Science and Technology for the Built Environment

ISSN: 2374-4731 (Print) 2374-474X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhvc21

Thermal and Sound Insulation of Lightweight Steel

Framed Façade Walls

Eduardo Roque, Paulo Santos & Andreia Pereira

To cite this article: Eduardo Roque, Paulo Santos & Andreia Pereira (2018): Thermal and Sound
Insulation of Lightweight Steel Framed Façade Walls, Science and Technology for the Built
Environment, DOI: 10.1080/23744731.2018.1506677

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2018.1506677

Accepted author version posted online: 01

Aug 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uhvc21
 THERMAL AND SOUND INSULATION OF LIGHTWEIGHT STEEL FRAMED
FAÇADE WALLS

ABSTRACT

Lightweight steel-framed (LSF) construction has the potential to reach high standards

regarding the functional performance of buildings. Despite the benefits of this construc-

tion system, the effect of thermal bridges caused by the high thermal conductivity of the

steel structure can be a disadvantage. Furthermore, because LSF buildings have low mass

and the connections between the outer and the inner sheathing of the walls are usually rig-

t
ip
id, provided by steel studs, some acoustic performance drawbacks are also possible. Ex-

cessive heat loss or poor sound insulation are related to the external envelope behaviour

cr
of buildings. Although several studies can be found regarding the influence of the steel

us
frame on the thermal or sound insulation performance of LSF façade walls, the study of
an
this influence from both perspectives at the same time is not widespread. In this work, the

influence of the steel frame on both the thermal and sound insulation performance of LSF
M

façade walls is studied. The thermal behaviour and sound insulation are assessed using special-

ized software, namely THERM and INSUL, respectively. With this work it is intended to pro-
ed

vide guidelines which can contribute to an effective design of LSF façade walls, consider-
pt

ing both functional performances.

ce

Keywords: lightweight steel-frame; thermal performance; thermal bridges; sound bridges; façade

sound insulation; performance-effective design.

Ac

1/49
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... 1
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3
2. THERMAL AND ACOUSTIC PERFORMANCE OF LSF ELEMENTS .................................... 7
2.1. Classification of Lightweight Steel-Framed Elements ...................................................... 7
2.2. Influence of the steel studs on LSF façade walls............................................................. 9
2.2.1. Thermal behaviour .....................................................................................................................9
2.2.2. Sound insulation performance .................................................................................................11
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................................................................. 15
3.1. Geometry of the Models ................................................................................................ 15
3.2. Materials ....................................................................................................................... 15
3.3. Domain Discretization and Accuracy............................................................................. 16
3.4. Boundary Conditions .................................................................................................... 17

t
3.5. Modelling Air Layers ..................................................................................................... 17

ip
3.6. Accuracy Verification .................................................................................................... 18
3.6.1. THERM Software .....................................................................................................................18
3.6.2. INSUL Software .......................................................................................................................18

cr
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 25
4.1. Thermal Performance ................................................................................................... 26

us
4.2. Sound Insulation Performance ...................................................................................... 29
4.2.1. Sound Transmission Loss Curves .....................................................................................29
4.2.2. Weighted Sound Reduction Index ...........................................................................................33
4.2.3. Weighted Sound Reduction Index corrected with Spectrum Adaptation Term
an
C tr ............................................................................................................................................................37
4.3. Combined Design Strategies ........................................................................................ 40
5. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 43
M

6. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 46
ed
pt
ce
Ac

2/49
1. INTRODUCTION

In recent decades, population and economic growth have been motivating an increase

of indoor comfort levels. Consequently, nowadays it is expected that buildings in devel-

oped countries should perform according to ambitious functional standards, especially

with respect to thermal and acoustic behaviour. Its efforts to achieve these high standards

make the construction sector one of the biggest energy and raw materials consumers,

threatening sustainable limits.

The building sector is responsible for substantial energy usage, accounting for a sig-

t
ip
nificant portion of the total final energy used within the European Union. In 2009, the

energy consumed by buildings accounted for 40% of the total final energy consumption,

cr
more than the industry or transport sectors [1]. This awareness has made energy efficien-

us
cy and energy saving strategies a priority goal for European energy policies. A clear
an
example is the European Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPDB) [2].

According to the World Health Organization [3], in recent years, the effect of noise
M

pollution on human health has been escalating. About 65% of European citizens are

estimated to be exposed to excessive noise levels which are known to have an adverse
ed

effect on health [4]. As the need for buildings in metropolitan areas increases, a consid-
pt

erable amount of construction has been carried out near exterior noise sources, which
ce

impairs indoor acoustic comfort. Consequently, interest has been growing in improving

the sound insulation performance of façade walls as a strategy to provide proper noise
Ac

levels inside buildings.

Taking into account the rise in the total daily hours spent indoors, reaching 90% in

Europe [5], improving the functional performance of buildings in terms of energy effi-

ciency with the appropriate thermal and sound insulation of partitions is therefore a core

3/49
need. Poor design of construction solutions can have a significant effect on the health of

occupiers and may produce buildings that are expensive to maintain.

Alternatives to the traditional construction method have been emerging. The light-

weight steel-framed (LSF) construction system is an example of this new and growing

trend that has been attracting interest worldwide. LSF buildings are widely used in the

USA, Australia and Japan and are gaining market share in Europe as well [6].

Although the forecasts for world population growth in more developed countries do

not show a significant increase until 2050 [7], the middle class es in emerging economy

t
ip
countries is seeing an enormous boom. This segment of the population will be demanding

affordable buildings that offer high comfort, are energy efficient, and can be constructed

cr
quickly. LSF construction has the potential to meet all these expectations. However,

us
some aspects of its functional performance must be taken into account at the design stage
an
so that these requirements are fulfilled in a cost-efficient way.

Regarding the energy performance, if buildings are not correctly designed and con-
M

structed, thermal bridges created by the steel’s high thermal conductivity can worsen the

thermal performance of their exterior envelope and consequently their overall energy
ed

efficiency [8].
pt

LSF buildings’ low mass and their usual rigid connections (steel studs) between the
ce

outer and the inner sheathing of the walls mean that lower acoustic performance can

ensue. Therefore, airborne sound insulation should also be correctly addressed during the
Ac

design and construction stages of façade walls.

Currently, the assessment of the sustainability of buildings should address multiple

aspects, following a holistic approach. Besides energy consumption and greenh ouse gas

emissions, aspects related to economic and social sustainability must be taken into

account as well. CEN TC 350 has been developing a series of standards for the sustaina-

4/49
bility assessment of buildings [9], considering the environmental [10] [11], economic

[12] and social aspects [13]. According to EN 16309:2013 [14], “Acoustic characteris-

tics” is one of the issues which must be considered in the assessment of the social

performance of buildings, within the “Health and comfort” section. Furthermore, “Ther-

mal characteristics” features are also included in the assessment of the social perfor-

mance category of “Health and comfort”, with the thermal performance of the external

envelope having a significant influence. In short, the energy efficiency and noise insula-

tion of buildings are two relevant aspects that must be correctly addressed and linked

t
ip
together to achieve high standards for the social, economic and environmental perfor-

mance of buildings, and thus their overall sustainability.

cr
In Europe, the latest updates to the energy performance of buildings directive [2]

us
have introduced two fundamental concepts, namely, cost-optimal energy requirements
an
and the nearly-zero energy buildings (nZEB). The Member States must establish

minimum requirements for the energy performance of buildings . However, from the cost-
M

optimal perspective, they should be set so that the best compromise between the required

investments and the energy saved throughout the lifecycle of the building is achieved.
ed

Therefore, besides knowing the technical characteristics of the materials/systems to be

pt

used in buildings, it is essential to evaluate their effectiveness in the intended

ce

application.

According to Gervásio et al. [15], one major factor which contributes to the
Ac

sustainability in the building sector is material efficiency. Often, more thermal/acoustic

insulation is applied to reduce the operational energy consumption and improve sound

insulation, leading to a trade-off between embodied and operational energy. Nowadays,

in the buildings sector, it is no longer acceptable to increase the thermal/acoustic

insulation rates just considering the operational stage and/or disregarding the cost -

5/49
optimal balance.

In this paper, the LSF construction system is under analysis, focusing on the

influence of the steel frame on the sound insulation performance and thermal behaviour

of single stud façade walls. First, the three types of LSF construction, depending on the

insulation position they are cold, hybrid and warm construction, addressed in this paper

are presented and illustrated. Next, the influence of the steel frame on the thermal

behaviour and sound insulation performance in LSF walls is briefly described. A

numerical study using an FEM software (THERM) is then presented to evaluate the

t
ip
influence of the steel frame on the thermal behaviour of each LSF façade wall type. The

LSF wall models studied in the thermal analysis are further evaluated as to their sound

cr
insulation performance using specialized computational software (INSUL). In the final

us
stage, the results are examined in a holistic approach by considering both analysis
an
simultaneously. Sound insulation performance is characterized by means of sound

reduction index curves, weighted sound reduction index R w and spectrum adaptation term
M

C tr . By its turn, the thermal behaviour is quantified by means of the U-value.

In short, it is intended to see which aspects of construction lead to the best thermal
ed

and sound insulation performance of LSF walls, independently of one another. These
pt

analyses are then merged to draw conclusions about which construction aspects should be
ce

adopted when designing LSF façade walls to provide a proper thermal and sound

insulation performance, while considering the performance-effectiveness of the solution.

Ac

6/49
2. THERMAL AND ACOUSTIC PERFORMANCE OF LSF ELEMENTS

2.1. Classification of Lightweight Steel-Framed Elements

Compared with the heavyweight construction, an LSF construction system offers sev-

eral advantages, as suggested by several authors [8] [16] [17] [18]. These advantages are

listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Characteristics of LSF structures [8] [16] [17] [18].

