
differences in construction costs resulting from a move from sound insulation level I to levels II
and III according to VDI 4100 (see Table 34) are examined.
The study looked at the construction of multiple-family dwellings only, since internal sound
insulation is of particular importance there, as the residents have next to no influence on
sources of noise in other apartments (the conduct and routine of the residents of other
apartments cannot be influenced); this means that avoidable (loud music, etc.) or unavoidable
(use of toilets, etc.) noise will arise. Unacceptable disturbance caused by noise from other
apartments and the consequent reduction in quality of life must be avoided by means of sound
insulation (Ktz, Blecken, 1999). Therefore, only buildings with at least three dwellings were
examined.
The following differential costs of sound insulation levels II and III compared with sound
insulation level I, expressed as a percentage of overall construction costs and presented in
Table 35 were calculated for 42 model buildings on the basis of 4 different floor plan types
(buildings with one, two, three and more apartments per floor) and 5 different methods of
implementation (single-shell brickwork, single-shell reinforced concrete, double-shell brickwork,

75
double-shell reinforced concrete, and dry lining) using a bottom-up process corresponding to
the various floor plan types and implementation methods (Ktz, Blecken, 1999).
Table 34: Sound insulation requirements in accordance with the sound insulation levels
laid out in VDI 4100
Sound insulation
Building component

Quality of sound insulation

Protection against airborne sound:
required weighted sound reduction
index R'w in dB
Protection against airborne sound:
required R'w in dB
Protection against impact sound:
required L'n,w in dB
Protection against airborne sound:
required R'w in dB
Protection against impact sound:
required L'n,w in dB

separating walls between

apartments
floors between apartments
Stairwell walls
Flights of stairs and podeste
landings

Protection against airborne sound:

required Rw in dB

Apartment doors
a
b

VDI 4100
Sound
insulation
level I
basic

VDI 4100
Sound
insulation
level II
normal

VDI 4100
Sound
insulation
level III
enhanced

53

56

59

54

57

60

46

39

52

56

59

58

53

46

53

27

Elastic floor coverings may not be included in verification of the requirements

Elastic floor coverings may be included in verification of the requirements

Calculation using values

for separating walls
between apartments

Source: Baasch et al., 1999

Table 35: Differences in sound-insulation costs for sound insulation level II and III
compared with sound insulation level I in accordance with VDI 4100, with reference to
total construction costs in %
Without consideration of changes in size of living space:
massive
construction
level I II

massive
construction
level II III

massive
construction
level I III

light weight
construction
level I II

light weight
construction
level II III

light weight
construction
level I III

Walls incl. doors

Ceilings incl.
stairs

1.1 %

0.3 %

1.4 %

0.7 %

0.3 %

1.0 %

0.1 %

2.3 %

2.4 %

0.1 %

2.5 %

2.6 %

Installations

0.5 %

0.9 %

1.4 %

0.4 %

0.1 %

0.5 %

Total

1.7 %

3.5 %

5.2 %

1.2 %

2.9 %

4.1 %

light weight
construction
level II III

light weight
construction
level I III

With consideration of changes in size of living space:

massive
construction
level I II

massive
construction
level II III

massive
construction
level I III

light weight
construction
level I II

Walls incl. doors

4.2 %

1.8 %

6.0 %

1.2 %

2.5 %

3.7 %

floors incl. stairs

0.1 %

2.3 %

2.4 %

0.2 %

2.4 %

2.6 %

Installations

0.5 %

0.9 %

1.4 %

0.4 %

0.1 %

0.5 %

Total

4.8 %

5.0 %

9.8 %

1.8 %

5.0 %

6.8 %

Source: Ktz, Blecken, 1999

In the following section, the question is whether the expenses associated with various
measures which result in different levels of sound insulation in newly-constructed residential
buildings correlate significantly with the overall construction costs.

76

5.2 Total net costs and sound insulation in massive residential

constructions in Upper Austria and Styria
For most of the buildings described in Table 29 and Table 30 in which sound insulation was
determined by measurements for rooms above and next to one another, figures for the total net
construction costs, the number of constructed accommodation units and living space were
provided by the housing subsidies department of the Federal State Government. From this, the
total net costs per square metre can be calculated. The total net construction costs of buildings
completed at different times within the period from 1989 to 1999 were converted to values for
the year 2000 using the building costs index (Table 36), meaning that the costs per square
metre represent those of the year 2000. This represents the basis for an objective comparison.
Table 36: Building costs index 2000
Year

BCI 2000

1989

69.3

1990

73.1

1991

76.3

1992

80.1

1993

83.8

1994

86.8

1995

89.8

1996

91.2

1997

93.7

1998

95.8

1999

97.7

2000

100.0

2001

102.1

2002

103.7

2003

106.4

2004

111.8

2005

114.3

Source: Statistik Austria

Table 37 shows the sound insulation for rooms above and next to one another, the number of
residences in individual buildings, the living space available in each building, the total net
construction costs and the cost per square metre. The total net construction costs are made up
of the expenses for construction only, the costs of domestic installations, incidental and
installation expenses, as well as all fees including financing costs, albeit without taking into
consideration VAT.
From Table 37 a contrast turns out between buildings with a low cost per square metre and a
high degree of sound insulation on the one hand, and buildings with a high cost per square
metre and lower levels of sound insulation on the other hand. Table 38 presents the maximum
differences in the individual ranges of costs per square metre.

77
Table 37: Sound insulation for rooms above and next to one another and costs per
square metre
Total net
construction
costs at year
2000 prices

Total living
space

EUR

14

915,940

509

1,798

58.0

19

1,602,658

1,382

1,160

56.3

n. v

21

2,077,384

2,269

916

62.0

60.5

837,162

562

1,491

Gleisdorf

n. v

59.5

12

1,313,683

909

1,445

Graz-Bf

55.2

n. v

147

12,384,618

10,147

1,221

Rooms
above one
another

Rooms next
to one
another

DnT,w [dB]
measured
55.0

DnT,w [dB]
measured
n. v

Bruck/Mur-Re

54.0

Bruck/Mur-Ti
Frojach

Construction
project

Aussee

Residences

Costs per
square
metre
EUR/m

Graz-Ber

68.0

66.0

43

4,877,320

3,138

1,554

Graz-Gh

59.0

63.0

313

7,481,014

7,899

947

Graz-Go

56.5

58.0

109

9,002,189

7,462

1,206

Graz-Gri

n. v

59.0

36

4,928,958

2,778

1,774

Graz-Wie

57.0

62.0

162

19,631,788

12,577

1,561

Graz-Zel

n. v

60.5

32

3,300,498

2,381

1,386

Leonding

56.0

56.0

44

3,532,598

3,077

1,148

Linz-Schu

60.5

64.0

40

3576869

3,427

1,044

Linz-Komm

n. v

57.0

16

1437428

1248

1152

Linz-Par

58.0

58.5

58

3,297,454

2,794

1,180

Oberzeiring

61.0

58.0

12

1,225,227

906

1,353

blarn

61.5

n. v

775,850

561

1,384

St. Georgen

58.0

n. v

795,793

687

1,158

Unterpremsttten

57.5

n. v

943,228

639

1,476

Wels

58.0

57.0

46

3,551,871

3,000

1,184

Zeltweg

58.0

n. v

16

1,537,594

1,197

1,285

Source: IFIP, 2006 (based on the data from Table 29 and Table 30, and cost figures supplied
by the subsidising Federal State Government Authority)
Table 38: Maximum difference in sound insulation versus the range of cost per square
metre
Range of net cost per
square metre
900-1100

