Building and Environment 200 (2021) 107948

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Thermal and noise insulation performance interaction of building envelope

during building simulation optimization in tropical climates
Nabeel Ahmed Khan a, *, Bishwajit Bhattacharjee a
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Delhi, 110016, India

A B S T R A C T

Building simulation optimization is being increasingly adopted by researchers and designers as an efficient methodology for early-stage design and selection of
building envelope parameters. Thermal performance has been the focus of many of the proposed methodologies owing to large energy consumption in buildings to
maintain thermal comfort for the occupants. While the envelope is optimized to enhance its thermal performance, the effect on its noise insulation performance is not
paid any attention as both performance objectives are assumed to be non-interacting or non-conflicting. It may be possible that the optimization for thermal per­
formance may lead to degradation in noise insulation performance or vice versa. The present work aims to study the interaction between the thermal and noise
insulation performance of the building envelope during a building simulation optimization process when both the performance objectives are optimized indepen­
dently and simultaneously. The results obtained show the adverse effect of independent thermal and noise insulation optimization on noise insulation and thermal
performance of the building envelope walls respectively. An exception was observed in the case of independent noise insulation optimization of both 8-hour and 24-
hour conditioned buildings where average thermal performance of the final population was enhanced along with the noise insulation performance.

1. Introduction
Early-stage design and selection of building envelope parameters
have long been the concern of building designers and architects. Lately,
the Building simulation optimization approach has emerged as an
effective solution to the problem [1]. Several methodologies and tools
have been proposed by researchers in recent years to optimize building
envelope parameters using the building simulation optimization
approach. These tools and methodologies differ in the objective func­
tions and design variables adopted for the study. Building envelope
parameters have a direct influence on the thermal, visual, and noise
control performance of the building. As a large amount of energy and
cost is consumed in ensuring thermal and visual comfort in buildings
while noise does not have any direct implication on operational energy
consumption, proposed methodologies mostly aim to improve thermal
and visual performance while noise control performance remains largely
ignored. Although Various researchers have emphasized on the impor­
tance of noise insulation in ensuring occupant comfort. In the study by
Guan et al. [2] the authors collected the subjective and physiological
responses of occupants to the thermal-acoustic environment. Through
the observations, the authors suggested that the thermal and acoustic
environment should be considered comprehensively for a comfortable
indoor environment. Kaushik et al. [27], through their study, empha­
sized the need of noise insulation for increasing occupant productivity.
Large noise levels and disturbances cause discomfort and affect the
concentration of occupants. Thus, the productivity of the occupants
decreases which can become a serious concern in the case of commercial
buildings, especially for the ones abutting on high traffic city areas.
High-performance glazings are now available in the market which have
good thermal and sound insulation properties and makes the selection of
glazings easy but the design of multilayer envelope walls still requires
the designer’s discretion. Often, the interaction between thermal and
noise insulation properties of the building envelope construction is not
known and they are assumed to be non-conflicting or non-interacting.
Optimizing the envelope for thermal performance alone results in
optimal thermal properties of the building envelope but may lead to a
diminished level for its noise insulation performance and vice versa. For
example, low-density material in the wall provides better thermal
insulation, but higher mass per unit area (mass law) results in better
noise insulation. The interaction of thermal and noise insulation per­
formance during their independent optimization processes is still a
matter of study. The present study aims to evaluate the effect of inde­
pendent thermal performance optimization of building envelope on its
noise insulation performance and conversely the effect of independent
noise insulation performance optimization on the thermal performance
of the building envelope. Moreover, a combined optimization of the
thermal and noise insulation performance is also performed to demon­
strate its advantage over independent optimization. To study the effect