DESIGN STAGE
- High architectural flexibility
- Great potential for retrofitting purposes
- Lightweight with high mechanical strength

t
- Modular construction suitability

ip
PRODUCTION
- Well suited to prefabrication

cr
- High quality control of prefabricated elements
- Mass production
CONSTRUCTION STAGE
- High speed of construction
- Lower disturbance of the construction site us
an
- Less waste produced during construction stage
- “Dry” construction
- Economy in transportation and assembl y
M

MAINTAINANCE
- Steel profiles are not sensitive to biological activity
- Steel studs are not dimensionally sensitive to moisture
ed

- Fewer moisture-related pathologies

SUSTAINABILITY
- Steel has a recycling rate close to 100%
pt
ce

An LSF system can easily incorporate several types and configurations of thermal

and acoustic insulation, resulting in highly functional performance buildings , if they

Ac

are properly designed and built. Consequently, the popularity of LSF systems has

been increasing for use in both low- and medium-rise buildings. In the thermal per-

formance framework, LSF elements such as façade walls can be classified into three

typologies, depending on the insulation position: cold, hybrid and warm frame con-

struction. Figure 1 illustrates these typologies as well as the most common comp o-

7/49
 nents of LSF façade walls. They are expanded polystyrene (EPS), usually incorpo-

rated in the external thermal insulation composite system (ETICS), oriented strand

board (OSB), rock wool (RW), and gypsum plasterboard. This LSF elements classifi-

cation is used throughout this study.

E x te r io r
1
3

3
6
In te r io r (a)

t
ip
E x te r io r
1

cr
2

us
4

5
an
3
6
In te r io r (b)
E x te r io r
M

3
ed

4
pt

3
6
In te r io r (c)
ce

Figure 1: Classification of LSF elements, according to the insulation position: (a) cold frame con-
struction; (b) hybrid frame construction; (c) warm frame construction. Materials: 1- External ther-
Ac

mal insulation composite system (ETICS) finish; 2- Expanded polystyrene (EPS); 3- Oriented
strand board (OSB); 4- Light steel frame (LSF); 5- Rock wool (RW); 6- Gypsum plasterboard.

In cold construction (Figure 1(a)), the entirety of the applied insulation, generally a

fibrous material to improve acoustic performance, is placed inside the air cavity of the

wall (batt insulation), within the thickness of the steel frame which pierces this insula-

tion layer through its thickness. Contrary to the cold frame elements, in warm frame

8/49
construction (Figure 1(c)) the insulation is only applied outside the steel frame. As an

intermediate solution between those two, which is also the most current construction

solution, the hybrid frame construction (Figure 1 (b)) is characterized by having insula-

tion material outside and in-between the steel frame.

2.2. Influence of the steel studs on LSF façade walls

2.2.1. Thermal behaviour

An LSF construction system, although offering great advantages and potential when it

t
comes to sustainability in the construction sector and in achieving high indoor comfort

ip
levels, may present some drawbacks regarding energy efficiency. If the usual low thermal

cr
inertia and thermal bridges created by the high conductivity of the steel framing are not

us
correctly addressed during the design stage, they can impair compliance with ambitious

standards of energy efficiency for buildings.

an
According to Gorgolewski [18], depending on the details of the construction, neglect-
M

ing the effect of the thermal bridges caused by the steel fram e can lead to an overestima-

tion of the thermal resistance by up to 50%. De Angelis and Serra [19] stated that due to
ed

the steel frame, evaluating the thermal performance of LSF walls requires more a com-
pt

plex and detailed analysis than is required for masonry constructions. It is therefore

essential to evaluate the influence of the steel structure in LSF walls when assessing the
ce

real thermal behaviour of these elements.

Ac

Figure 2 shows a hybrid wall where two heat transfer paths with different thermal

resistance have been schematically identified: the Cavity Path and the Stud Path. Note

that the arrows only identify generically the regions of the wall which contribute to the

different paths. In the cold construction typology, the Stud Path constitutes a continuous

path of lower thermal resistance that connects the indoor and outdoor environments

without a significant thermal break provided by an insulation layer. In this construction

9/49
type, the thermal energy flow across the Stud Path and in its vicinity is much larger than

the one across the Cavity Path, as demonstrated by Roque and Santos [8]. However, when

thermal insulation is placed outside the steel frame (warm and hybrid frame construction)

and is not pierced by it, this element provides an effective thermal break. In th e last two

construction types there is no continuous low resistance path for the thermal energy flow

to occur. Therefore, the effect of thermal bridges caused by the frame is less severe since

it is progressively mitigated as the exterior insulation thickness increase s. Given this,

research and strategies have set out to evaluate and improve the thermal behaviour of

t
ip
these structures by mitigating the effect of thermal bridging in the exterior envelope [17]

[20] [21].

cr
E x te r io r

us
E T IC S fin is h

EPS

OSB
an
A ir c a v ity

R ock w ool

OSB
M

G ypsum
In te r io r d = 600 m m p la s te r b o a r d

C - S e c tio n s te e l s tu d
C a v ity P a th S tu d P a th
ed

Figure 2: Cross-section of a hybrid construction, schematically illustrating two thermal trans-

mission paths: Cavity Path and Stud Path.
pt

As suggested by Santos et al. [17], three types of thermal bridge can be found in LSF
ce

buildings: geometric thermal bridges (e.g. junctions where the walls meet other building

components); isolated thermal bridges (e.g. balconies penetrating insulation layers);

Ac

repeated thermal bridges (e.g. steel frame).

Regarding the thermal performance analysis, one of the main goals of this study is to

evaluate the influence of the steel frame on the thermal behaviour of LSF walls. The

thermal energy flow across geometric and isolated thermal bridges is therefore not under

10/49
analysis. The effect of repeated thermal bridges is here considered by computing the

overall U-value of the LSF façade wall.

2.2.2. Sound insulation performance

The presence of the steel frame in LSF façade walls can further impair the functional

performance of these building elements, besides its effect on thermal behaviour. From the

sound insulation point of view, the steel studs create a vibration transmission path

between the outer and the inner sheathing of the wall that can be more critical than the

airborne path through the cavity [22]. Indeed, any lightweight structural member of one

t
ip
such structure would have the same effect, for example, a wood frame. However, if we

cr
are talking about a heavyweight concrete structure, the structural elements have enough

mass and stiffness to reduce the above-mentioned airborne vibration transmission.

us
Therefore, the stiffness between panels and the usual low mass of LSF façade walls
an
should be taken into account when addressing the direct sound insulation provided by

these elements.
M

In the literature on the acoustic performance of lightweight construction systems (as-

ed

suming only direct transmission), LSF walls are usually addressed as double walls. The

sound transmission of LSF and wood stud double walls has been studied and described
pt

over the past few decades.

ce

A literature review on the sound transmission models of double walls with connections

between the inner and the outer panel can be found in [22] [23], and an assessment of the
Ac

most referenced simplified methods of sound transmission provided by double walls was

presented by Hongisto [24]. That work has shown that there is a large discrepancy

between the results given by the different methods and only five of the seventeen consid-

ered models can deal with connections between panels. One of these models was presen t-

ed by Sharp in 1978 [25] and it is currently widely used in the prediction of sound

11/49
transmission loss of lightweight building elements. Sharp’s model with some modifica-

tions is the reference for the present work.

The influence of several parameters on the sound insulation of lightweight double

walls has been studied by various researchers using measurements. Focusing on the

effect of the studs, several parametric studies have been performed including the stud

size, spacing, geometry, and absorbing material in the air gap. A report by Warnock [26]

sets out several measurements and estimations of sound transmission class (STC) for a

large variety of both interior and exterior steel framing for double walls. According to

t
ip
the literature, the number and the type of studs, and the distance between them are

factors that influence the sound insulation performance of a lightweight double wall. The

cr
actual acoustic response of LSF façade walls depends to a great extent on the mechanical

us
properties (mainly stiffness) of the steel studs [22]. Workmanship quality is also an
an
important issue [27].

In LSF walls with a single line of studs, as shown in Figure 2, the structural path
M

(Stud Path) across these elements will short-circuit the air cavity and the insulation

material. A study conducted by Paul et al. [23] concluded that due to the existence of
ed

the Stud Path (see Figure 2), filling the 100 mm air cavity of an LSF wall nearly com-
pt

pletely (90 mm) with glass wool only increased the weighted sound reduction index
ce

(R w) by 3 dB relative to the total absence of glass wool. Furthermore, the R w does not

increase when the thickness of the glass wool increases from 50 mm to 90 mm. In this
Ac

respect, and establishing a parallel with the thermal behaviour, steel studs in LSF walls

act as sound bridges between the outer and inner environment.

The available information on sound transmission loss of LSF elements has mostly

come from experimental data, in-situ measurements or simplified models. However,

determining the acoustic behaviour of partitions from more accurate prediction models or

12/49
computational approaches is a more challenging task as they require knowledge of

several material properties of the elements that compose the walls (information that is

not fully provided by the manufacturers) and other skills from the designer to fully

describe the dynamic behaviour of the system. In fact it is known that the transmission of

airborne sound through a partition element depends on several variables such as the

characteristics of the incident sound field, the physical proprieties of the element (densi-

ty, internal damping, Poisson’s ratio, elasticity modulus) [28] and the support conditions.