Rooms above one

another
DnT,w [dB]
maximum difference
4,2

Rooms next to one

another
DnT,w [dB]
maximum difference
1,0

1100-1300

4,0

2,5

1300-1600

4,5

2,5

1600-1800

13,0

7,0

Source: IFIP, 2006 (based on data from Table 37)

The data from Table 37 are represented diagrammatically in Figure 24 The correlation
coefficient for sound insulation in rooms above one another and the net cost per square metre
is 0.228, while that for rooms next to one another and the net cost per square metre is 0.154. If
both data series are summarised, the correlation coefficient is 0.201.
Consequently, no correlation can be established between the sound insulation employed and
the net cost per square metre. However, on account of the small number of samples, this
statement cannot be generalised. On the other hand, for this particular sample it can be stated

78
that other features certainly do have a far greater influence on construction cost than the quality
of the installed sound insulation.
Figure 24: Net cost per square metre and sound insulation for rooms above and next to
one another
1.900
1.800
1.700

EUR per m2

1.600
1.500
1.400
1.300
1.200
1.100
1.000
900
53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

DnT,w [dB]
Rooms above one another Styria
Rooms next to one another Styria

Rooms above one another Upper Austria

Rooms next to one another Upper Austria

Source: IFIP, 2006 (based on the data from Table 37)

Furthermore, Ktz und Blecken (1999) determined that no interdependency can be identified
between sound insulation costs and the ground plan plan type (buildings with one, two, three or
more dwellings per floor). In addition, no pattern can be recognised either in the relationship
between sound insulation costs and the various layouts of the apartments within the building.
Similarly, they were unable to find a constant relationship between sound insulation costs and
the number of wall areas requiring sound insulation. Consequently, they concluded that the
suggestion be discarded that costs for sound insulation should be observed as a function of the
type of ground plan. The following Figure 25 shows the interrelationship between net costs per
square metre and the number of residences on the basis of the data from Table 37. No
correlation can be established here either. The correlation coefficient generated is -0.301.
Figure 25: Net building costs per square metre and the number of residences
constructed
1.900
Upper Austria

1.800

Styria

1.700

EUR per m2

1.600
1.500
1.400
1.300
1.200
1.100
1.000
900
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Number of residences constructed

Source: IFIP, 2006 (based on the data from Table 37)

220

240

260

280

300

320

79
To sum up, this study shows that for the chosen sample of massive constructions, features
other than sound insulation have a far more important impact on the total expenses for the
construction of the building. However, it can also be concluded from this that the installation of
improved sound insulation has only a minimal cost-driving effect with regard to the overall
expenses for construction.
These findings are confirmed in a study by Ferk (currently awaiting completion). There, the net
construction costs per square metre for 22 massive constructions erected in Styria between
2001 and 2005 were examined. 13 of these fulfil the minimum requirements of NORM, while
in the other 9, sound insulation levels above NORM were achieved, although these are not
specified in detail. The net construction costs per square metre at year 2000 prices, calculated
using the buildings costs index, can be found in Table 39 and Figure 26.
Table 39: Net construction costs per square metre for massive constructions in Styria
with sound insulation levels in line with NORM or higher levels of sound insulation
than laid down in NORM
Minimum sound insulation levels in
line with NORM
2
Property
EUR/m
Year
(2000)
no.
1
2005
1,272

Higher sound insulation levels than

laid down in NORM
2
Property
EUR/m
Year
no.
(2000)
1
2005
1,184

2005

1,187

2005

1,248

2005

1,176

2005

1,016

2005

1,085

2005

1,168

2004

1,185

2002

1,291

2004

1,229

2004

1,077

2003

1,202

2002

1,092

2003

1,276

2003

1,179

2003

1,426

2002

1,295

10

2002

1,387

11

2002

1,070

12

2002

1,455

13

2001

1.320

Source: Ferk (Study on sound insulation in residential construction, currently awaiting

completion; data: Federal State of Styria housing subsidies)
If the mean value for the net construction costs per square metre in massive buildings with
higher levels of sound insulation (EUR 1172/m2) is compared with the figure for properties
which only meet the minimum requirements (EUR 1252/m2), it can be seen that the net
construction costs per square metre for properties with greater sound insulation are on average
EUR 79/m2 lower.
The data from Table 39 are shown in Figure 26 and show similar relationships to those
presented in Figure 24.

80
Figure 26: Net construction costs per square metre and sound insulation levels of
massive constructions in Styria
1.500
Minimum sound insulation
Increased sound insulation

1.450

EUR per m2

1.400
1.350
1.300
1.250
1.200
1.150
1.100
1.050
1.000
0

10

11

12

13

14

Property number

Source: IFIP, 2006 (based on the data from Table 39)

5.3 Total net construction costs and sound insulation in

lightweight wooden residential buildings in Styria
Ferks study (currently awaiting completion) likewise examines 19 lightweight wooden
properties erected in Styria between 1995 and 2005. 12 of these fulfil the minimum
requirements of NORM with regard to sound insulation, while 7 have a higher degree of sound
insulation than laid down by that standard. The net construction costs per square metre of these
properties, calculated at year 2000 prices using the building costs index, are shown in Table 40
and in Figure 27.
As with the massive constructions, some of these lightweight wooden constructions fulfil only
the minimum requirements of NORM and yet have construction costs per square metre which
are at least as high as those of the properties which enjoy a higher level of sound insulation
than set out in NORM.
If the mean net construction costs per square metre for lightweight wooden properties with
greater levels of sound insulation (EUR 1318/m2) are compared with those for buildings which
simply meet the minimum requirements EUR 1244/m2), it can be seen that the net construction
costs per square metre are on average EUR 74/m2 higher for objects with better levels of sound
insulation.
On the basis of the limited size of the sample and because of the fact that the higher levels of
sound insulation over and above NORM are not defined in greater detail, a generally valid
trend with regard to the influence of the implemented sound insulation on construction costs
cannot be extrapolated. However, it may be speculated that particularly in lightweight wooden
constructions, the influence of improved soundproofing on building costs is more significant
than in massive constructions.