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Nabeel.Ahmed.Khan@civil.iitd.ac.in (N.A. Khan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107948
Received 12 February 2021; Received in revised form 4 May 2021; Accepted 5 May 2021
Available online 11 May 2021
0360-1323/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N.A. Khan and B. Bhattacharjee
of the climatic condition of the location under consideration, if any, on
the interaction in the present study, the major climatic zones of the In­
dian tropical climatic region were considered. However, the methodol­
ogy adopted is likely to be applicable to all situations irrespective of
climatic conditions.
Genetic algorithm has been used in the study for independent and
combined optimization of the building envelope parameters. Genetic
algorithms use binary representation of decision variables which is
useful in the optimization of discrete non-quantifiable variables such as
shape, orientation etc. Non-quantifiable variables are the decision var­
iables that are qualitative, i.e. they cannot be quantified through any of
the measurable entities. Binary representation allows the consideration
of such variables in the optimization framework. Moreover, the proba­
bilistic nature of genetic algorithms makes them less prone to getting
stuck in a local optimum. These characteristics make genetic algorithms
the most preferred form of evolutionary algorithms for optimization of
building envelope parameters [3] and hence were preferred for the
present study.
2. Literature review
Attempts have been made by researchers in past to study the corre­
lation between the thermal and noise insulation performance of building
elements through experiments and analytical calculations. Miskinis
et al. [4] experimentally evaluated the influence of EPS, mineral wool,
and plaster layers on sound and thermal insulation of the wall. The
authors demonstrated that the addition of different thermal insulations
or plaster may have a different effect on sound and thermal insulation.
Ribas and Souza [5] analytically compared the thermal and noise
insulation performance of some common multilayer closing systems
used for steel structure construction in Brazil. The results showed that
the insulation has the potential to enhance both noise insulation and
thermal performance but must be selected according to the frequency
range of interest. Nowotny and Nurzynski [6] studied the noise insu­
lation performance of lightweight floors intended for use in residential
buildings through an experimental study. The effect of adding insulation
layers to the floors was also studied. The authors pointed that the basic
structure of the lightweight floors displayed insufficient noise insulation
performance, but the addition of insulation layer may substantially
reduce the transmission of airborne noise. Churchill et al. [25] proposed
a methodology for evaluation of improvement in acoustic performance
by installation of thermal insulation wall lining systems. Kumar et al. [7]
carried out a comparative analysis of building insulation material
properties including thermal and acoustic performance and also pro­
posed an optimization framework for optimization of energy, environ­
mental, economic and comfort aspects.
It can be seen from the above performed experimental and analytical
studies that the interaction between thermal and noise insulation per­
formance is a matter of concern for many researchers, but a clear cor­
relation could not be found. While some general observations may be
valid for simple homogeneous solid elements, they do not apply to
multilayer wall constructions. While one tries to optimize one of the two
performances independently through forward analysis or optimization
techniques, the effect on the other performance measure remains a
matter of study. Through the present study, the interaction of thermal
and noise insulation performance of multilayer walls during indepen­
dent optimization using building simulation optimization approach has
been studied. A summary of the methodology adopted to study the
interaction between thermal and noise insulation performance has been
given in the next section.
3. Methodology
To study the interaction of thermal and noise insulation perfor­
mance, i.e. to study the level to which noise insulation performance is
affected when thermal performance is optimized and vice versa and to
2
Building and Environment 200 (2021) 107948
show that the two performance measures are not independent of each
other, the following methodology have been adopted.
To study the effect of thermal performance optimization on the noise
insulation performance of the multilayer walls, a building simulation
optimization framework for independent optimization of the annual
thermal load contribution from the envelope (ATLE) of the building was
established. Annual thermal load contribution from the envelope (ATLE)
refers to the heat gain or heat loss occurring through the building en­
velope through conduction, radiation and infiltration heat exchange
with the surroundings that has to be removed or added respectively to
maintain the space at comfort temperature. ATLE is calculated on an
hourly basis for each day in the year. In the framework, single-objective
optimization of the ATLE was carried out using genetic algorithm. In
single-objective optimization, the envelope parameters are optimized
with respect to the single objective under consideration, which is the
ATLE in the present case. At every generation step of the algorithm,
noise insulation performance for the solution having the minimum ATLE
in the population was estimated to be treated as the noise insulation
performance measure of the current generation step. In this manner at
every generation step, thermal and noise insulation performance mea­
sures were recorded for the thermal optimization process. The flowchart
for independent optimization of ATLE have been shown in Fig. 1.
Similarly, to study the effect of noise insulation performance optimiza­
tion on the thermal performance of the building envelope, single-
objective optimization of noise insulation performance was carried out
using a genetic algorithm and the ATLE for the fittest individual in the
population was estimated at every generation step. The flowchart for
independent optimization of noise insulation performance has been
shown in Fig. 2. To study the change in the average fitness of the initial
and final population, the average ATLE and noise insulation perfor­
mance of the initial and final population were also compared.
Thermal and noise insulation performance objectives were also
optimized simultaneously using a multi-objective optimization frame­
work to show the advantage of employing combined optimization over