Recently, some computer programs that are based on scientific theories have been

t
ip
made available and these can be used predict sound transmission loss provided by multi-

layered structures. INSUL is one such program [29]. The validation of the theoretical

cr
models used in INSUL for the prediction of sound transmission loss of single homogen e-

us
ous panels and double, thin, LSF gypsum panels with and without interconnection has
an
been demonstrated by their creators in [30] and [31]. Although the curves display a good

approximation, no details are given on the stiffness and damping properties used in the
M

predictions.

Later, Kurra [32] undertook a comparison of some computational tools, including IN-
ed

SUL software [29], investigating the differences and similarities of the obtained results
pt

through a sampling study performed on several multi-layered building elements. This

ce

work also presents a comparison between the calculated and measured data, in which

INSUL has shown a good correlation with the experimental results. However, the verifi-
Ac

cation with measured data only uses a small number of LSF partitions. This software is

used for the acoustic analysis displayed in our work. As far as the authors know, no other

work apart from these has been published on the use of INSUL software to evaluate the

influence of the steel frame on the acoustic response of LSF façade walls. In order to

preserve coherence with the thermal performance study, the sound insulation analysis

13/49
conducted in this work focuses on the evaluations and assumes direct sound transmis-

sion, which means that flanking sound transmission is not under analysis. Moreover, only

the sound transmission across the opaque LSF wall area has been considered.

Given the importance of the steel studs to the thermal and acoustic performance of

LSF walls, nowadays special studs are studied and several options are already available

on the market. These include slotted studs [6] [33] to improve thermal performance, and

acoustic studs with different cross-section configurations [22] [34], which allow a less

rigid connection, and therefore an improved sound insulation performance.

t
ip
Although several studies can be found in the literature on the influence of the steel

frame on the thermal and acoustic performance of LSF walls, no comprehensive study

cr
was found where this influence was studied simultaneously from the acoustic and thermal

us
performance perspective. A contribution on the combined analysis of thermal and acous-
an
tic behaviour of LSF partitions is given in this work.
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

14/49
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Geometry of the Models

To assess the thermal behaviour of LSF façade walls with THERM software [35] it is

first necessary to identify a representative wall section to model. For a façade wall with a

single line of vertical steel studs and a frequency of 600 mm every two studs, standard EN

ISO 10211:2007 [36] suggests taking advantage of this repetitive sequence to locate the

adiabatic planes. Following this recommendation, a cross section of an LSF façade wall,

measuring 600 mm and with a steel stud in the centre was defined for simulation

t
proposes, as illustrated in Figure 3.

ip
cr
us
E x te rio r P ro f ile C 1 5 0
an
A d ia b a tic

A d ia b a tic

150 m m
M

I n te rio r
600 m m
ed

Figure 3: LSF wall cross section modelled with FEM software THERM [35].
pt

For sound insulation characterization, using INSUL software [29], the following input

data is required: the thickness of the several components of the wall, the dimension of the
ce

air cavity, the type of steel stud, the respective thickness and spacing.
Ac

3.2. Materials
In this study, three façade walls are under analysis, one for each LSF construction type ,

as displayed Figure 1. Each wall comprises a steel frame structure composed of a single

layer of galvanized cold-formed steel studs with a “C” cross-sectional shape measuring

150 x 43 x 15 x 1.5 [mm].

15/49
 Table 2 presents the physical properties of each material in the studied wall assemblies.

While the characterization of the thermal behaviour only requires the thermal conductivity

value (λ), sound insulation characterization involves a larger set of inputs, e.g. elasticity

modulus (E), Poisson´s ratio (ν), internal damping, density (r) and the airflow resistivity

(σ) for absorbent materials.

Table 2: Thermal conductivity (λ), elasticity modulus (E), density (r), Poisson´s ratio (ν) and
internal damping of the rigid components in the façade wall assemblies.
ETICS OSB [15 OSB [10 Gypsum
Physical properties EPS Steel RW
finishing mm] mm] plasterboard

t
λ [W.m-1.K-1] 0.470 0.036 0.120 0.120 50.000 0.037 0.210

ip
5.5001 5.5001
E [GPa] 3.000 0.007 - - 2.500
2.2002 2.2002

cr
r [kg.m-3] 1300 20 600 620 - 30 727

ν
Internal Damping
0.30

0.01
0.02

0.01
0.30

0.01
us
0.30

0.01
-

-
-

-
0.27

0.01
an
1
longitudinal elasticity modulus; 2 transverse elasticity modulus.
M

Two values of elasticity modulus (E) are presented for the OSB, with the higher value

(E 1 ) being the longitudinal elasticity modulus and the lower one (E 2 ) the transverse elas-
ed

ticity modulus. All elastic materials were assumed isotropic except for OSB layers which

were modelled as orthotropic materials due to the significant orthotropic ratio.

pt

The following analysis studies the presence of an absorbing material filling the air cav-
ce

ity. Rock wool with a density of 30 kg.m -3 is used. Based on the chart presented by Vigran
Ac

[37], an air flow resistivity (σ) of 9300 Pa.s.m -2 is assumed for this density.

3.3. Domain Discretization and Accuracy

The finite element mesh of a model in THERM software [35] is controlled by two pa-

rameters, the “Quad Tree Mesh Parameter”, related to the maximum size of the initial

subdivision, and the “Maximum % Error Energy Norm”, which sets a threshold for the er-

ror estimator during the iterative calculations. An iterative method was used throughout

16/49
the thermal analysis behaviour of the LSF façade walls in which the default “Quad Tree

Mesh Parameter” was set to its standard value of 6 and th e “Maximum % Error Energy

Norm” set at under 2%.

Regarding the sound insulation characterization, the INSUL software developer indi-

cates that an error within R w ± 3 dB can be expected [29].

3.4. Boundary Conditions

For thermal behaviour analysis, boundary conditions were set in THERM software

[35] for the external and the internal environment. An external temperature was set equal

t
ip
to 0ºC and 20ºC was set for the internal temperature. The convective surface heat transfer

cr
coefficient was set according to EN ISO 6946:2007 [38] for a horizontal heat flow,

namely, h e = 25 W·m −2 ·K −1 and h i = 7.69 W·m −2 ·K −1 for the external and internal envi-

ronment, respectively. us
an
In the sound insulation characterization analysis it was assumed that the façade wall

measures 3.6 m in length by 2.7 m in height, under exposure to a random sound field. The
M

size of the panel can influence the measured sound transmission loss. INSUL software
ed

[29] predicts this effect using an expression developed by Sewell [39], which was taken

into account in the calculations.

pt

The software also accounts for the energy loss that occurs at the edge of a normal su r-
ce

rounding structure by means of the edge damping factor. This effect is significant for

heavy partitions in normal constructions [40]. As the study focused on lightweight parti-
Ac

tions, edge damping was neglected.

3.5. Modelling Air Layers

For thermal analysis, the air layer inside the wall was modelled assuming the equiva-

lent thermal conductivity of a solid, according to the methodology set out in EN ISO

6946:2007 [38]. This standard provides the equivalent thermal resistance values to use

17/49
when modelling unventilated air layers. It prescribes a thermal resistance (R T ) of 0.18

m 2 ·K -1 ·W −1 for air layers of thickness between 25 mm and 300 mm when the direction of

the heat flow is horizontal. Therefore, the solid-equivalent thermal conductivity (λ) of

each air layer was calculated using the known equivalent thermal resistance (R T ) and the

thickness of the air layer (d).

3.6. Accuracy Verification

3.6.1. THERM Software

THERM software [35] is based on a state-of-the-art 2D FEM algorithm to model heat

t
ip
transfer. This software has already been used by researchers to evaluate heat transfer

cr
across several types of building elements, including perforated clay brick walls [41],

LSF structures [19] [21] [42] and wood frame structures [43]. Moreover, the accuracy of

us
THERM software for computing heat flows and surface temperatures was verified in
an
[8], taking into account the guidelines provided by two standards, namely, EN ISO

10211:2007 [36] and EN ISO 6946:2007 [38]. It was concluded that THERM software
M

can be classified as a 2D steady-state high precision method according to EN ISO

ed

10211:2007 [36]. Furthermore, it was also verified against a 3D FEM software,

ABAQUS/CAE [44], revealing an excellent agreement of results and highlighting once

pt

again the robustness of THERM software accuracy.

ce

3.6.2. INSUL Software

As no previous detailed research work was found on the use of INSUL software [29]
Ac

regarding the sound insulation characterization of LSF façade walls, the authors evalu-

ated the accuracy of the software for the intended purpose. For this, experimental results

of sound insulation of LSF walls obtained by the Portuguese gypsum board manufactur-

er, Gyptec Iberian [45] were used. They are available in the report [46] and were used

for comparison with INSUL results. Note that the report only looks at interior walls,

where the common solutions consist of cold frames. The measurements were taken by

18/49
Institute for Research and Technological Development in Construction, Energy, Env i-

ronment and Sustainability (ITeCons, Portugal) [47] which has laboratory facilities

comprising two adjacent horizontal chambers. These were designed and built to meet

the requirements imposed by the EN ISO 10140 series of standards [48]. The receiving

chamber is a fixed room built using a solution that followed the guidelines of the “box

within a box” systems, with interior partitions made of concrete 0.20 m thick, while the

emitting room is a moving chamber, also made of concrete and with partitions 0.25 m

thick. The receiving chamber (with a volume of 203.98 m 3 ) is separated from the emit-

ting chamber (with a volume of 181.54 m 3 ) by a division with an opening measuring

t
ip
3.16 m x 3.16 m, through which the specimens, which are prepared outside the cham-

cr
bers, are then inserted. Details on the construction of these chambers and their acoustic

us
characterization can be found in [49] and [50]. The experimental measurements were

performed on LSF walls, where the gypsum plasterboard is the only sheathing material.
an
Several solutions were tested with a different number of sheathing layers on each side of
M

the wall, and several air cavity dimensions and fillings.