81
Table 40: Net construction costs per square metre of lightweight wooden constructions
in Styria which meet the minimum requirements for sound insulation in accordance with
NORM or exceed the sound insulation requirements laid down in NORM
Minimum sound insulation levels in
line with NORM
2
Property
EUR/m
Year
(2000)
no.
1
2004
1,333

Higher sound insulation levels than

laid down in NORM
2
Property
EUR/m
Year
no.
(2000)
1
2005
1,102

2003

1,158

2005

1,172

2002

1,171

2003

1,359

2001

1,124

2002

1,423

2001

1,177

2002

1,383

2001

1,149

2000

1,431

2001

1,217

1995

1,357

2001

1,263

2000

1,426

10

2000

1,319

11

2001

1,413

12

2001

1,177

Source: Ferk (Study on sound insulation in residential construction, currently awaiting

completion; data: Federal State of Styria housing subsidies)
Figure 27: Net construction costs per square metre and sound insulation levels of lightweight
wooden constructions in Styria
Net construction costs per square metre and sound insulation levels of lightweight wooden constructions
1.500
Minimum sound insulation
Increased sound insulation

1.450
1.400

EUR per m2

1.350
1.300

1.250

1.200

1.150
1.100
1.050
1.000
0

Property number

Source: IFIP, 2006 (based on the data from Table 40.

10

11

12

13

82

6 Current thinking on the measurement of the effects of

disturbance caused by noise and its reduction
In contrast to burdens on the environmental media of air, water or soil caused by pollutants,
noise has no polluting effects on any particular resources in the classical sense. Noise has a
direct impact on people, whereas emissions of airborne pollutants, for instance, require the
environmental medium of air in order to develop their damaging effects. Although this has the
advantage that we need not be concerned with the effects of storage and delay, noise reduction
is made more difficult in so far as the various sources of emissions, unlike with air, do not
accumulate to represent an environmental risk to the entire population; instead, they rather
have a clearly defined time- and place-related impact on specific regional groups or individuals
(BUWAL, 2002).
Noise has a range of effects, whereby the occurrence and intensity of these basically increases
with rising sound levels.
In general, 3 categories of effects can be identified:
1. Effects on health (physical and psychological)
2. Social effects
3. Economic effects in connection with, or as a consequence of, both of the aforementioned.
With the exception of very high sound levels, which can lead directly to hearing damage, the
relationship between cause and effect is hard to prove, since the damaging effects vary greatly
from person to person and are principally dependent on non-acoustic aspects. In this respect
the relationship between cause (noise) and effect (reaction) is basically influenced by
moderating factors such as the individual attitude to the noise, the source of the noise,
biological rhythms, sociological factors, and so on (BUWAL, 2002).
Thus it can be shown that at comparable sound levels, air-traffic noise is felt to be more of a
disturbance than road-traffic noise, which is in turn more disturbing than rail-traffic noise. Sound
levels starting from 50-55 dB (A) were chosen as the threshold for noise disturbance, with levels
above 65 dB(A) assumed to represent a serious disturbance. As a guideline, the WHO
designates <50 dB(A) during the day and 40-45 dB(A) at night as mean noise levels, whereby
only a small number of people feel this to be a moderate level of annoyance (BSV, 2004)
Figure 28: Trend over time of air-traffic noise level (LDN in dB(A)) associated with a
constant proportion of seriously affected individuals of 25%

Source: Guski et al., 2004 ; translation by IFIP

Furthermore, Guski et al. (2004) have shown that the published levels of reaction to
disturbance, for instance for air-traffic noise, display an increasing trend over time (see Figure

83
28): if only those noise levels from published studies which correspond in each case to 25%
seriously disturbed / annoyed people were observed, the result would be a decline of around
8 dB between 1965 and 1995. In other words, the same proportion of people seriously annoyed
by air-traffic noise is reached after 30 years with a time-average sound pressure level24 of
approximately 8 dB below that of 1965.

6.1 Effects of noise on health

The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines health as a state of complete physical, mental
and social well-being, which is not only meant as the absence of illnesses. This notion is
further refined by the fact that the highest possible achievable form of such a state of health is a
fundamental right of every individual. On the basis of this definition, effects on health should not
simply be understood as the bodily impairment of health (physical effects of noise), but also as
the disturbed subjective well-being (psychological effects of noise) which in the long term can
similarly have adverse physical effects.
The physical reactions brought about by noise can be categorised as aural (pertaining to the
ear) and extra-aural effects. Aural impairments usually appear in the form of damage to
hearing as a consequence of high sound levels. In particular at sound levels which without
doubt have no aural impact whatsoever, as far as the prevention of noise is concerned,
attention must be paid to extra-aural effects which are manifested in individuals as
psychological, social and physical impairments. In this respect, bodily changes often occur
which are not consciously perceived. According to the WHO definition, all of these types of
damage have an impact on health. Therefore, the popular belief that noise does not disturb, or
that noise is something which one can simply become accustomed to, does not rule out the
possibility of damage to health in the long term (BUWAL, 2002).
Research into the effects of noise has identified, in addition to direct damage to hearing,
cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, headaches, hormonal changes, psychosomatic
illnesses, sleep disorders, reduction in physical and mental performance, stress reactions,
aggression, constant feelings of displeasure and reduction in general well-being as possible
consequences for health. However, these effects cannot be attributed specifically to noise,
rather they are much more the result of manifold factors. Research in this field, though, focuses
mainly on noise from land and air traffic. In the German study Environment Health Traffic,
Content and Forms of Communication the Interrelationship of Effects of the
Environment, Health and Traffic (BSV, 2004), the health implications of traffic noise are
summarised as follows:
Constant exposure to over 70 dB(A) during the day and over 60 dB(A) at night is classified as a
danger to health. The limit of detection for an increased risk of heart attack thereby lies at a
time-average sound pressure level of 65 dB(A) in the daytime and 55 dB(A) at night.
Epidemiological studies have shown, for instance, that the risk of heart attack for those living
close to very frequently-used streets with a time-average sound pressure level of 65-70 dB(A)
and above is around 20% higher than for residents of quieter streets with noise disturbance
levels below 55 dB(A). Therefore, approximately 2% of heart attacks in Germany can be
attributed to road traffic noise. The associated risk of mortality would thus be roughly equivalent
to that for passive smoking and higher than incidences of cancer resulting from air pollution
caused by traffic. People living in residential areas which are seriously affected by road traffic
noise seek medical help for high blood pressure more often than residents of less affected
streets. The connection between treatment for high blood pressure and night-time noise
disturbance is particularly strong the risk at an average sound level of 55 dB(A) is almost
twice as high as that at a time-average sound pressure level of below 50 dB(A). Non-specific
stress reactions of the cardiovascular system (e.g. short-term changes in blood pressure
and heart rate, release of stress hormones) occur involuntarily at prevailing sound levels of
24 The time-average sound pressure level commonly used in Germany corresponds to the Austrian
equivalent continuous sound level.

84
more than 60 dB(A). In the long term, an increase in such reactions can lead to chronic damage
to the cardiovascular system. The long-term damage to health brought about by sleep
disorders has, to a large extent, not been researched as yet, although it does form part of the
wider field of research into the effects of noise. It does, however, seem clear that people react
more sensitively to noise at night than during the day. In the literature, threshold values for
sleep disorders of 30-35 dB(A) internally and 35-45 dB(A) externally, as well as peak levels of
up to 40 dB(A) internally and 45-55 dB(A) externally are mentioned. Learning and
concentration disorders in enclosed rooms can be identified at noise levels as low as 40
dB(A). Consequences of noise-related decreases in performance can include daytime fatigue
and slower reaction times.