independent optimization. A set of Pareto optimal solutions are obtained
at every step in the multi-objective optimization algorithm. To evaluate
the thermal and noise insulation performance measure of the solutions
at every generation step of the multi-objective optimization algorithm, a
single optimal solution from the Pareto set having the least normalized
Euclidean distance to an ideal utopian point was selected. An ideal
utopian point is a hypothetical point at which the best value for both the
objectives is achieved simultaneously. The flowchart for the combined
optimization process has been shown in Fig. 3.
A 3-storey low-rise commercial reference building with a floor area
of 3127 m2 [8] and square plan were chosen for the interaction study.
Among the parameters of the building envelope, the envelope wall,
window to wall ratio, and type of glazing are the common parameters
that are crucial for both thermal and noise insulation performance.
Thermal and noise insulation performance of the glazing is taken care of
at the manufacturing source. Designers just have to choose glazing with
good thermal and noise insulation properties suiting the building re­
quirements, but the design of a solid portion of the wall is at the de­
signer’s discretion and thus the configuration and layers are to be
custom designed to suit the requirements. The present study was focused
only on the behaviour of the envelope wall construction. A typical
window to wall ratio of 30% for commercial buildings in tropical cli­
mates was considered in the study [9,10].
The envelope wall has a multilayer construction that requires more
than a single parameter for its efficient optimization, therefore a
generalized construction for the wall was considered. The typical
external wall in Indian tropical climates [11] consists of an external
cladding layer, insulation layer, main unit layer and internal finish layer.
The types of material in these layers and their thicknesses may differ but
the order of layers usually remains the same The typical wall considered
in the study constitutes the basic wall elements present in an external
wall, and the placement of layers is according to cooling need dominated
N.A. Khan and B. Bhattacharjee
Fig. 1. Flowchart for independent thermal performance optimization process.
tropical locations. Based on the above assumption of the envelope wall,
a generalized wall construction with the same sequential order of layer
was assumed for the study. In the generalized construction, different
layers were assumed to have variable materials and variable discrete
thicknesses. The typical external wall layer construction considered for
the study has been shown in Fig. 4.
The optimal parameters of the wall may change with the occupancy
type and climatic zone of the concerned buildings. Therefore, the pro­
cedure was repeated for 8-hour and 24-hour occupancy conditioned
building for the cities in each of the major climatic zones of the Indian
tropical climatic zone [12]. The cities selected for the study and their
respective climatic zones have been given in Table 1. The details of
different components of the building simulation optimization frame­
work used in the interaction study have been given in the following
sections.
3.1. Optimization algorithms
Genetic algorithm was used for the independent optimization of the
thermal and noise insulation performance of the multilayer envelope
3
Building and Environment 200 (2021) 107948
wall. For combined optimization of the thermal and noise insulation
performance of the multilayer envelope wall, Non-Dominated Sorting
Genetic Algorithm [13] was employed. Both of the above-defined al­
gorithms require a prior formulation of objective functions, selection of
decision variables, and selection of optimization parameters for the al­
gorithm and was carried out as described in the following sections.
3.2. Objective function
The thermal performance objective function was formulated to
minimize the ATLE for the building. The ATLE was calculated by the
aggregation of cooling load in summers and heating loads in winters by
assigning a weightage factor of 2 to the cooling loads [14].
f1 (x) = min[ATLE] (1)
where,
ATLE = 2 x [cooling load + Heating load]
A weightage factor of 2 as suggested in the referred literature was
N.A. Khan and B. Bhattacharjee
Fig. 2. Flowchart for independent noise insulation performance optimization.
considered while aggregating the cooling and heating loads to give the
ATLE for the building [15] on the basis of likely electricity consumption.
The noise insulation performance objective function was formulated
to maximize the Outdoor-indoor sound transmission class rating (OITC)
of the building envelope walls [16].
f2 (x) = max[OITCWALL ] (2)
OITCWALL= Outdoor-indoor sound transmission class rating of the
wall.
The ear does not exhibit a linear response to sound with respect to
frequency or standard pressure level and thus people do not recognize
equal amounts of sound energy at different frequencies as being equally
loud. This subjective aspect of human ear response to different noise
levels is considered through weighting. A-weighting is based on 40-phon
equal loudness level contour where phon is the unit for measurement of
loudness level. OITC rating calculates A-weighted reduction of whole
transportation noise spectrum while passing through the envelope.
Through A-weighted reduction of noise levels at different frequencies,
the requirement of noise levels at different frequencies is suitably
considered.
4
Building and Environment 200 (2021) 107948
The admittance procedure and transfer matrix method were used to
estimate the ATLE and sound transmission loss for fitness evaluation of
the individuals in the population during the optimization process. A
summary of the thermal model and the sound transmission loss model
used in the study is given in the following sections.
3.3. Thermal model
The admittance procedure proposed by Milbank and Lynn [17] was
used to calculate the hourly thermal load contribution from the envelope
(HTLE) for the building. Milbank and Lynn introduced factors for the
estimation of the thermal response of building to cyclic environmental
temperature variations. For calculation of HTLE using the admittance
procedure, variation of Daily temperature and radiation are assumed to
be steady periodic in a season as the pattern tends to repeat itself daily.
The ambient temperature and radiation profile are modeled as the sum
of a mean and sinusoidally fluctuating wave component using Fourier
transformation. Heat inflow due to this mean and fluctuating compo­
nents are estimated separately and superimposed to obtain the total heat
inflow. The HTLE for a conditioning system operating continuously for
N.A. Khan and B. Bhattacharjee Building and Environment 200 (2021) 107948