The layouts and materials used for the first measurements were replicated in INSUL
ed

software. The required physical properties were those relating to the tested gypsum

plasterboards (Table 3) and mineral wool (MW) and their respective thickness. Fur-
pt

thermore, although the orthotropic ratio of the gypsum plasterboard does not differ
ce

much from the unit value, this material was modelled here as orthotropic.
Ac

Table 3: Physical properties of the gypsum plasterboard used in the accuracy verification of INSUL
software.
Longitudinal elasticity Transverse elasticity mod- Poisson’s Density Internal
modulus [GPa] ulus [GPa] ratio [kg.m ]-3
damping

2.800 2.200 0.27 625 0.01

19/49
 For the cavity filling, a 70 kg.m -3 density mineral wool with an air flow resistivity of

33000 Pa.s.m -2 [37] was used. All the verification cases used 12.5 mm thick gypsum

plasterboards. A steel frame composed of 0.5 mm thick steel studs with a “C” cross-

sectional shape, with 600 mm between every two studs, was modelled. Note that these

properties of the partition are well described in [46]

From the available experimental data, a set of representative solutions was chosen

for reference on the accuracy verification (A1-A10). Table 4 displays details of the ana-

lysed solutions. These are the dimension of the air cavity, ranging from 48 mm to 125

mm, the number of gypsum plasterboard layers on each side of the partition (between 1

t
ip
and 3 layers), and the thickness of the mineral wool in the air cavity.

cr
us
Table 4 – Overview of the modelled cases for accuracy verification of INSUL software.

Dimension of the air cavity N. of N. of Absorbing

an
Model layers layers material
48 70 90 100 125 Int. side Ext. side MW
[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [un.] [un.] [mm]
M

A1  1 1 0
A2  2 2 0
A3  1 2 50
ed

A4  1 1 60
A5  2 2 60
A6  3 3 60
pt

A7  1 1 60
A8  1 1 60
ce

A9  2 2 60
A10  3 3 60
Ac

Table 5 gives the results of the accuracy verification analysis by means of the weighted

sound reduction index (R w) and spectrum adaptation terms (C; C tr ). Differences between

the single number quantities obtained from experimental measurements and from predic-

tions are also displayed in this table. To better identify tendencies, the relationships be-

tween the weighted sound reduction indexes calculated by INSUL and using experimental

results for the 10 verification cases were also plotted, and they can be found in Figure 4.

20/49
 Table 5 – Single number ratings obtained using INSUL and experimental measurements.

Verification INSUL [dB] Experimental [dB] ∆ (Exp. – INSUL) [dB]

Cases Rw C Ctr Rw C Ctr Rw C Ctr
A1 34 -3 -7 33 -2 -7 -1 1 0
A2 42 -3 -10 40 -3 -7 -2 0 3
A3 46 -4 -12 47 -6 -12 1 -2 0
A4 44 -5 -12 46 -5 -11 2 0 1
A5 54 -3 -10 51 -5 -11 -3 -2 -1
1
A6 60 -3 -8 56 -4 -10 -4 -1 -2
A7 45 -4 -11 47 -5 -11 2 -1 0
A8 43 -5 -12 45 -5 -11 2 0 1
A9 54 -4 -11 51 -5 -11 -3 -1 0
A10 60 -3 -9 55 -4 -10 -5 -1 -1

t
ip
cr
us
an
M
ed

Figure 4: Relationships between the sound reduction indexes calculated by INSUL and using ex-
pt

perimental results for the 10 verification cases.

ce

It can be seen from Figure 4 that as sound insulation performance increases, the accuracy

of INSUL tends to decrease. It can also be seen that INSUL tends to provide higher R w val-
Ac

ues than the experimental measurements. For most of the verification cases the differences

from the experimental results are (± 3 dB). Knowing the error mentioned by the software

developer regarding the R w value (± 3 dB), the majority of the obtained results are in ac-

cordance with that tolerance.

It was found that the use of internal damping of 0.01 for the gypsum plasterboard pro-

vides a better agreement between the measurements and the INSUL results, rather than tak-

21/49
ing a higher value, as usually suggested in the literature [51] [52] for this material, which

indicates a value of approximately 0.02.

Despite this good agreement, it can be seen in Table 5 that when it comes to triple layer

solutions of similar mass sheathing (with higher acoustic performances), the R w values

differ by 4 dB (A6) and 5 dB (A10). According to the software developer [40], the accura-

cy seems to decline as a function of the number of elements involved in the construction.

Therefore, for a triple panel construction, the accuracy is considerably less than for single

and double panel constructions. In these situations, based on INSUL predictions against

laboratory tests, a 4 dB difference for the R w value can be expected [40], which matches

t
ip
the obtained results. It is important to note that the models studied in this work do not re-

cr
semble triple panels of similar mass.

us
Table 6 displays the sound transmission loss in 1/3 octave frequency bands obtained

from both experimental measurements and INSUL software, concerning cases A1, A2, A3,
an
A8, A9 and A10, for which results are available in the report in [46]. To better perceive
M

the differences between experimental tests and predictions a simple statistical analysis

was performed using the results from Table 6, so as to obtain the median, first quartile,
ed

third quartile, maximum and minimum. These indicators are p lotted in the box plot dis-

played in Figure 5. We can see from this plot that the median value lies between −4 dB
pt

and 5 dB for most of the 1/3 frequency bands, except for frequency bands of 100 Hz, 3150
ce

Hz and 4000 Hz, where higher median values are found. In general, it can also be seen
Ac

that the major spreads in the differences are located in low frequencies, at 100 and 125

Hz, and also between 1250 Hz and 2000 Hz. The differences in the median values and ma-

jor spreads located at low and higher frequencies are related to the evaluation of stiffness

which affects both low frequency and the coincidence effect predicted for the panels.

These conclusions are consistent with those found by Kurra [32]. In Figure 6 the frequen-

22/49
cy domain result for case A3 that best matches the experimental one is plotted, where it is

still possible to identify some difference in these frequency ranges.

Table 6 – Frequency domain results obtained using INSUL and experimental measurements.
Model Freq. [Hz] 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000
INSUL 16.4 14.5 13.5 18.7 24.0 28.6 32.6 36.1 39.3 42.2 44.8 51.2 52.1 50.9 35.9 29.9 33.1 35.5

A1 Experimental 22.0 16.3 12.5 15.9 23.4 25.4 28.9 31.2 35.8 39.4 41.5 44.1 43.8 41.7 35.5 36.0 40.1 45.2
∆
5.6 1.8 -1.0 -2.8 -0.6 -3.2 -3.7 -4.9 -3.5 -2.8 -3.3 -7.1 -8.3 -9.2 -0.4 6.1 7.0 9.7
(Exp. – INSUL)
INSUL 14.3 18.4 25.3 30.9 35.7 39.8 43.4 46.7 49.8 52.5 55.0 60.2 61.0 60.2 43.1 38.3 43.0 45.8

A2 Experimental 25.1 19.1 19.5 23.6 30.8 31.6 37.6 39.8 43.8 46.2 48.5 51.2 52.2 50.2 41.5 44.2 48.4 52.3
∆
10.8 0.7 -5.8 -7.3 -4.9 -8.2 -5.8 -6.9 -6.0 -6.3 -6.5 -9.0 -8.8 -10.0 -1.6 5.9 5.4 6.5
(Exp. – INSUL)
INSUL 15.7 21.8 28.3 34.2 39.4 44.0 48.1 51.6 54.5 57.2 59.4 60.7 61.5 60.9 53.7 48.7 52.7 56.4

t
A3 Experimental 23.0 16.8 27.6 31.4 40.5 45.0 48.5 51.5 56.3 58.4 61.9 66.4 67.6 65.0 54.2 54.6 58.0 56.1

ip
∆
7.3 -5.0 -0.7 -2.8 1.1 1.0 0.4 -0.1 1.8 1.2 2.5 5.7 6.1 4.1 0.5 5.9 5.3 -0.3
(Exp. – INSUL)
INSUL 12.4 18.2 24.6 30.5 35.8 40.5 44.7 48.2 51.6 54.1 55.8 57.2 57.9 57.4 50.5 45.4 49.3 53.0

cr
A8 Experimental 21.7 16.5 25.1 31.2 38.0 40.6 43.9 46.7 52.1 56.2 62.0 68.7 69.8 63.6 53.2 54.0 55.2 53.7
∆
9.3 -1.7 0.5 0.7 2.2 0.1 -0.8 -1.5 0.5 2.1 6.2 11.5 11.9 6.2 2.7 8.6 5.9 0.7

us
(Exp. – INSUL)
INSUL 24.8 31.7 37.7 42.8 47.1 50.6 53.5 56.0 58.5 60.3 61.9 63.2 64.0 63.4 56.5 51.6 55.6 59.5

A9 Experimental 27.6 22.0 31.3 39.2 44.3 46.1 48.5 53.5 57.9 61.4 66.0 70.3 70.8 68.4 58.4 60.1 62.7 55.4
∆
an
2.8 -9.7 -6.4 -3.6 -2.8 -4.5 -5.0 -2.5 -0.6 1.1 4.1 7.1 6.8 5.0 1.9 8.5 7.1 -4.1
(Exp. – INSUL)
INSUL 32.9 39.3 44.5 48.9 52.4 55.3 57.8 60.1 62.1 63.9 65.5 66.8 67.5 67.0 60.0 55.2 59.3 63.2

A10 Experimental 32.5 27.5 35.7 43.0 45.6 50.2 51.8 56.7 61.1 64.5 67.9 71.0 71.4 68.3 57.4 60.4 63.2 56.0
M

∆
-0.4 -11.8 -8.8 -5.9 -6.8 -5.1 -6.0 -3.4 -1.0 0.6 2.4 4.2 3.9 1.3 -2.6 5.2 3.9 -7.2
(Exp. – INSUL)
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Figure 5: Box plot for variation of differences between sound reduction obtained by laboratory data
and predictions using INSUL.