6.2 Social effects of noise

The social impacts of noise include breakdowns in communication and changes in attitude to
social behaviour among those affected, the latter being characterised by increasing aggression,
reduced readiness to assist others and changes in the evaluation of other people. In addition,
however, segregation connected with noise in residential areas is primarily of interest. Evidence
may actually exist that, in urban areas in particular, the proportion of people living on or below
the poverty line in the vicinity of noisy industrial or traffic zones is especially high, although
empirical research on and documentation of this relationship is still thin on the ground.

6.3 Economic effects of noise the external costs of noise

From an economists point of view, noise and disturbance caused by noise represent negative
externalities, i. e. external costs. An externality can be defined as the mutual impacts of
economic agents which are not covered by the market and thus not evaluated. Externalities are
mainly the consequence of the nature of environmental goods such as air and quietness, which
are seen as public goods and characterised by non-rivalry25 and non-exclusivity26 of
consumption. Consequently, therefore, such goods do not usually have a market price.
Extensive use of these goods by economic agents thus increases their benefit, but possible
negative consequences in the form of external costs of such use arise for certain or all other
individuals.
Traffic noise represents the most important source of noise in the European Union, and is
therefore also the best recorded and documented. Total externalities from traffic noise (road,
rail and air) in the EU 15 Member States is put at EUR 51.7 billion per year and is distributed
among the various sources of noise as shown in Figure 29. Externalities from neighbourhood
noise are scarcely recorded.
Table 41 shows the proportion of GDP accounted for by externalities from road traffic noise in
selected European countries.
As with the health-related and social impacts, the economic cost of noise is often
underestimated. In addition to the direct costs resulting from damage to health and the costs of
noise prevention measures designed to offer protection against such health-related effects, a
range of other cost components exists, as illustrated in Figure 30.

25

A commodity possesses the characteristic of non-rivalry (of consumption) when consumption of the
commodity does not exclude simultaneous consumption of that particular commodity by others.
26 A commodity possesses the characteristic of exclusivity when potential users can be excluded from
consuming the commodity.

85
Figure 29: External costs because of noise in the EU 15 Member States, in EUR million
per year

Source: Reh, 2004, translation by IFIP

Table 41: Externalities from road traffic noise as % of GDP in selected European countries
Country

Year

% of GDP

Finland

1989

0.30

France

1994

0.10

Germany

1992

1.40

Norway

1987

0.30

Sweden

1992

0.40

Switzerland

1988

0.26

Source: Lambert et al., 1998

For many areas, the models required to precisely quantify the economic impacts of noise are
not available. The costs of noise cannot be estimated as a consequence of the lack of market
prices, meaning that they are borne by the general public as externalities, in the economic
sense, in accordance with the social cost principle27.
The cost components of reduced quality of living, breakdowns or falls in production as a result
of increased sick leave or reduced concentration, as well as the costs of medical treatment of
physical effects brought about by noise are particularly difficult to quantify and thus almost
impossible to express in monetary terms, owing to a lack of knowledge of the causal
relationships involved.

27

In contrast to the polluter pays principle, whereby the party responsible for the externality must also
bear the resulting external costs, the social cost principle dictates that public authorities, as opposed to
the responsible party, shall bear the costs using public funds. The social cost principle is applied then
when the party responsible for an externality cannot be identified, or when the number of responsible
parties is very large, meaning that the share of costs borne by each party cannot be determined (e.g.
traffic noise).

86
Health costs arising from the treatment of existing illnesses caused by noise are also part of the
economic effects of noise, as are costs incurred by increases in the number of accidents
resulting from lapses in concentration brought about by noise disturbance.
Figure 30: Overview of the key cost components of economic effects caused by noise

Source: BUWAL, 2002; translation by IFIP

Economic costs also include noise protection expenses, i.e. expenses arising from efforts to
protect the population from noise.
In Austria from 1993 to 2000, public expenditure on the reduction of disturbance from noise
caused by road and rail traffic alone amounted to EUR 305 million28. Of this, EUR 114 million
was spent on road traffic: EUR 70 million (61%) on noise-reduction measures on the roads
themselves (quiet asphalt, noise barriers, etc.) and EUR 44 million (39%) on property-related
measures (soundproofed windows, etc.). In the same period, EUR 191 million was spent on railrelated measures (railway infrastructure as well as buildings). Statistics for expenditure by
private households and public authorities on measures aimed at the reduction of neighbourhood
noise are barely recorded.
In Germany, the costs incurred by road traffic alone (installation of soundproofed windows in
affected apartments, as well as state-of-the-art vehicle- and highway-related measures) are
estimated at EUR 7.5 billion per year (BSV, 2004).
Also included in the economic costs of noise are reduced rental income and lower property
prices in areas seriously affected by noise. In Germany, calculations have shown that, from a
starting level of around 30 dB(A), each 1 dB(A) increase in noise levels results in a fall of 0.51.7% in the value of a property (BSV, 2004).
According to work by Bateman et al. (2000), which summarises the results of hedonic price
models from various studies in Europe, North America and Japan, the reduction in the value of
properties resulting from road traffic noise ranges from 0.21 to 1.7% per dB(A) increase in
Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Finland.
In a study carried out on behalf of the European Commission, Navrud (2002) summarises the
results of several analyses of willingness to pay with regard to road noise. The findings showed

28 These figures are the result of the authors own calculations based on the 6th and 7th State of the
Environment reports (UBA, 2001; UBA, 2004)

87
that the willingness to pay for a reduction in disturbance caused by road traffic noise amounts to
between EUR 2 and 99 per household per year (see Table 42).
Table 42: Results from Stated Preference29 studies of road traffic noise; as experienced
inside the dwelling.
Study (Valuation
Method)
Pommerehne 1988
(CV)
Soguel 1994a
(CV)
Slensminde &
Hammer 1994,
Slensminde 1999
(CV and CE)
Wibe 1995
(CV)
Vainio 1995, 2001
(CV)

Site (Scenario description) / Year of

study
Basel, Switzerland (50 % reduction in
experienced noise level) / 1988
Neuchatel, Switzerland (50 % reduction
in experienced noise level) / 1993
Oslo and Akershus counties, Norway
(50 % reduction in experienced noise
level) / 1993

WTP /dB/hh/year (Original

estimate in national currency
in year of study)
112 CHF (= 75 CHF/month
for 8dB)
84 100 CHF (= 56-67
CHF/month for 8 dB)
281 562 NOK (=22504500 NOK/year for 8 dB)

WTP /dB/hh/y
in EUR (in2001
price level)
99
60 - 71
47 97

Sweden national study (Elimination of

240 SEK (= 200 SEK/month
28
noise annoyance) / 1995
for 10 dB)
Helsinki, Finland (Elimination of noise
33 - 48 FIM
6-9
annoyance) / 1993
Oslo and Ullensaker, Norway (50 %
ThuneLarsen 1995
117 NOK (= 78 NOK/month
reduction in experienced noise level) /
19
(CV and CE)
for 8 dB)
1994
Navrud 1997
Norway national study (Elimination of
11 NOK (= 115 NOK/year
2
(CV)
noise annoyance) / 1996
for10 dB)
Oslo, Norway (only hh exposed to > 55
Navrud 2000b
152 220 NOK(= 1520
dB) (Elimination of noise annoyance) /
23 - 32
(CV)
2200 NOK / year for 10 db)
1999
Arsenio et al 2000
Lisbon, Portugal (Avoiding a doubling of
9,480 PTE (= 7900 PTE /
50
(CE)
the noise level) /1999
month for10 15 dB)
Barreiro et al 2000
Pamplona, Spain (Elimination of noise
476 ESP (= 4765 ESP / year
2-3
(CV)
annoyance) / 1999
for10 db)
Lambert et al 2001
Rhones - Alpes Region, France
7 euros (= 73 euros /year for
7
(CV)
(Elimination of noise annoyance) / 2000
10 dB)
CV - Contingent Valuation30 CE - Choice Experiments31 WTP Willingness to pay per decibel (db) per
household (hh) per year (y) The EUR values have been calculated using exchange rates as of January 2002 and
adjusting to 2001value using GDP deflators (used by the European Commission) for the respective countries
where the studies were conducted.