Fig. 3. Flowchart for combined thermal and noise insulation performance optimization.

5
N.A. Khan and B. Bhattacharjee Building and Environment 200 (2021) 107948

Fig. 4. Generalized construction for external wall used in the study.

Table 1
Major climatic zones and the respective cities.
S. No. Climatic zone City

1 Hot and Dry Jodhpur

2 Warm and Humid Mumbai
3 Composite Delhi

24 hours is obtained explicitly for each hour using the admittance pro­
cedure through Eq. 3 [18]:

⎧[ n ] ⎫
⎪ ∑ ∑m
αj Imj ∑ l
⎪
⎪
⎪ Uj Aj ΔTm + U j Aj + Aj Imj θj + ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ hoj ⎪
⎪
⎨ j=1 j=1 j=1 ⎬
QL (i) = ( )
⎪
⎪ ∑n
] ∑ m ∑l ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ [ ( ) αj Ifj i − φj ⎪
⎪
⎩ μj Uj Aj Toa i − φj − Tmo + Uj Aj + Aj Ifj (i)θj ⎪
⎪
⎭
j=1 j=1
h oj j=1

Toa = Outside air temperature at ith hour;

The symbols used in the above and subsequent thermal modeling
equations are defined as follows:
Aj = Area of jth wall.
αj = Equivalent absorptivity of the jth wall.
Cv(i) = Ventilation heat transfer coefficient for ith hour.
hoj = Surface conductance of the jth wall.
Ifj = Fluctuating component of radiation incident on the jth surface.
Imj = Mean component of radiation incident on the jth surface.
l = number of glazing.
m = total number of opaque envelope components (walls and roof).
n = total number of exposed opaque envelope components (walls,
roof and glazing).
Q.L(i) = HTLE for ith hour;
Tfo = Fluctuating component of outside air temperature at ith hour;
Tmo = Mean component of outside air temperature at ith hour;
ΔTm = Mean temperature difference between outside and inside;
Uj = Thermal transmittance of jth wall;
θj = Solar heat gain factor for the jth window;
μj = Decrement factor for the jth wall;
φj = Decrement time lag for the jth wall;
In the case of intermittent operation of the conditioning system like
in the case of 8-hour conditioned commercial buildings where the oc­
cupancy is nil for the other 16 hours’ time, the calculation of HTLE
becomes complex. During the 8-h active operation of the air condi­
tioning system, HTLE (QL(t)) and the difference between 24-h mean
outside and inside temperature (ΔTm ) are unknowns while the hourly
inside temperature Tci is the constant temperature set point for the
HVAC system. For t = 1,2 … 8 of active operation, Eq. (4) gives the heat
balance equation inside the enclosure

6
N.A. Khan and B. Bhattacharjee Building and Environment 200 (2021) 107948

α Im αIf (t − фd − фY ) ( )
[− UA + AY] ΔTm − QL (i) = [Tmo − Tci ][AY + Cv (t)] + Ue Ae + Af Im θ + μ Ue Ae [Toa (t − фd − фY ) − Tmo ] + μ Ue Ae + A If θ + Cv (t) Tfo (t)
ho ho
(4)

For the rest of the hours as there is no space conditioning, HTLE tropical summer index and found the models to be in agreement with
(QL(t)) is equal to zero. The hourly inside temperature is no longer each other. The ATLE was calculated for the whole year through the
constant and is an unknown for these hours. The heat balance equation climatic data of the representative year or typical meteorological year of
for these 16 hours is given by Eq. (5): the respective cities given in the solar radiation handbook [20].

αIm αIf (t − фd − фY ) ( )
[UA + Cv (t)]ΔTm + Tfi (t)[AY + Cv (t)] = Ue Ae + Af Im θ + μ Ue Ae [Toa (t − фd − фY ) − Tmo ] + μ Ue Ae + A If θ + Cv (t) Tfo (t) for t = 8, 9…24
ho ho
(5)

3.4. Noise insulation model

8 equations like Eq. (4) for 8 conditioning hours and 16 equations
like Eq. (5) for 16 non-conditioning hours sum up to give a total of 24
equations for the 24 hour heat exchange between the building and
surroundings. There are 8 unknown HTLE (QL) for the 8 conditioned
hours, 16 unknowns inside temperatures for 16 non-conditioned hours
(Tfi), and one unknown mean temperature difference (ΔTm ) between
outside and inside. For finding out the unknowns, an equal number of
equations are needed. The 25th equation is obtained by summing up all
the 24 equations and equating the summation of AYTfi over 24 h equal to
zero as total fluctuations in temperature over 24 hours sum up to zero
because of the steady periodic conditions. The 25th equation is shown in
Eq. (6).
The transfer matrix method was chosen for evaluating the sound
transmission loss of the multi-layer walls. In the transfer matrix method
[21], the propagation of sound waves through different mediums is
modeled with the help of a transfer matrix [T] as shown in Eq. (7).
V(M) = [T]V(M‘) (7)
where M and M′ are the points on the incident and the transmitted side
of the medium. The matrix V depicts the field variables that describe the
acoustic field in the medium. Transfer matrices are derived from the
basic equations of wave propagation through different media. The field
variables that describe wave propagation in fluids, solids, and porous
medium are as given below:
Fluid, Vf = [ p v3 ]T

24[UA + Cv (t)]ΔTm + AY
∑
24 ∑
24
α Im ∑
24 ∑
24 ∑
24
αIf (t − фd − фY ) ∑
24
× Tfi (t) + Cv (t)Tfi (t) = 24 Ue Ae + 24 Af Im θ + CV (t)Tfo + μ Ue Ae [Toa (t − фd − фY ) − Tmo ] + μ U e Ae + A If θ
t=1 t=1
ho t=1 t=1 t=1
ho t=1

∑
8
+ QL
t=1

(6)