23/49
Figure 6: Sound reduction index (R) for A3 case: experimental and INSUL software.

t
ip
cr
us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

24/49
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this section the influence of the steel frame on the thermal behaviour of LSF façade

walls and noise insulation is evaluated. This study considered three façade walls types,

one for each type of construction (Figure 1).

An overview of the studied models is displayed in Table 7. As it can be seen, these

three wall types only differ in the type and position of the insulation, with the rest of the

wall components remaining unchanged.

These cases were modelled both in INSUL [29] and THERM [35] software. Eighteen

t
ip
models whose insulation thickness ranged between 25 mm and 150 mm were analysed in

cr
THERM and seventeen models in INSUL (H1 could not be modelled because it is impos-

sible to specify the thickness of phono- absorbent materials under 25 mm in INSUL).

us
an
Table 7 – Evaluated LSF walls with model references in brackets.

Cold Construction Warm Construction Hybrid Construction

M

Material (1) d [mm] Material (1) d [mm] Material (1) d [mm]

ETICS finish 5 ETICS finish 5 ETICS finish 5
OSB 15 EPS 25 (W1) EPS 12.5 (H1)
ed

RW 25 (C1) 50 (W2) 25 (H2)

50 (C2) 75 (W3) 37.5 (H3)
75 (C3) 100 (W4) 50 (H4)
pt

100 (C4) 125 (W5) 62.5 (H5)

125 (C5) 150 (W6) 75 (H6)
ce

150 (C6) OSB 15 OSB 15

Steel Studs 150 Steel Studs 150 RW 12.5 (H1)
OSB 10 OSB
Ac

10 25 (H2)
Plasterboard 15 Plasterboard 15 37.5 (H3)
50 (H4)
62.5 (H5)
75 (H6)
Steel Studs 150
OSB 10
Plasterboard 15
(1)
From outer to inner surface

25/49
 Sound insulation of the different LSF façade walls was characterized by means of the

weighted sound reduction index R w and the spectrum adaptation term C tr . Thermal per-

formance was evaluated by means of the U-value.

To evaluate the influence of the steel frame on the thermal and sound insulation per-

formance of LSF façade walls, two sets of values are computed and presented in the fol-

lowing two sections. In one approach, the presence of the steel frame (Ureal; R w,real ; C tr,real )

is considered, while in the second the steel frame is neglected by assuming homogeneous

layers (Uhom; R w,hom ; C tr,hom ). Moreover, the importance of the insulation with respect to its

type, position and thickness is also addressed with respect to the thermal and acoustic per-

t
ip
formance. These results are used to define design guidance.

cr
EN ISO 6946:2007 [38] indicates that final results of the thermal resistance values

us
should be presented rounded to two decimal places, so for the U-values that are computed

here, this accuracy is used.

an
M

4.1. Thermal Performance

In Figure 7 (a) the U-values obtained for LSF cold frame construction, with and with-
ed

out steel studs, are presented. It can be seen that the greater the batt insulation thickness,

which is consequently pierced by the steel studs, the greater the drop in the insulation ef-
pt

fectiveness. Increases from 18% (Model C1) up to 82% (Model C6) of the U-value were
ce

reached when comparing these two scenarios.

Furthermore, the U-value of the LSF wall with the steel studs but without any thermal
Ac

insulation (1.60 W.m -2 .K -1 ) was also computed. This value is much larger (+0.70 W.m -2 .K -
1
) than that obtained in Model C1, which means an improvement of 56% with only 25 mm

of rock wool. Therefore, although the effectiveness of the insulation is severely affected

in cold construction façades, the improvement in the U-value with the introduction of a

reduced insulation thickness compared with the total absence of insulation is evident.

26/49
 In this analysis, it can also be seen how thermal insulation efficiency can be severely

impaired by the presence of the steel studs in the air cavity, by comparing the results with

and without the frame.

t
ip
(a)

cr
us
an
M
ed

(b)
pt
ce
Ac

(c)

Figure 7: Thermal transmittance values obtained for the three LSF wall types: (a) cold frame; (b)
hybrid frame; (c) warm frame.

27/49
 As the behaviour of hybrid solutions lies between the cold and warm constructions, it

may be expected that the results for this façade wall typology would be a blend of the

thermal behaviour characteristics of the two types. Figure 7 (b) shows the obtained U-

values for the hybrid typology models.

By analogy with LSF cold frame construction, hybrid façade walls (Figure 7 (b)) re-

sults also reveal that the overall U-value is impaired by the presence of the steel studs.

Nevertheless, unlike cold constructions, in hybrid façade walls only the batt insulation be-

tween the steel frame is pierced by the frame, while the rest of it, placed outside the steel

frame, provides an effective thermal break in the thermal energy flow.

t
ip
The thermal transmittance values for the LSF warm construction are presented in Figure

cr
7 (c). Unlike the cold frame construction, in warm façades the insulation is placed entirely

us
outside the steel frame, and so it is not pierced by the steel studs. We can see the distinct

contrast between the warm and cold frame construction thermal behaviour (Figure 7 (a)).
an
In this construction type, the registered increase in the U -value due to the presence of the
M

steel studs ranges only from 0% (W3 to W6) to 2% (W2). Given the continuous external

thermal insulation layer, the impact of the steel studs on the U-value of the façade walls is
ed

substantially reduced or can be neglected in the predictions. In Figure 7 (c) the two U-

value plotted curves almost perfectly overlap. This is in accordance with the statements in
pt

[53].
ce

Comparing the results of the hybrid frame with the warm frame walls for similar exte-
Ac

rior insulation thicknesses (H2 with W1; H4 with W2 and H6 with W3), we find that for

the same exterior insulation thickness, the hybrid frame solution has a better performance,

meaning that the introduction of batt insulation may increase the performance of warm

frame construction.

28/49
4.2. Sound Insulation Performance
4.2.1. Sound Transmission Loss Curves

In the present section an analysis of the sound reduction index (R) in one-third-octave bands for

the several LSF models is assessed. Figure 8 presents the results for the three LSF construction

types. In this figure, the plots displayed on the left (column 1) relate to the partitions with the studs

and those on the right (column 2) display the results for walls without the steel frame.

If we look at the sound transmission loss curves, there is a broad dip in the high frequency range.

This dip corresponds to the coincidence effect relating to the critical frequency of the inner panel,

computed by INSUL [29] at 2601 Hz. It is also notable that this dip is larger when homogenous

t
ip
layers are assumed (column 2), due to decreased mechanical damping.

cr
In Figure 8 (c1) and (c2), in relation to warm frame construction, we can see that the

us
sound transmission loss curves of the various models differ significantly at frequencies
an
between approximately 630 Hz and 2500 Hz. To understand this behavior the sound

transmission loss of the exterior panel of the warm frame system was plotted in Figure 9.
M

This figure shows that as the thickness of the EPS increases, the critical frequency of the
ed

outer panel registers a shift to lower frequencies. Furthermore, this increase leads to a loss

of sound insulation performance within the mentioned frequency range. If a heavy materi-
pt

al layer (e.g. concrete 0.30 m thick) were to be introduced in the outer panel instead of a
ce

lightweight one (OSB), this outcome would no longer be noticeable (illustrated in Figure

10).
Ac

29/49
 In Figure 8 (a) and (b) the influence of the batt insulation in LSF façade walls can be

examined. As expected, the presence of the cavity insulation improves the transmission

loss performance of the partition because of the reduction in acoustic coupling between

the inside and outside walls. The effectiveness of this insulation material is, however, s e-

verely impaired by the presence of the steel studs which short-circuit the rock wool

throughout its thickness. On the other hand, as expected, when there are no rigid conne c-

tions between the outer and the inner panels of the façade wall, the increase of mineral

wool in the cold and hybrid models provides a noticeable increase in sound transmission

loss in the mid and high frequency ranges. This is more evident in cold frame walls than

t
ip
in hybrid walls, where the increase of rock wool between the several models is bigger.

cr
us
In Figure 8 (a1) and (a2) are the plots of the sound transmission loss curves of a cold

frame wall without rock-wool. It can be seen in Figure 8 (a) that in contrast to what hap-
an
pens when the thickness of the rock wool is increased from 25 mm to 150 mm (C1-C6),
M

when we change from no acoustic insulation to having 25 mm of rock-wool, there is an

overall increase in sound transmission loss. This gain is even more evident in Figure 8
ed

(a2), neglecting the presence of the studs. In both situations the gains are bigger when the

thickness of rock-wool is increased from 0 to 25 mm than when the increase is from 25

pt

mm to 150 mm.
ce
Ac

30/49
 LSF wall with the steel frame LSF wall without the steel frame

(a1) (a2)

t
ip
cr
us
an
(b1) (b2)
M
ed
pt
ce

(c1) (c2)
Ac

Figure 8: Sound reduction index (R) obtained for the LSF walls: (a) cold frame; (b) hybrid frame;
(c) warm frame.