Source: Navrud, 2002

29 Stated-preferences methods record the probable behavioural reactions of those surveyed by

presenting a range of decision-making situations with different general parameters where various forms
of behaviour can be chosen. Therefore, with stated-preferences methods, information on expected forms
of behaviour can be collected and the subjects willingness to utilise and pay in hypothetical but realistic
situations (e.g. implementation of measures) can be ascertained.
30 The contingent valuation (CV) method has become prevalent in the direct economic valuation of public
environmental goods. This approach was used for the first time by Robert K. Davis in the USA in 1963.
However, there still exists no single approach for the implementation of the method. Therefore, it is
categorised as a methodical approach which must be modified for individual use. CV is based on the
determination of preferences expressed by users which are uncovered by means of surveys. The surveys
refer to hypothetical situations presented to the participants. The evaluation is carried out under specific,
precisely expressed conditions referring to the situations and to changes in the environment.
31 So-called choice experiments (CE) are a further development of the conventional contingent valuation
method, whereby those questioned must select one alternative from two or more options. Within the
framework of the CE, the relationships between a) observable selection behaviour and b) the
characteristics of the alternatives examined and the individual characteristics of the inquirer are
investigated. Thus, when the influence of various features on selection decisions becomes of interest,
choice experiments have an advantage over contingent valuation.

88
A study in Switzerland, (Lorenz, 2000) shows that 54% of the Swiss population would be
willing to pay higher rents for a quieter residential area. 48% would be willing to pay between
SFR 200 and 500, while 18% were in favour of an additional expenditure of SFR 500-2000. In
this respect, those living in single-family dwellings tended to show greater willingness to pay
more for a quieter residential area than those living in multiple-family properties. Additionally,
individuals who have spent the majority of their lives in the country are prepared to spend more
in return for quieter living conditions than those who have lived mainly in towns.

6.4 Economic effect of neighbourhood noise

There is hardly any other area which, in terms of living, is so subjectively evaluated as sound
insulation. What one person regards as quiet may be perceived by another as loud. Although
comfort is closely related to sound insulation, this is often neglected, resulting in reductions in
property value, legal altercations, financial losses and, quite commonly, damage to health for
the residents (Ktz, Blecken, 1999).
A study carried out in Great Britain, covering England and Wales, was based on a sample of
3,136 complaints, whereby the citizens complaints with regard to noise disturbance from
neighbours were statistically evaluated (Grimwood, Ling, 1999), and produced the annoyance
profiles shown in Table 43. The authors point out that the obtained profile corresponds closely
with that produced by other investigations.
Table 43: Ranking of sources of noise leading to complaints about neighbours
Type of noise
Music

1988 Study
Noise complaints
(%)
34

Domestic noise

Current Study Primary

source for noise
complaints (%)
(n =3136)
42

Current Study
Secondary source for
noise complaints (%)
(n = 227)
11

18

n/a

Dogs barking

33

17

Parties

n/a

18

House/Car alarms

n/a

Shouting & banging

n/a

n/a

TV or radio

n/a

n/a

n/a

DIY
Sound insulation
Other animals

Car repairs

Banging doors

n/a

Children playing

n/a

Domestic appliances

Voices

n/a

n/a

Other

Misclassified
n/a
13
n/a
a
Other noises in the 1988 data includes: fireworks; intimate and personal sounds; bad language;
drums; beach buggy racing.
b
Misclassified complaints are those that were incorrectly recorded as neighbour noise
c
Music includes TV or radio in the 1988 data.
d
Domestic activities in the 1988 data.

Source: Grimwood, Ling, 1999

Additionally, the time-based profile of noise pollution caused by neighbours was studied. The
smallest increase in disturbance by neighbourhood noise is recorded in the period from 5:00 to
12:00 midday. After this, annoyance levels increase once again and reach a peak in the period
from 22:00 to 02:00; the level of disturbance during this period is also the highest throughout
the entire day.

89
Figure 31: Disturbance profile for noise from neighbours activity over a day according to
Grimwood und Ling.

Source: Grimwood, Ling, 1999

Thus it can be seen that the greatest disturbance occurs at night. Annoyance caused by music
occurs primarily in the period from 18:00 to 03:00, while disturbance from other neighbourly
activities takes place mainly in the morning between 07:00 and 10:00, and from 15:00 to 17:00
in the afternoon. Figure 31 presents this trend in the disturbance profile in graphic form.
Particularly with regard to evaluation of the benefit derived from measures aimed at reducing
neighbourhood noise, hardly any research is currently underway. This may be due to the fact
that the majority of rules related to sound insulation are laid down in the building regulations,
and noise-related problems and conflicts between neighbours are handled in the civil courts.
Consequently, the problem of neighbourhood noise, for example, is not covered by the
European Union environmental noise directive; on the contrary, it is clearly excluded therein.
It has been proven that noise does have impacts on health, although as previously mentioned in
chapter 6.1, research has mainly focused on land and air traffic. However, the importance of
neighbourhood noise in this regard was referred to for the first time in a WHO study
(Niemann, Maschke, 2004). The investigation found that annoyance is a primary consequence
of noise, whereby this disturbance is perceived as a feeling of discomfort, leading to
indisposition, anxiety, irritability and agitation, as well as a sense of helplessness and restricted
personal freedom. Furthermore, the analysis established a cause-and-effect relationship
between persistent annoyance and illness.
Traffic noise (road, rail and air traffic) is a major source of disturbance, but neighbourhood noise
represents a second important cause. Neighbourhood noise in this context refers to noise from
the neighbouring apartment, from the stairwell, from children playing and other noise which has
its origins within the property.
According to this WHO study, annoyance caused by neighbourhood noise has until now
been underestimated. The study argues that persistent annoyance from neighbourhood noise
increases the risk of adults being affected by diabetes, stomach ulcers, heart attacks and
strokes. For children, increased chances of developing bronchitis, breathing difficulties,
migraine and skin problems can also be identified, while elderly people (aged 60 and over) face
a greater risk of falling victim to arthritis, stomach ulcers, depression and strokes as a result of
neighbourhood noise.
The study confirms that increased annoyance by noise is reflected in a higher risk of illness and
comes to the conclusion that neighbourhood noise is no different to traffic noise in terms of its