Solid, VS = [ v1 v3 σ 33 σ13 ]T
Having 25 equations and 25 unknowns, the set of equations is solved [
f
]T
to obtain the HTLE during the 8 intermittent hours of HVAC operation.
Fluid, VF = vs1 vs3 v3 σs33 σ s13 σ f33
Following the procedure outlined above, the ATLE was estimated for p and v3 are pressures and velocity in the direction perpendicular to
both 8-hour and 24-hour conditioned buildings assuming a comfortable the layer in the fluid medium. In the case of the solid layer, v1 and v3 are
inside temperature of 27.5 ◦ C at a relative humidity of 50% during the velocity in the direction parallel and perpendicular to the layer while σ 33
conditioning hours. This comfort temperature was adopted from the and σ13 are the normal and tangential stress components. In the case of a
f
thermal comfort index known as Tropical Summer Index based on the porous layer, vs1 , vs3 and v3 are the velocity components of the elastic
recommendations by the handbook of the functional requirement for f
frame and fluid in between while σ s33 , σs13 and σ33 are the stress tensor
buildings in India [11]. Tropical Summer Index is defined as the tem­
components of the elastic frame and the fluid in between in the poroe­
perature of calm air at 50% relative humidity which produces the same
lastic layer. For the case of a fluid medium, a 2 × 2 transfer matrix re­
thermal sensation as the given environment. The comfort range tropical
lates the field variables on the incident and transmitted side as shown in
summer index lies between 25 ◦ C and 30 ◦ C. Although a lower comfort
Eq. (8):
set point temperature can be considered for the heating load in winters [ ] [ ][ ]
but same temperature was assumed for the sake of simiplicity. Ali et al. p(M) T T12 p(M‘)
= 11 (8)
[19] carried out an experimental study to compare the widely accepted v3 (M) T21 T14 v3 (M‘)
PMV and PPD thermal comfort assessment models with the Indian

7
N.A. Khan and B. Bhattacharjee Building and Environment 200 (2021) 107948

Table 2
Design options of layer material, their thermo-physical properties and thickness design options.
Type of layer Material options Thermal Density Heat Elastic modulus Poisson’s Thickness options
conductivity capacity ratio (mm)

External Wall 1. Asbestos Cement board 0.4709 1404 514.1 2.80E+09 0.35 12.5, 25
Cladding 2. Calcium silicate board 0.281 1016 850.0984 6.55E+09 0.2
3. Cement plaster 0.9719 278 1395.683 63000000 0.3
4. Clay tile 0.6323 2531 563.1371 5E+08 0.41
5. Dholpur stone 3.084 2262 699.8232 7.96E+09 0.26
6. Ghana teak wood 0.2062 529 1090.548 1.07E+10 0.3
7. Jaisalmer yellow stone 2.7747 3006 727.5116 7.96E+09 0.26
8. Kota stone 3.0229 3102 668.343 2.75E+09 0.2
9. Marble 2.8108 3128 701.5026 6E+10 0.2
10. Sandstone 3.0097 2530 630.7115 24720000 0.2
11. Wood 0.2652 802 1086.658 1.25E+10 0.3
12. Aluminium cladding {Aluminium sheet (0.5 205, 0.5, 205 960. 900, 1780, 6.9E+10, 0.33, 0.46,
mm) +Polyethylene core (3 mm) + Aluminium 2700, 960 900 1.08e9, 0.33
sheet (0.5 mm)} 6.08e10
13. Brick tile 0.798 1892 880 3E+09 0.15
14. Ceramic tile 1.5996 2549 448.725 1E+10 0.2
15. Porcelain tile 1.5331 2827 575.1326 1.1E+11 0.17
16. Plastic 0.5027 1743 973.494 3E+09 0.38

Main unit 1. Autoclaved aerated concrete block 0.1839 642 1236.8 4550000 0.2 50, 75, 100, 113,
2. Fire brick 1.2729 2049 628.94 3.00E+09 0.15 125, 150, 171, 200
3. Concrete block 1.4107 2349 298.55 2.50E+09 0.16
4. Foam cement block 0.1588 581 922.375 1.70E+09 0.15

Insulation 1. Ceramic fibre blanket 0.0491 128 853.9063 2E+11 0.25 0, 12.5, 25, 30, 40,
2. Extruded polystyrene (XPS) 0.0321 30 1246.667 9000000 0.2 50, 60, 70
3. Glass wool 0.0351 49 691.8367 2600000 0.2
4. Polyisocyanurate (PIR) 0.0364 40 1712.5 17100000 0.2
5. Polyurethane foam (PUF)) 0.0384 25 1907.5 500000 0.2
6. Rubber foam 0.0561 89 1669.663 2000000 0.499
7. Rock wool 0.0461 64 1412.5 70000 0.01
8. Cavity 0.024 1.225 1005

Internal finish 1. Acrylic sheet 0.2174 1145 1383.319 3.2E+09 0.37 12.5, 25
2. Calcium silicate board 0.281 1016 850.0984 6.55E+09 0.2
3. Cement board 0.4384 1340 605.4478 9.65E+09 0.3
4. Cement bonded particle board 0.3275 1251 955.0759 3E+09 0.3
5. Cement plaster 0.9719 278 1395.683 63000000 0.3
6. Ceramic tile 1.5996 2549 448.725 1E+10 0.2
7. Fibre reinforced plastic 0.2252 1183 1431.107 5E+10 0.16
8. Gypsum board 0.2527 623 968.3788 1.75E+09 0.3
9. Kota stone 3.0229 3102 668.343 2.75E+09 0.2
10. Laminated particle board 0.1841 656 1923.933 1.8E+09 0.3
11. Marble 2.8108 3128 701.5026 6E+10 0.2
12. Medium density fibreboard 0.2045 133 7225.564 4E+09 0.25
13. POP board 0.4994 1080 1126.574 2E+09 0.3
14. Porcelain tile 1.5331 2827 575.1326 1.1E+11 0.17
15. Brick tile 0.798 1892 880 3E+09 0.15
16. Wood 0.2652 802 1086.658 1.25E+10 0.35