31/49
 t
Figure 9: Sound reduction index (R) obtained for individual panels of LSF wall using warm frame

ip
solution.

cr
us
an
M
ed

(a1) (a2)
Figure 10: Sound reduction index (R) regarding a wall obtained from the LSF warm frame con-
struction by substituting the OSB exterior panel with a concrete wall 0.30m thick: with steel frame
pt

(a1) and without steel frame (a2).

ce
Ac

In the same sequence of what had already been concluded in the thermal analysis, alt-

hough the effectiveness of the batt insulation is severely affected by the steel frame, the

improvement in the sound transmission loss with the introduction of a reduced batt insul a-

tion thickness, compared with no insulation, is once again visible.

32/49
4.2.2. Weighted Sound Reduction Index

In the present section, the weighted sound reduction index (R w) and spectrum adapta-

tion term (C tr ) are discussed for the same models.

Figure 11 (a) gives the weighted sound reduction indexes obtained for LSF cold frame

construction with (designated R w,real in the plot) and without the steel studs (designated

R w,hom in the plot). It can be seen how the efficiency of rock wool can be significantly im-

paired by the presence of the steel frame. The greater the insulation thickness in the air

cavity, the greater the loss of efficiency of this component. Increases from 10% (Model

C1) up to 19% (Model C6) of the R w were reached when comparing the sound insulation

t
ip
performance of the wall with and without the steel frame.

cr
It also can be noted in Figure 11 (a) that increasing the rock wool thickness from 25

us
mm to 150 mm only increased the R w value by 1 dB. However, neglecting the presence of

the frame, the same increase led to a rise of 6 dB, once again showing the loss of effec-
an
tiveness of the batt insulation. This is consistent with the experimental data presented by

Paul et al. [23].

M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

33/49
 (a)

t
ip
cr
us
an
M
ed

(b)
pt
ce
Ac

(c)

Figure 11: Weighted sound reduction index (R w ) values obtained for the LSF walls: a) cold
frame; b) hybrid frame; c) warm frame.

34/49
 As noted in the previous section, the R w value of a cold type LSF façade wall with and

without rock wool was also computed. Without phono-absorbent material and assuming

the presence of the steel frame, an R w value of 48 dB was obtained, which in comparison

with the C1 model (52 dB ) means a 4 dB difference. This increase is greater than that re-

sulting from increasing the rock wool thickness from 25 mm to 150 mm (1 dB).

The influence of acoustic studs was also briefly addressed, using INSUL software

(Figure 12). The geometry of these special studs (Figure 12 (a)) can be compared with

that of the regular studs (Figure 12 (b)), used in this study. In the software the type of

frame is entered from a selection from a set of options that are available to describe the

t
ip
type of connection between the two wall panels. These options are related to the type of

cr
stud used. Note that the thickness of these studs cannot be specified in the software . When

us
modelling the C1 configuration with acoustic studs, a R w (C; Ctr) value of 56 (-3; -9) dB

was achieved. This change corresponds to an R w improvement of 4 dB compared with the

an
1 dB difference obtained by adding an extra 125 mm of rock-wool.
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 12: Illustration of the acoustic studs used (a), regular studs (b) (not to scale) and corre-
sponding sound reduction for configuration C1 provided by the two types of stud (c).

35/49
 Although they improve the sound insulation performance, this type of stud would not

significantly benefit the thermal behaviour of the wall, unless it was an acoustic and

thermal stud with the same shape but slotted along the web.

Hybrid façade walls (see Figure 11 (b)) also show that the R w value is impaired by the

presence of the steel frame, although the effect is less marked than it is for cold frame

construction, with short-circuiting the rock wool. The computed R w values are the same

regardless of the thickness of the acoustic insulation used.

The R w values for the LSF warm construction are presented in Figure 11 (c). Unlike

the cold and hybrid construction, this construction type does not have any acoustic insula-

t
ip
tion in its composition. It can be noted from Figure 11 (c) that as the EPS thickness in-

cr
creases the R w value decreases from 48 to 46 dB. This decrease is due to the effect already

us
identified in the previous section, relating to the influence of increased EPS thickness,

which increases the frequency range where the sound insulation performance drops.
an
The applied EPS has a density of 20 kg.m -3 , which is expressed as a surface mass of 3
M

kg.m -2 in the model, where its thickness is higher (W6). In heavy constructions this mate-

rial has an insignificant influence on the façade walls’ sound insulation performance and
ed

can even be neglected in the acoustic performance assessment. In lightweight façade

walls, however, the EPS thickness can have some influence on the R w value, as shown.
pt

The lack of phono-absorbent material can be noticed in the obtained sound reduction
ce

performance of warm frame walls; the maximum obtained R w was 48 dB, for W1 model.
Ac

As there is no rock wool being pierced by the steel studs in warm frame walls, the dif-

ference between considering the steel studs or neglecting them is not so apparent, ranging

from 4 % to 7%. This difference is essentially due to the increased rigidity of the system

imparted by the steel connections between panels.

36/49
4.2.3. Weighted Sound Reduction Index corrected with Spectrum Adaptation Term
C tr

In the European Union, the regulations established by each Member State for the

acoustic performance of buildings set limits for the indoor noise levels from exterior

sources according to different methodologies. However, the assessment of the sound insu-

lation performance of façade walls is common to all these methodologies. According to

the guidance provided in EN ISO 717-1:2013 [54], when exposed to low frequency noises

such as urban road traffic, the characterization of sound insulation performance of buil d-

ing elements should consider the C tr adaptation term.

t
Given this, the C tr value for each model was computed using INSUL software [29] and

ip
added to the R w value. The obtained data are presented in Table 8.

cr
Cold Construction [dB] Hybrid Construction [dB] us
Table 8 – Spectral adaptation term Ctr obtained for the LSF walls.
Warm Construction [dB]
an
Model C tr, real C tr, hom Model C tr, real C tr, hom Model C tr, real C tr, hom
C1 -7 -8 - - - W1 -6 -6
M

C2 -6 -10 H2 -7 -9 W2 -6 -6
C3 -6 -10 H3 -6 -9 W3 -6 -6
C4 -6 -11 H4 -6 -9 W4 -6 -5
ed

C5 -7 -11 H5 -6 -10 W5 -6 -5
C6 -6 -12 H6 -6 -9 W6 -5 -5
pt

Usually, as a construction solution is improved from the point of view of the weighted
ce

sound reduction index, negative C tr values with lower amplitudes emerge, meaning that
Ac

for low frequency noises the sound performance of the wall is penalized. According to EN

ISO 12354-1:2017 [55], for the acoustic performance of heavyweight structural walls the

suggested C tr values are within -1 to -7 dB.

From Table 8 it can be concluded that the overall sound reduction performance of an

LSF façade wall can be reduced when low frequency noise is excited. It was found that C tr

values, assuming the steel frame, range from -5 dB (R w = 46 dB) to -7 dB (R w = 53 dB),

37/49
which are substantial values. But if the steel frame is neglected, C tr values have reached

values up to -12 dB (C6).

Figure 13 presents the R w value of each analysed model, corrected with the spectrum

adaptation term C tr . It can be seen that the difference between assuming the steel frame (desig-

nated R w + C tr, hom in the plot) or neglecting it (designated R w + C tr, real in the plot), in terms

of Rw + Ctr is not as notable as in an Rw analysis alone.

Considering the type of LSF façade wall without batt insulation (warm frame construction) the

highest Rw + Ctr obtained is 42 dB. Values of this order of magnitude for façade walls may raise

t
some concerns, especially when significant glazing areas are present.

ip
From this analysis, it can be seen that adding the spectrum adaptation term C tr to the

cr
obtained R w values can introduce significant changes in the sound insulation performance

us
of LSF walls. Where, on the one hand, single stud walls have lower R w indexes, C tr values

are also lower than for the solution which neglects the steel frame. On the other hand, ne-
an
glecting the steel frame, despite this leading to higher R w values, gives C tr values that are
M

also much higher. Taking configuration C6 as an example, a weighted sound reduction in-

dex of R w (C tr ) = 53 (-6) dB, assuming the studs, was reached and a value of R w (C tr ) = 63
ed

(-12) dB when the studs were neglected. Influencing the R w weighted index with the cor-

responding C tr value, the sound insulation performance is evaluated at 47 and 51 dB, re-
pt

spectively. The difference between the two scenarios is therefore attenuated. Note that C tr
ce

term reflects the acoustic behaviour in the lower frequency range.

Ac

38/49
 (a)

t
ip
cr
us
an
M

(b)
ed
pt
ce
Ac

(c)

Figure 13: Weighted sound reduction index plus spectrum adaptation term C tr values ob-
tained for LSF walls: a) cold frame; b) hybrid frame; c) warm frame.

39/49
4.3. Combined Design Strategies
In this section, the thermal and acoustic performance of LSF façade walls are analysed

in a holistic approach, weighting both aspects. Table 9 and Table 10 present an overview

of the previous results obtained in this work for the three types of LSF construction, co n-

sidering and neglecting the presence of the steel frame. Note that the INSUL software o n-

ly provides results for thicknesses of batt insulation above 12.5 mm, therefore no results

are provided for Case H1 in Table 10.