90
negative impacts on health. Table 44 below shows the ODDS ratios32 for various illnesses as a
function of different sources of disturbance, as calculated in the study.
Table 44: Significantly ODDS Ratio (OR) for diseases calculated in the WHO-LARES
study
Significantly OR for diseases
Hypertension
Cardiovascular symptoms
Stroke
Asthma
general traffic noise strongly
Bronchitis
annoyed
Respiratory symptoms
Arthritic symptoms
Depression
SALSA
Hypertension
Cardiovascular symptoms
Stroke
general neighbourhood Asthma
Bronchitis
noise strongly annoyed
Respiratory symptoms
Arthritic symptoms
Depression
SALSA
Hypertension
Cardiovascular symptoms
Stroke
Asthma
Sleep disturbed by noise
Bronchitis
Respiratory symptoms
Arthritic symptoms
Depression
SALSA
( ) = very large confidence intervals
n. c. = not calculable, SALSA considers the "trend to depression"

Adults

Elderly

Children

1,588
1,545
------1,861
1,969
1,754
2,229
1,879
1,706
1,601
------1,907
1,572
2,346
1,780
2,276
1,485
1,449
------1,455
1,632
1,598
1,466
2,260

------2,718
---------2,066
------------2,415
---------1,885
1,989
------------2,019
------1,617
---1,413

---(5,455)
n. c.
---2,624
2,563
---n. c.
---n. c.
---n. c.
---3,453
3,562
---n. c.
3,322
------n. c.
---3,674
1,943
(7,308)
---3,413

Source: Niemann, Maschke, 2004

Several studies have shown that an often significant willingness also exists to pay in order to
reduce neighbourhood noise. Klemp (2005) states that in Sweden, 60% of all residents of
houses with several floors in other words, almost all would be willing to accept an increase
in rent of 10% to be able to live in an apartment with sufficient sound insulation.
In an investigation of high-rises in Lithuania, Slovakia and formerly East Germany
(Bonnefoy 2003) designed to find evidence of the economic significance of sound insulation,
residents who had complained about noise annoyance were asked how much they would be
prepared to pay for an apartment which was not affected by noise disturbance. Those residents
who had not complained about noise were asked how much compensation they would expect if
they were annoyed by noise. The results are summarised in Table 45 below.

32

The ODDS ratio evaluates the risk of contracting a particular illness when a particular annoying factor
(e.g. traffic noise or neighbourhood noise, etc.) occurs. It is a relative measure of the risk and describes
how more likely a person exposed to the annoyance is to develop a particular illness, compared to an
unaffected individual. The ODDS ratio of a result is the probability of the event taking place, divided by
the probability of its not occurring.

91
Table 45: Monetary Evaluation of Noise Disturbance

City
Schwedt-Oder
Bratislava
Vilnius
Monetary unit
DM
Slovak Crown
Litas
Monetary
0SK
<500SK >500SK
0Lit
<50Lit
0
<100
>100
compensation
Willingness to
pay per month
56%
22%
69%
20%
11%
43%
42%
22%
for getting a
(10-38) (26-88) (9-43) (54-81)
(10-33)
(4-24)
(32-55) (25-61)
similar flat but
more quiet
Expected
monthly
compensation if
10%
69%
21%
72%
10%
18%
75%
16%
the flat became
(3-24)
(32-97) (8-44) (55-85)
(3-24)
(8-34)
(42-99)
(3-30)
exposed to
noise
Data in parentheses represent the standard deviation values
100DM are ca. 51, 500SK are ca. 11,90, and 50Lit are ca. 14,60 (exchange rates June 2001)

>50Lit
15%
(6-30)

9%
(0-20)

Source: Bonnefoy, 2003

In Austria in 1974, during the study referred to in chapter 2.4 it was discovered by means of
questionnaires that at that time people would have been willing to pay 2-3% more for better
soundproofing in their apartments, in particular to reduce disturbance from neighbourhood
noise.

6.5 Proposals for further research

The field of neighbourhood noise has been much less well researched than the areas of air,
road and rail traffic noise, as well as industrial noise. However, rising rates of population
indicate that the problem of neighbourhood noise will grow in importance in future.
Therefore, research into measures designed to reduce neighbourhood noise from an economic
perspective is urgently needed; such investigations have already been carried out countless
times before on the subject of environmental noise. Cost-benefit analyses of neighbourhood
noise do not appear in the literature, although this may be due to the fact that it is far more
difficult to determine the benefit of a reduction in annoyance from neighbourhood noise than
that from road or air traffic noise.
Moreover, as a consequence of a lack of data, many methods to evaluate the benefit from a
reduction in disturbance from neighbourhood noise cannot be applied. Therefore, there is a
significant need for more research in this field.

92

Literature
Alphei H., Hils Th., Neubauer R.O., Jacobi G. (2006): Welche Abstufung der Schalldmm-Mae
sind bei Anforderungen an die Luftschalldmmung sinnvoll. Report Working group Erhhter
Schallschutz, DEGA-FA Bau- und Raumakustik, Mrz 2006
Andrade, C., Gonzales, J., Machimbarrena M., Herraez, M.(2005) : Validation of EN 12354-1
prediction models by means of intensity and vibration measurement techniques in Spanish
buildings involving flanking airborne sound transmission. Proceedings Forum Acusticum
Budapest 2005.
Baasch, H.; Paap, H.; Rietz, A. (1999). Sanierungsgrundlagen Plattenbau - Wohnwertverbesserung durch Grundrissvernderungen; Institut fr Erhaltung und Modernisierung von
Bauwerken e.V. (IEMB) an der TU Berlin (Hrsg.); Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.
Bateman, I. J.; Day, B.; Lake, I.; Lovett, A. A. (2000): The Effect of Road Traffic on Residential
Property Values: A Literature Review and Hedonic Pricing Study. Report (March 2000) to The
Scottish Office, Development Department, Edinburgh, School of Environmental Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich.
Berger, P., Lang, J., sterreicher M., Steinhauser, P. (2005). Schutz des Wiener MusikvereinsGebudes gegen Schall- und Erschtterungsimmissionen der U-Bahn. ETR Heft 4/April 2005.
Blessing, S., Sph, M., Fischer H.-M., Schneider, M. (2001). Verifizierung des
Rechenverfahrens fr die Luftschalldmmung nach EN 12354-1 fr den Massivbau; Teil 2:
erreichbare Genauigkeit
Bonnefoy, X., Braubach, M., Krapavickaite, D., Ormandy, D., Zurlyte I. (2003). Housing
conditions and self reported health status. A study in panel block buildings in three cities of
Eastern Europe, WHO-LARES- (Large Analysis and Review of European housing and health
Status) project, http://www.euro.who.int/Document/NOH/HBEpaperfinal.pdf.
Bradley, J.S. (2001). Deriving acceptable values for party wall sound insulation from survey
results. Proceedings inter-noise 2001 The Hague, The Netherlands.
Bruckmayer, F., Lang J. (1974). Richtlinien fr die Anwendung wirtschaftlicher
Schallschutzmanahmen im Wohnungsbau als Vorbereitung fr legislative Manahmen.
Schriftenreihe der Forschungsgesellschaft fr Wohnen, Bauen und Planen Heft 55, Wien.
BSV BRO FR STADT- UND VERKEHRSPLANUNG DR.-ING. REINHOLD BAIER GMBH,
(2004). Umwelt Gesundheit Verkehr, Kommunikationsinhalte und formen zum
Wirkungszusammenhang von Umwelt, Gesundheit und Verkehr im Rahmen des
Aktionsprogramms Umwelt und Gesundheit des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (APUG NRW).
Burkhart, Ch. (2005). Modell fr ein mehrstufiges Anforderungs-/Labelsystem. DEGA FA Bauund Raumakustik, Sitzung September 2005.
BUWAL (2002). Lrmbekmpfung in der Schweiz, Stand und Perspektiven, Schriftenreihe
Umwelt NR. 329, Bundesamt fr Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft, Bern.
Emrich, F. (2006). Einfhrung zur Norm SIA 181 (2006) - Schallschutz im Hochbau, Referat
anlsslich der Frhlingstagung 2006 der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft fr Akustik (SGA-SSA),
Fribourg.
Esteban, A. (2006). Private information.
Esteban, A., Corts A., Arribillaga O. (2004) : In situ loss factor in Spanish hollow constructions:
improving EN12354s accuracy. Proceedings inter-noise 2004 Prague, Czech Republic.
Esteban, A., Corts A., Fuente M., Arribillaga O. (2004) : Requirements and tools for the new
Spanish Building Regulation for noise protection. Proceedings inter-noise 2004 Prague, Czech
Republic.