Table 3
Fitness characteristics of the random initial population used in the study.
Initial population Delhi Jodhpur Mumbai

8-h 24-h 8-h 24-h 8-h 24-h

ATLE Average (Wh) 3.80E+09 4.81E+09 1.69E+09 2.44E+09 1.59E+09 1.82E+09

ATLE Minimum (Wh) 3.45E+09 4.53E+09 1.54E+09 2.37E+09 1.475E+09 1.75E+09
OITC Average 35.96 35.96 35.96 35.96 35.96 35.96
OITC Maximum 41.52 41.79 41.52 42.09 41.52 41.79

Similarly, for the case of a solid medium, the field variables on either obtained consists of N+1 rows and N+2 columns where N refers to the
side are related by a 4 × 4 matrix given by Folds and Loggins [26], a 6 × number of elements of the total field variable matrix. The multilayer
6 transfer matrix is used to relate the field variables in the case of a wall is assumed to be extended by a semi-infinite fluid medium. The
poroelastic layer derived through Biot theory [22]. Interface matrices transmission loss for a sound wave incident as a diffused field on the
relate the field variables at the interface of different mediums. A com­ multilayer wall is calculated through following Eqs. (9) and (10):
bination of the transfer matrices for different layers along with the ∫ θmax ⃒ 2 ⃒
⃒T (θ)⃒cosθ sinθ dθ
interface matrices and termination conditions gives the global transfer TLd = − 10log θmin∫ θmax (9)
matrix for the multilayer wall. The transmission coefficient of the wall is θmin
cosθ sinθ dθ
derived from this global transfer matrix. The global transfer matrix thus

8
N.A. Khan and B. Bhattacharjee Building and Environment 200 (2021) 107948

Table 4
Effect of thermal, noise insulation optimization and combined optimization on the thermal performance of multilayer envelope walls.
Percentage change in annual ATLE of the final population with respect to initial population Thermal optimization Noise insulation optimization Combined optimization

8-h 24-h 8-h 24-h 8-h 24-h

Population average DELHI (COMPOSITE CLIMATE) − 8.84% − 7.36% − 5.15% − 2.68% − 7.59% − 7.12%
JODHPUR (HOT AND DRY CLIMATE) − 9.98% − 3.81% − 4.50% − 0.75% − 9.88% − 3.60%
MUMBAI (WARM AND HUMID CLIMATE) − 9.90% − 5.13% − 5.29% − 1.79% − 10.15% − 4.99%
Optimal solution DELHI (COMPOSITE CLIMATE) − 3.78% − 2.17% 2.69% 2.14% − 3.62% − 2.05%
JODHPUR (HOT AND DRY CLIMATE) − 3.24% − 1.30% 2.87% 1.69% − 3.22% − 1.23%
MUMBAI (WARM AND HUMID CLIMATE) − 4.53% − 1.51% 0.31% 1.57% − 4.47% − 1.43%

Fig. 5. Pareto chart for the optimal solutions obtained after combined optimization process of 24-h conditioned buildings in Delhi, Jodhpur and Mumbai climates.

9
N.A. Khan and B. Bhattacharjee Building and Environment 200 (2021) 107948

Fig. 6. Pareto chart for the optimal solutions obtained after combined optimization process of 8-h conditioned buildings in Delhi, Jodhpur and Mumbai climates.

det[DN+1 ] method provided by ASTM E3312-16 [16] was used in the study. The
T(θ) = − (1 + R) (10) standard gives a reference outdoor noise spectrum to assess the isolation
det[D1]
provided by the external walls to external noise. Transmission loss at
where det [DN+1] and det [D1] are the determinants of the matrix ob­ different frequencies is subtracted from the A-weighted outdoor noise
tained when the (N+1)th column and 1st column have been removed spectrum to obtain OITC rating for a single or multilayer wall. The
from the global transfer matrix respectively. θmin and θmax are taken as formulae is given in Eq. (11):
0 and 78◦ respectively as recommended by Mullhand et al. [23]. For ( )
comparing the outdoor sound attenuation property of different multi­
Lf − Df +Af
f
∑
(11)
10
OITC Rating = 100.13 − 10*log 10
layer walls, the Outdoor-indoor sound transmission class (OITC) rating 1

10
N.A. Khan and B. Bhattacharjee Building and Environment 200 (2021) 107948

Table 5
Effect of thermal, noise insulation optimization and combined optimization on the noise insulation performance of multilayer envelope walls.
Percentage change in OITC rating of the final population with respect to initial population Thermal optimization Noise insulation optimization Combined optimization