Both from the acoustic and the thermal behaviour point of view, the difference be-

tween considering and neglecting the steel frame in the façade walls is more pronounced

t
ip
for a greater thickness of batt insulation. In both analyses, increasing the thickness of the

cr
batt insulation is expressed in a progressive impairment of the performance-effectiveness

of this material and consequently of the overall constructi on solution.

us
an
Table 9 – Overview of the obtained thermal transmittance values.
Cold Construction Hybrid Construction Warm Construction
(Models C1-C6) (Models H1-H6) (Models W1-W6)
M

d(1) Uhom Ureal U Uhom Ureal U Uhom Ureal U
-2 -1 -2 -1 -2 -1
[mm] [W.m .K ] [%] [W.m .K ] [%] [W.m .K ] [%]
ed

25 0.76 0.90 18 0.75 0.81 8 0.75 0.76 1

50 0.50 0.69 38 0.50 0.55 10 0.49 0.50 2
75 0.37 0.57 54 0.37 0.43 16 0.37 0.37 0
pt

100 0.30 0.50 67 0.30 0.35 17 0.29 0.29 0

ce

125 0.25 0.44 76 0.25 0.30 20 0.24 0.24 0

150 0.22 0.40 82 0.21 0.26 24 0.21 0.21 0
(1)
Total insulation thickness
Ac

40/49
 Table 10 – Overview of the obtained Rw + Ctr values.
Cold Construction Hybrid Construction Warm Construction
(1) (Models C1-C6) (Models H1-H6) (Models W1-W6)
d
Rw + Ctr Rw + Ctr Rw + Ctr) Rw + Ctr Rw +Ctr Rw + Ctr) Rw + Ctr Rw + Ctr Rw + Ctr)
(hom) (real)  (hom) (real)  (hom) (real)
[mm] [dB] [dB] [dB] [%] [dB] [dB] [dB] [%] [dB] [dB] [dB] [%]
0 43 41 2 5 - - - - - - - -
25 49 45 4 9 - - - - 44 42 2 5
50 49 46 3 7 49 45 4 9 44 42 2 5
75 50 46 4 9 49 46 3 7 44 42 2 5
100 50 46 4 9 50 46 4 9 44 41 3 7
125 51 46 5 11 50 46 4 9 44 41 3 7
150 51 47 4 9 51 46 5 11 44 41 3 7
(1)
Total insulation thickness

t
ip
cr
Table 9 shows that applying insulation only outside the steel frame, i.e. the warm

frame construction type, led to the steel studs’ influence on the thermal behaviour being

us
reduced to insignificant values. This influence decreases as the EPS thickness is further
an
increased. Furthermore, the warm frame façade walls had the lowest U-values of the three

analysed façade types, for the same insulation thickness. By contrast, the thermal perfor-
M

mance of the cold frame façade walls was severely impaired by the presence of the steel
ed

studs and consequently they had highest U-values. In the cold construction, no continuous

insulation layer was capable of acting as a continuous thermal break in the repeated thermal
pt

bridges caused by the steel frame. In the hybrid façade walls, although the batt insulation
ce

effectiveness was also impaired by the studs the external EPS layer ensured some thermal

robustness to the overall solution.

Ac

Regarding the sound insulation performance (Table 10), it can be seen that the most ef-

ficient strategy to improve insulation is completely different from the thermal behaviour

strategy. From this point of view, applying insulation only outside the steel frame, corr e-

sponding to warm frame construction, not only does not improve the façade wall sound

insulation but it even decreases it as the thickness of this material increases. Besides the

negative effect of increasing the EPS, the absence of phono-absorbent material in the LSF

41/49
façade walls reduces the overall performance of the wall. Therefore assembling phono-

absorbent insulation in the air cavity proved to be the best strategy for applying the insu-

lation material in LSF façade walls, from the sound insulation perspective. However, the

results summarized in Table 10 also show that increasing the thickness of the batt insul a-

tion in the cold and hybrid frame façades will provide a residual increase in acoustic pe r-

formance.

In short, from Table 9 it can be concluded that regarding energy performance, from

the performance-effectiveness perspective, a continuous thermal insulation should be ap-

plied whenever possible. However, for sound insulation purposes batt insulation is r e-

t
ip
quired, while the exterior layer of insulation can be dispensed with. Nevertheless, there

cr
are no significant gains in the sound insulation performance from excessively increasing

the amount of batt insulation.

us
Therefore, in a holistic approach that covers both energy and acoustic performance,
an
the most efficient strategy for applying insulation in an LSF wall is to ensure there is a
M

sufficient amount of batt insulation to prevent significant sound insulation breaks due to

the resonance in the air cavity, while the rest should be placed outside the steel frame as a
ed

continuous layer.

From the thermal behaviour point of view, increasing the thickness of the external i n-
pt

sulation is an effective strategy to mitigate the effect of repeated thermal bridges created
ce

by the steel studs and improve the overall energy performance. On the other hand, a t-
Ac

tempting to improve sound insulation performance of LSF walls by increasing the phono -

absorbent material thickness is not performance-efficient; if necessary, this improvement

can be better achieved by reducing the stiffness of the system (e.g. using acoustic studs).

42/49
5. CONCLUSIONS

This work describes a study that was performed to assess the influence of the steel

frame on the thermal behaviour and sound insulation performance of LSF single stud f a-

çade walls. The results were obtained by performing a numerical analysis using a 2D fi-

nite element model for the assessment of thermal behaviour and by using a Sharp model

with some modifications for acoustic performance. These analyses were combined to pro-

vide guidelines to be followed to achieve an effective design of LSF façade walls.

It is important to note that real LSF structures have a 3D steel frame and the pe r-

t
ip
formed THERM simulations were two-dimensional. Moreover, some differences were

cr
found between the INSUL predictions and the experimental results in low frequencies and

in the higher critical frequency range. Furthermore, the experimental tests were not pe r-

us
formed by the authors and the tested solutions are only for cold frame structures. Flanking
an
sound transmission was not addressed in this work either, and the possible existence of

windows in a façade was neglected, since the work only considered the direct sound
M

transmission across an opaque LSF wall area.

ed

A very large fluctuation in the U-value of the wall due to the influence of the frame on LSF

walls was found. For the same insulation thickness, differing only in its type and position in the
pt

wall, differences between Ureal and Uhom reached values as distinct as 0% and 82%.
ce

From the thermal behaviour perspective, when batt insulation is applied and pierced through-

out its length by the steel studs, this corresponds to the situation in which the frame most influences
Ac

the U-value of the wall. It has been shown that in cold construction walls the effect of the frame led

to a U-value increase from 19% to 82%. On the other hand, applying only a continuous insulation

layer outside the steel frame, corresponding to warm construction type, was found to be the most

effective form of application in relation to improving the thermal behaviour of LSF façade walls.

The maximum calculated difference between Ureal and Uhom was less than 1%.

43/49
Moreover, it was shown that the steel frame can also significantly affect the sound insulation per-

formance of LSF walls. This influence is more obvious when batt insulation is used (cold and hy-

brid frame walls). It can be seen from the results that the sound insulation of LSF façade walls in-

creases with the addition of a small amount of phono-absorbent material in the air cavity. In the

cold construction façades’ framework, filling the empty air cavity with 25 mm of rock wool led to

an increase in the Rw value of 4 dB. Meanwhile, increasing the batt insulation from 25 to 150 mm

only improved the Rw of the façade wall by 1 dB.

As for the influence of the external layer of EPS on the sound insulation performance

of LSF walls, it was concluded that not only does it not improve this performance, but it

t
ip
even slightly decreases the R w value of the wall. This effect is evident in warm frame

cr
walls for greater EPS thicknesses.

us
Although good sound insulation performances were achieved, mainly for cold and hy-

brid frame façade walls, it was found that this performance can be jeopardized by low fr e-
an
quency noise. Considering the steel frame, the reached C tr values ranged from -5 to -7 dB.
M

But if the steel frame was neglected, this led to even worse C tr values, reaching -12 dB.

From the presented results, the following design guidance may be provided:
ed

 Applying a continuous layer of insulation only outside the steel frame, corresponds

to the most efficient thermal insulation strategy to reduce the influence of the steel
pt

studs and achieve lower U-values.

ce

 Whenever possible, from the thermal behaviour perspective, batt insulation can be
Ac

dispensed with and external insulation should be applied instead.

 For sound insulation purposes, the presence of batt insulation is required , with a

minimum thickness of 25 mm being suggested. However, it has been shown that it is

not performance-effective to overly increase the thickness of this material.

 If further sound insulation performance improvement is needed, instead of increa s-

ing the phono-absorbent material thickness a more effective strategy was found to be

44/49
 to decrease the stiffness of the system. The use of acoustic studs allowed an additional

sound transmission reduction of 4 dB.

 To improve the sound performance of a warm frame construction batt insulation

should be inserted in the air gap, with a minimum thickness of 25 mm, and this also

improves thermal insulation.

As future research work, an experimental programme addressing acoustic and thermal performance

will be carried out in order to verify the simulation results presented here and to extend the acoustic

tests used in this work from the cold frame to hybrid and warm construction.

t
ip
cr
us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

45/49
6. REFERENCES
[1] BPIE (Buildings Performance Institute Europe), Europe's Buildings under the Microscope – A country-by-country

review of the energy performance of buildings, Brussels (2011).

[2] EPBD, Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 19th May 2010 on Energy Perfor-

mance of Buildings (recast), Official Journal of European Union (2010).

[3] WHO (World Health Organization), Burden of disease from environmental noise – Quantification of healthy life

years lost in Europe, Copenhagen (2011).

[4] European Union, Decision no 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013

on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’, Offi-

t
ip
cial Journal of European Union (2013).

[5] COM(2004)60, “Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament”, The European

cr
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Urban

us
Environment, Brussels (2004).

[6] M. Veljkovic and B. Johansson. “Light steel framing for residential buildings”. Thin-Walled Structures, 44, pp.
an
1272-1279 (2006). doi:10.1016/j.tws.2007.01.006

[7] United Nations. World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision – Volume 1: Comprehensive Tables, New York
M

(2011).