93
Ferk, H. (In Fertigstellung) Studie Schalldmmung im Wohnungsbau (Daten: Das Land
Steiermark Wohnbaufrderung)
Gerretsen, E. (2001). Classification of acoustic quality of dwellings - backgrounds of a renewed
Dutch standard. Proceedings inter-noise 2001 The Hague, The Netherlands.
Gerretsen, E. (2003). Sound insulation quality in Dutch dwellings. Proceedings DAGA 2003.
Gerretsen, E. (2006). Private information.
Grimwood, C.; Ling, M. (1999).Domestic Noise Complaints - furthering our understanding of the
issues involved in neighbourhood noise disputes, Acoustics Centre, BRE, Report no. 204732
Hagberg, K. (1996): Ljudkrav med std av ISO/DIS 717 (Acoustic requirements supported by
ISO/DIS 717).NKB Committee and Work Reports 1996:02. Nordic Committee on Building
Regulations, Helsinki, Finland
Hagberg, K. (2001). Ratings adapted to subjective evaluation for impact and airborne sound
and its application in building regulations a literature survey. Proceedings 17th International
Congress on Acoustics Rom 2001.
Hagberg,K. (2002). Aspects concerning light weight constructions in Swedish residential
buildings with high sound insulation (class B According to SS02 52 67). Proceedings Forum
Acusticum Sevilla 2002.
Henich, D. (2006). Private information.
Homb, A. (2005). Experiences with spectrum adaptation term and extended frequency range
from field and laboratory measurements. Proceedings Forum Acusticum Budapest 2005.
Ingelaere, B., Vermeir, G., Van Damme, M. (2005). New Belgian requirements for dwellings.
Proceedings Forum Acusticum 2005 Budapest, Ungarn.
Klemp, A. S. (2005). Sound solutions, The Rockwool Newsletter Nr. 3.
Ktz, W. D.; Blecken, U. (1999). Forschungsbericht: Kosten des Schallschutzes im Wohnungsbau Beispiel fr kostengnstige Lsungen, Umweltbundesamt Berlin.
Kurz, R., Schnelle, F. (2003). DIN 4109 Teil 10 ein Fortschritt der Bauakustik? Proceedings
DAGA 2003.
Lambert, J.; Kail, j. M.; Quinet, E. (1998): Transportation Noise Annoyance: An Economic Issue,
Paper presented at the Noise Effects ''98, Sydney - Australia, 22 - 26 November 1998
Land O, Abteilung Wohnbaufrderung (2005) Wohnbaubericht 2005
Lang, J. (1985). Wirtschaftliche Erfllung des normgemen Schallschutzes im Wohnungsbau
herausgegeben vom Fachverband der Stein- und keramischen Industrie sterreichs, Wien
1985
Lang, J. (2001): Ergebnisse des Vergleichs von Messwerten des Schallschutzes in Gebuden
mit Rechenwerten nach EN12354. wksb Heft 47/2001
Lang, J. (2004). Luft- und Trittschallschutz von Holzdecken und die Verbesserung des
Trittschallschutzes durch Fubden auf Holzdecken. wksb Heft 52 (2004)
Le Jeannic Th., Vidalenc J. (2005) : Environnement, nuisances et inscurit : Indicateurs
sociaux 1996-2004. Insee Rsultats-Societ, No 45, Dcembre 2005 Association des maires de
grandes villes de France (2003) : Les nuisances dans les grandes villes et agglomrations.
tude No 197, fvrier 2003.
Lorenz, A.M. (2000). Klangalltag Alltagsklang. Evaluation der Schweizer Klanglandschaft
anhand einer Reprsentativbefragung bei der Bevlkerung. Zentralstelle der Studentenschaft,
Zrich, 2000
Metzen, H. (1999). Accuracy of CEN-prediction models applied to German building situations.
Journal of Building Acoustics 5&6 (1999).

94
Metzen, H., Pedersen, D.B., Sonntag, E. (2002). Extending the CEN calculation model for
sound transmission in buildings to heavy double walls as separating and flanking walls.
Proceedings Forum Acusticum Sevilla 2002.
Metzen, H., Schumacher, R. (2005). Prediction of sound insulation in timber frame buildings.
Proceedings Forum Acusticum 2005 Budapest, Ungarn.
Metzen, H.A. (1992): Methoden zur Beurteilung des Luft- und Trittschallschutzes in den
Europischen Lndern. wksb 31
Mortensen, F.R. (1999). Subjective evaluation of noise from neighbours with focus on low
frequencies. Main report. Publication no. 53, Department of Acoustic Technology, Technical
University of Denmark.
Navrud, S. (2002): The State-Of-The-Art on Economic Valuation of Noise, Final Report to
European Commission DG Environment April 14th 2002.
Niemann, H., Maschke, C. (2004). WHO LARES - Noise effects and morbidity Final report,
World Health Organization (EUR/04/5047477).
Nilsson, E, Hammer, P. (2001). Subjective evaluation of impact sound transmission through
floor structures. Proceedings 17th International Congress on Acoustics Rom 2001
Nurzynski, J. (2003). New acoustic regulations in Poland Changes and their consequences.
Proceedings euronoise Naples 2003.
ON (2001): Katalog fr schallschutztechnische Kennwerte von Bauteilen. sterreichisches
Normungsinstitut, Wien 2001.
Ortscheid, J. (2003). Weniger Lrmbelstigung in der Wohnung und am Arbeitsplatz? Zeitschrift
fr Lrmbekmpfung 50 (2003) Nr. 1
Ortscheid, J., Wende, H. (2006).
Lrmbekmpfung 53 (2006) Nr. 1

Lrmbelstigung

in

Deutschland.