8-h 24-h 8-h 24-h 8-h 24-h

Population average DELHI (COMPOSITE CLIMATE) − 5.83% − 10.85% 16.78% 16.78% 17.07% 15.72%
JODHPUR (HOT AND DRY CLIMATE) − 8.25% − 28.14% 16.78% 16.78% 15.52% 14.26%
MUMBAI (WARM AND HUMID CLIMATE) − 11.87% − 12.70% 16.78% 16.78% 14.36% 13.31%
Optimal solution DELHI (COMPOSITE CLIMATE) − 14.06% − 28.82% 1.48% 0.84% 1.48% 0.73%
JODHPUR (HOT AND DRY CLIMATE) − 38.22% − 39.05% 1.48% 0.11% 1.42% − 0.40%
MUMBAI (WARM AND HUMID CLIMATE) − 28.77% − 34.45% 1.48% 0.84% 1.37% 0.60%

where.
Lf = reference noise spectrum given in the standard,
Af = A-weighted adjustment, takes into consideration different re­
quirements of noise levels at different frequencies,
Df = sound transmission loss at each one-third-octave frequency
band.
3.5. Decision variables
For the generalized wall construction defined above for a typical wall
in tropical climates, the type of materials in the layer and their thick­
nesses were chosen as the decision variables. CBERD (U.S.-India joint
center for building energy research and development) and MNRE
(Ministry of new and renewable energy) [24] had published a
Thermo-Physical property database of construction materials. The
common construction materials used as cladding, main unit, insulation,
and internal finish have been listed in the database. The materials given
in the database were used as design options for different layers of the
typical wall construction. Typical discrete thicknesses for different
layers of the wall construction were also considered in the study. Design
options for layer material, their thermo-physical properties, and design
options for layer thicknesses of external wall construction have been
shown in Table 2. A total of 8 decision variables pertaining to layer
material and thickness for the four layers of the external wall were
considered in the study.
3.6. Parameters for optimization
In both single and multi-objective optimization algorithms, the
Tournament selection operator was used for the selection of the parent
population. Crossover and mutation operators were applied to the
selected individuals with a probability of 0.7 and 0.048 respectively.
Single point crossover and flip bit mutation operators were used to
reproduce the offspring population from the parent population. The
optimization algorithm was run for 100 iterations or generations to
achieve enough convergence towards the global optimal solution. The
initial random population is crucial in finding out the final optimal so­
lution and the optimization runs with a different set of the initial random
population may differ in the final optimal solution. Therefore, to have a
fair degree of comparison between different optimization runs of ther­
mal and noise insulation optimization, the same initial population was
fed at every optimization run. The design solutions for the initial pop­
ulation were randomly generated with design options for different

Table 6
Final optimal design solutions obtained through independent and combined optimization processes for different occupancy types and climatic zones.
24-h occupancy 8-h occupancy

Delhi Thermal Material Ghana XPS Foam Cement Block Kota Stone Marble Rubber Foam Gypsum Board
optimization Teak Foam Cement
Wood Block
Thickness 0.025 0.07 0.15 0.025 0.0125 0 0.25 0.0125
Acoustic Material Kota Rock Fire Brick Laminated Kota Stone Rock Fire Brick Laminated
optimization Stone Wool particle board Wool particle board
Thickness 0.025 0.07 0.171 0.025 0.025 0.07 0.171 0.025
Combined Material Plastic PUF Foam Cement Block Kota Stone Kota Stone Rock Foam Gypsum Board
optimization Wool Cement
Block
Thickness 0.025 0.07 0.2 0.025 0.025 0.06 0.25 0.0125
Jodhpur Thermal Material Ghana XPS Autoclaved Aerated Laminated Jaisalmer Rubber Foam Gypsum Board
optimization teak wood Concrete Block Particle Board yellow stone Foam Cement
(AAC) Block
Thickness 0.025 0.07 0.25 0.025 0.025 0.07 0.25 0.0125
Acoustic Material Kota Rock Fire Brick Laminated Kota Stone Rock Fire Brick Laminated
optimization Stone Wool particle board Wool particle board
Thickness 0.025 0.07 0.171 0.025 0.025 0.07 0.171 0.025
Combined Material Kota PUF Foam Cement Block Medium Density Kota Stone Rock Foam Gypsum Board
optimization Stone Fibreboard Wool Cement
Block
Thickness 0.025 0.07 0.25 0.025 0.025 0.03 0.25 0.0125
Mumbai Thermal Material Ghana XPS Foam Cement Block Laminated Plastic XPS Foam Gypsum Board
optimization teak wood Particle Board Cement
Block
Thickness 0.025 0.07 0.2 0.025 0.025 0.07 0.25 0.0125
Acoustic Material Kota Rock Fire Brick Laminated Kota Stone Rock Fire Brick Laminated
optimization Stone Wool particle board Wool particle board
Thickness 0.025 0.07 0.171 0.025 0.025 0.07 0.171 0.025
Combined Material Kota PUF Foam Cement Block Gypsum Board Kota Stone Rock Foam Gypsum Board
optimization Stone Wool Cement
Block
Thickness 0.025 0.07 0.25 0.0125 0.025 0.06 0.25 0.0125