[8] E. Roque and P. Santos. “The Effectiveness of Thermal Insulation in Lightweight Steel-Framed Walls with Respect
ed

to Its Position”. Buildings, 7(1), 13 (2017). doi:10.3390/buildings7010013

[9] EN 15643-1:2010. Sustainability of construction works - sustainability assessment of buildings - Part 1: general
pt

framework. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization (2010).

ce

[10] EN 15643-2:2011. Sustainability of construction works - assessment of buildings - Part 2: framework for the as-

sessment of environmental performance. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization (2011).
Ac

[11] EN 15978:2011. Sustainability of construction works - assessment of environmental performance of buildings -

calculation method. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization (2011).

[12] EN 15643-4:2012. Sustainability of construction works - assessment of buildings - Part 4: framework for the as-

sessment of economic performance. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization (2012).

[13] EN 15643-3:2012. Sustainability of construction works - assessment of buildings - Part 3: framework for the as-

sessment of social performance. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization (2012).

[14] EN 16309:2014. Sustainability of construction works - Assessment of social performance of buildings - Calcula-

tion Methodology. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization (2014).

46/49
[15] H. Gervásio, P. Santos, L. Simões da Silva and A. M. G. Lopes. “Influence of thermal insulation on the energy

balance for cold-formed buildings”. Adv. Steel Constr., 6, pp. 742–766 (2010).

[16] N. Soares, P. Santos, H. Gervásio and J.J. Costa. “Energy efficiency and thermal performance of lightweight steel-

framed (LSF) construction: A review”. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 78, pp. 194–209 (2017).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.066

[17] P. Santos, L. Simões da Silva and V. Ungureanu. “Energy Efficiency of Light-weight Steel-framed Buildings”.

European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (ECCS), ISBN 978-92-9147-105-8, 1st edition (2012).

[18] M. Gorgolewski. “Developing a simplified method of calculating U-values in light steel framing”. Build. Environ.,

42, pp. 230–236 (2007). doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.07.001

[19] E. De Angelis and E. Serra. “Light steel-frame walls: Thermal insulation performances and thermal bridges”.

t
Energy Procedia, 45, pp. 362–371 (2014). doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.01.039

ip
[20] C. Martins, P. Santos and L. Simões da Silva. “Lightweight steel-framed thermal bridges mitigation strategies: A

cr
parametric study”. J. Build. Phys., 39, pp. 342–372 (2016). doi: 10.1177/1744259115572130

us
[21] P. Santos, C. Martins and L. Simões da Silva. “Thermal performance of lightweight steel-framed construction sys-

tems”. Metall. Res. Technol.,111, pp. 329–338 (2014). doi: 10.1051/metal/2014035

an
[22] J. Poblet-Puig, A. Rodríguez-Ferran. “The role of studs in the sound transmission of double walls”. Acta Acust.

United Acust., 45, pp. 555-567 (2009).

M

[23] S. Paul, G.F. Radavelli and A.R. da Silva. “Experimental evaluation of sound insulation of light steel frame fa-

çades that use horizontal inter-stud stiffeners and different lining materials”. Build. Environ., 94, pp. 829-839
ed

(2015). doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.08.010

[24] V. Hongisto. “Sound insulation of double panels-comparison of existing prediction models”. Acta Acust. United
pt

Acust, 92, pp. 61-78 (2006).

[25] B.H. Sharp. “Prediction Methods for Sound Transmission of Buildings Elements”. Noise Con. Eng. J., 11, pp. 53-
ce

63 (1978).
Ac

[26] A. Warnock. “Estimation of Sound Transmission Class and Impact Insulation Class Rating for Steel Framed As-

semblies”. Tech. Rep., National Research Council Canada (2008).

[27] J.W. Trevathan and J.R. Pearse. “The effect of workmanship on the transmission of airborne sound through light

framed walls”. Appl. Acoust., 69, pp. 127–31 (2008). doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2006.09.001

[28] A. Tadeu, A. Pereira, L. Godinho and J. António. “Prediction of airborne sound and impact sound insulation pro-

vided by single and multilayer systems using analytical expressions”. Appl. Acoust., 68, pp. 17-42 (2007).

doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2006.05.012

47/49
[29] INSUL. INSUL Software Version 8.0.12. Available online: Https:// www.insul.co.nz/ (accessed on 11 April

2017).

[30] K. Ballagh. “Accuracy of Prediction Methods for Sound Transmission Loss”. In Proceedings of Internoise 2004,

Prague, Czech Republic, 22-25 August (2004).

[31] P. Heinze. “Predicting sound insulation performance”. Marshall Day Acoustics Pty Ltd. Available at:

www.marshallday.com/media/1338/2_usingsoundinsulationpredictionsoftware-criteria-c-

marshalldayacousticsjan04ver11.pdf

[32] S. Kurra. “Comparison of the models predicting sound insulation values of multilayered building elements”. Appl.

Acoust, 73, pp. 575–589 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2011.11.008

[33] L.M. Lupan, D.L. Manea and L.M. Moga. “Improving Thermal Performance of the Wall Panels Using Slotted

t
ip
Steel Stud Framing”. Procedia Technol.,22, pp. 351–357 (2016). doi: 10.1016/j.protcy.2016.01.108

[34] Website “Knauf Acoustic Stud Wall Construction”: http://www.knaufmetal.com.au/acoustic-stud-wall-

cr
construction (accessed on 23 April 2017).

us
[35] THERM. Software Version 7.4.3. Available online: Https://windows.lbl.gov/software/therm/7/index_7_4_3.html

(accessed on 16 March 2017).

an
[36] EN ISO 10211:2007. Thermal Bridges in Building Construction - Heat Flows and Surface Temperatures - Detailed

Calculations. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization (2007).

M

[37] T.E. Vigran. “Building Acoustics”. CRC Press, ISBN 9780415428538, 1 st edition (2008).

[38] EN ISO 6946:2007. Building Components and Building Elements-Thermal Resistance and Thermal Transmittance
ed

- Calculation Method. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization (2007).

[39] E.C. Sewell. “Transmission of reverberant sound through a single leaf partition surrounded by an infinite rigid
pt

baffle”. J. Sound Vib, 12, pp. 21-32 (1970).

ce

[40] Marshall Day Acoustics. “INSUL software Users Manual - Version 8” (2014).

[41] P. Santos, C. Martins and E. Júlio. “Enhancement of the thermal performance of perforated clay brick walls
Ac

through the addition of industrial nano-crystalline aluminium sludge”. Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 101, pp. 227–

238, 2015.

[42] P. Santos, C. Martins, L.S. da Silva and L. Braganca. “Thermal performance of lightweight steel framed wall: The

importance of flanking thermal losses”. J. Build. Phys., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 81–98, 2014.

[43] P. Mahattanatawe, C. Puvanant and D. Mongkolsawat. “The Energy Performance of the Cold-Formed Steel-Frame

and Wood-Frame Houses Developed for Thailand”. In Proceedings of Simbuild 2006. August 2-4, Cambridge,

MA, pp. 183–190, 2006.

48/49
[44] ABAQUS. ABAQUS/CAE Software Version 3.14-1. Available online:

Https://www.3ds.com/productsservices/simulia/products/abaqus/abaquscae/ (accessed on 29 November 2016).

[45] Website of the company “Gyptec Iberian – Solutions Manager”: http://gypteciberica.no-ip.org/fmi/iwp/cgi?-

db=Recursos&-loadframes (accessed on 13 April 2017).

[46] Institute for Research and Technological Development in Construction, Energy, Environment and Sustainability

(ITeCons). “Multilayered constructive solutions for walls using sustainable products with high acoustic and ther-

mal performance” report in Portuguese (2012) available in:

http://www.gyptec.eu/documentos/Gyptec_RIA007_12.pdf (accessed on 13 April 2017).

[47] Institute for Research and Technological Development in Construction, Energy, Environment and Sustainability

(ITeCons): http://www.itecons.uc.pt/ (accessed on 12 April 2017).

t
[48] EN ISO 10140-5:2010. Acoustics - Laboratory measurements of sound insulation of buildings elements - Part 5:

ip
Requirements for test facilities and equipment. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization

cr
(2010).

us
[49] A. Tadeu, L. Godinho, F. Bandeira, J. António, P. Amado Mendes and I. Castro. “Mobile chambers of ITeCons for

acoustic tests: part I - description and project of the chambers” (in Portuguese), in Proceedings of Acústica 2008,
an
Coimbra, Portugal, 20-22 October (2008). Available in http://www.sea-

acustica.es/fileadmin/Coimbra08/id311.pdf
M

[50] I. Castro, A. Tadeu, J. António, A. Moreira, P. Amado Mendes and L. Godinho. “Mobile chambers of ITeCons for

acoustics tests: part II - preparation and characterization of horizontal chambers” (in Portuguese), in Proceedings
ed

of Acústica 2008, Coimbra, Portugal, 20-22 October (2008). Available in http://www.sea-

acustica.es/fileadmin/Coimbra08/id312.pdf [51] F.P. Mechel. “Formulas of Acoustics”. Springer Berlin Heidel-

pt

berg, ISBN: 978-3-540-76832-6, 2nd edition (2008).

[52] D.A. Bies and C.H. Hansen. “Engineering Noise Control: Theory and Practice”. CRC Press, ISBN
ce

9780415487078, 4th edition (2009).

Ac

[53] J.W. Lstiburek, A bridge too far, ASHRAE Journal 49(10):64-68, October 2007.

[54] EN ISO 717-1:2013. Acoustics - Rating of sound insulation in buildings and building elements - Part 1: Airborne

sound insulation. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization (2013).

[55] EN ISO 12354-1:2017. Buildings acoustics - Estimation of acoustic performance of buildings from the perfor-

mance of elements - Part 1: Airborne sound insulation between rooms. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee

for Standardization (2017).

49/49