Zeitschrift

fr

Pena, M. A., de la Colina, C., Moreno,A. (2002). IAPAI, Software to predict acoustic insulation
in buildings in accordance with EN 12354/1/2. Proceedings Forum Acusticum Sevilla 2002.
Rainer Guski, Hartmut Ising, Gerd Jansen, Peter Kltzsch, Klaus Scheuch, August Schick,
Wolfgang Schnpflug, Manfred Spreng, (2004). Fluglrm 2004, Stellungnahme des
Interdisziplinren
Arbeitskreises
fr
Lrmwirkungsfragen
beim
Umweltbundesamt,
Umweltbundesamt Berlin
Rasmussen, B. (2005). Concepts for evaluation of sound insulation of dwellings from chaos to
consensus? Proceedings Forum Acusticum 2005 Budapest, Ungarn.
Rasmussen, B. (2005). Schallschutz zwischen Wohnungen Bauvorschriften und
Klassifizierungssysteme in Europa. wksb Heft 53. Original in englisch: Sound insulation
between dwellings Classification schemes and building regulations in Europe. Proceedings
inter-noise 2004 Prague, Czech Republic.
Rasmussen, B., Rindel,J.H. (2003). Sound insulation of dwellings Legal requirements in
Europe and subjective evaluation of acoustical comfort. Proceedings DAGA 2003.
Reh, W. (2004): BUND-Strategie zum Schutz gegen Fluglrm, Referat Fachtagung (Nacht-)
Fluglrm, am 18. Dezember 2004, Mainz.
Reis, F. (2006). Private information.
Rindel, J.H. (2003). On the influence of low frequencies on the annoyance of noise from
neighbours. Proceedings inter-noise 2003 Seogwipo Korea.
SBR (2000). Voorbeeldprojecten Hogere Geluidisolatie, Nummer 1 Stichting bouwresearch
Rotterdam.

95
SBR (2003). Voorbeeldprojecten Hogere Geluidisolatie, Nummer 5 Stichting bouwresearch
Rotterdam.
Schmitz, A., Fischer H.-M. (2001). How will heavy walls be measured in future in test facilities
according to ISO 140. Proceeding 171h International Congress on Acoustics Rom 2001.
Schmitz, A., Fischer H.-M. (2003). Sound insulation quality in Germany. Proceedings DAGA
2003.
Scholl, W. , Bietz, H. (2004). Integration des Holz- und Skelettbaus in die neue DIN 4109.
Bericht Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt Braunschweig 2004-07-14.
Simmons, C. (2001). Systematic comparison of sound insulation measured in situ with values
calculated according to EN 12354 yields confident data of the acoustical properties of building
elements. Proceedings 17th International Congress on Acoustics Rom 2001.
Simmons, C. (2004). Reliable building element sound insulation data for EN 12354 calculations
facilitates analysis of Swedish dwelling houses. Proceedings inter-noise 2004 Prague, Czech
Republic.
Simmons, C. (2005). Uncertainty of measured and calculated sound insulation in buildings
results of a round robin test. Proceedings Forum Acusticum 2005 Budapest, Ungarn.
Simmons, C. (2006). Private information.
Sipari, P. (2002). Studies on impact sound insulation of floors. Proceedings Forum Acusticum
Sevilla 2002.
Sph, M., Blessing, S., Fischer H.-M. (2001). Verifizierung des Rechenverfahrens fr die
Luftschalldmmung nach EN 12354-1 fr den Massivbau Teil 1: Einfluss von Eingangsgren.
Proceedings DAGA 2001.
Szudrowicz, B., Izewska, A. (2001). Empirical verification of the prediction model designed to
estimate the flanking transmission in building. Proceedings 17th International Congress on
Acoustics Rom 2001.
Thaden, R. (2001). Investigation on the relation between single number ratings and speech
intelligibility. Proceedings inter-noise 2001 The Hague, The Netherlands.
Thaden, R. und Vorlnder, M. (2000). Hrversuche zum Vergleich unterschiedlicher
Bewertungsverfahren fr Luftschalldmmae. Proceedings DAGA 2000.
UBA (2001): Umweltsituation In sterreich, Sechster Umweltkontrollbericht
Umweltministers an den Nationalrat, Umweltbundesamt GmbH, Wien.

des

UBA (2004): Umweltsituation In sterreich, Siebenter Umweltkontrollbericht

Umweltministers an den Nationalrat, Umweltbundesamt GmbH, Wien.

des

van Dongen, J.E.F. (2001). Noise annoyance from neighbours and the impact of sound
insulation and other factors. Proceedings inter-noise 2001 The Hague, The Netherlands.
Vermeir, G. (2003). Experiencies on building acoustics quality in Belgian residencies.
Proceedings inter-noise 2003 Seogwipo Korea.
Vermeir, G., Ingelaere B. (2003).On the road to new Belgian prescriptions for sound insulation.
Proceedings DAGA 2003.
Walk, M.; Bucher, J.; Giger, H. (2003). Kostenfolgen von Schallschutzverbesserungen im
Wohnbau der Schweiz, Bundesamt fr Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL), Abteilung
Lrmbekmpfung, Interner Projektbericht Nr. 427201.

96

Standards
Austria: NORM B 8115-2. Schallschutz und Raumakustik im Hochbau Anforderungen an
den Schallschutz 2002 12 01
Belgium: NBN S01-400-1: Acoustique Valeurs limites des niveaux de bruit en vue dviter l
nconfort dans les batiments.
Croatia: JUS U.J6.201 1989: Akustika u zgradarstvu Tecnicki uslovi za projektovanje i
gradenje zgrada (technical requirements for designing and constructing of buildings).
Denmark: DS 490: Lydklassifikation af boliger (Sound classification of buildings) 2001 04 19
Finland: SFS 5907 Acoustic Classification of Spaces in Buildings 2004 09 06
Germany: DIN 4109:Schallschutz im Hochbau, Anforderungen und Nachweise und
VDI 4100: Schallschutz von Wohnungen, Kriterien fr Planung und Beurteilung September
1994
Netherlands: NEN 1070: Geluidwering in gebouwen Specificatie en beoordeling van de
waliteit (Noise control in building Specification and rating of quality) Mrz 1999
NPR 5070 Geluidwering in woongebouwen Voorbeelden van wanden en vloeren in
steenachtige draagconstructies (Noise control in dwellings Examples of stony partition walls
and floors) Februar 2005
Norway: NS 8175: Lydforhold i bygninger Lydklassifisering av bygninger (Sound conditions in
buildings - Sound classes for various types of buildings.1997, 2005
Spain: NBE-CTE (II): Codigo Tecnico de la edificacion
Sweden: SS 25267:2004: Byggakustik Ljudklassnig av utrymmen I byggnader Bostder
(Acoustics Sound classification of spaces in buildings Dwellings 2004 02 20
Switzerland: SN 5290 181 Schallschutz
Vernehmlassungsentwurf 2003 10 21

im

Hochbau

gltig

ab

1.

Juni

2006.