11
N.A. Khan and B. Bhattacharjee
decision variables selected randomly without any bias. The fitness
characteristics of the initial population used as an initial feed to the
optimization processes have been given in Table 3.
The thermal, sound transmission loss model and optimization algo­
rithms used in the study were self-coded and were implemented through
the MATLAB programming environment.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Effect of optimizations on thermal performance
Table 4 shows the percentage change in the ATLE of the final pop­
ulation during independent thermal and noise insulation optimization as
well as in the combined optimization process with respect to the initial
population solutions. The change in the average ATLE of the final pop­
ulation solutions compared to the initial population solutions has been
shown in the first three rows. In the subsequent three rows, the ATLE for
the final optimal solution of the respective optimization procedures has
been compared with the optimal solution in the initial population set.
The optimal solution from the initial population set was chosen as the
one having the least Euclidian distance from the ideal utopian point in
the same manner as described for the combined optimization process.
The results presented in this section were obtained by considering a
window to wall ratio of 30% [9,10], double glazed window (U-value =
2.65 W/m2K, OITC rating = 36.91) and an air exchange rate of 6 air
changes per hour [12].
In the thermal optimization process, as expected, a reduction in ATLE
for all the three climatic zones and occupancy types in both the final
population average and the final optimal solutions was obtained. In the
noise insulation optimization process, the interesting thing to note was
that a reduction in ATLE was achieved in the final population average of
all the three climatic zones for both 8-h and 24-h conditioned buildings.
The average population measure showed that the solutions with less
adverse effect on ATLE were also present in the final population which
can still be chosen with a slight trade-off to the noise insulation per­
formance. Although the reduction was less than the thermal optimiza­
tion process, it still shows improvement in the average thermal
performance of the solutions. In the final optimal solutions of the in­
dependent noise optimization process, there was a slight increase in the
ATLE of the final optimal solutions but as the reduction achieved in
independent thermal optimization is also very minimal, it is comparable
to that of the thermal optimization process. The small change achieved
in the ATLE values of final optimal solutions of the independent thermal
and noise insulation optimization can be attributed to the presence of a
good solution (with ATLE value close to the minimum ATLE) already
present in the initial population set. The percentage increase in the ATLE
values of final optimal solutions of independent noise insulation opti­
mization process was between 0 and 2.7%% in with a small difference
between the three climatic zones. The above behaviour depicts that
independent noise insulation optimization of multilayer envelope walls
does not have much adverse effect on thermal performance for both 8-h
and 24-h occupancy type commercial buildings.
In the combined optimization process, a reduction in ATLE of both
population average and final optimal solutions was achieved for all the
three climatic zones and occupancy types, with a slightly lesser
magnitude than the independent thermal optimization process. Figs. 5
and 6 shows the Pareto chart obtained for combined optimization for
both 24-hour and 8-hour occupancy buildings respectively.
4.2. Effect of optimizations on the noise insulation performance
The change in the noise insulation performance of the multilayer
envelope wall during independent thermal, noise insulation and com­
bined optimization processes has been shown in Table 5. In the thermal
optimization process, the degradation in the noise insulation perfor­
mance of the multilayer envelope wall was obtained in all the climatic
12
Building and Environment 200 (2021) 107948
zones and occupancy types. The degradation is larger in the case of 24-h
conditioned buildings compared to the 8-h conditioned buildings. In the
case of 24-h conditioned buildings, the largest degradation was observed
in the case of Hot-dry climatic zone followed by warm-humid and
composite. In the case of 8-h conditioned buildings, the largest degra­
dation was observed in the final optimal solutions of hot-dry climatic
zone while warm-humid climatic zone showed the largest degradation
in population average.
In the independent noise insulation optimization process, the noise
insulation performance of final optimal solutions and final population
remained the same irrespective of the change in occupancy type and
climatic zone. This was because noise insulation performance does not
depend on the climatic conditions or the conditioning period of the
building. In the combined optimization process, although the
improvement in the noise insulation performance achieved was reduced
compared to independent noise insulation optimization, but the adverse
effect on ATLE was also reduced through the process. The figures for
variation of thermal and noise insulation performance measures with
generation for different occupancy types and climatic zones have been
given in Figs. A.1, A.2, A.3, A.4, A.5, A.6, A.7, A.8, A.9, A.10, A.11 and
A.12.
Table 6 shows the final optimal design solutions obtained in the in­
dependent thermal and noise insulation optimization and through
combined optimization processes. The optimal design solution for the
noise insulation optimization remains the same regardless of the cli­
matic zone or the occupancy type while the optimal design solution for
thermal optimization changes at every instance. Kota stone, rock wool,
fire brick and laminated particle board were obtained as the optimal
design options for external cladding, insulation, main unit and internal
finish layers respectively for maximizing the noise insulation perfor­
mance. Kota stone and fire brick are preferred because of their high
density and elastic modulus while rock wool shows better sound
reduction property among the insulation materials. The optimal design
solution for thermal optimization changed with the climatic zone but
extruded polystyrene remained the most preferred insulation for maxi­
mizing the thermal performance in the case of 24-h occupancy build­
ings. In the case of 8-h occupancy buildings, Rubber foam, XPS and no
insulation layer were obtained as the optimal design option for the
insulation layer in the independent thermal optimization process. In the
combined optimization process PUF was obtained as the optimal design
option in the case of 24-h occupancy buildings while rock wool was
obtained as the optimal design option in case of 8-h occupancy build­
ings. Foam cement block was obtained as the optimal design option for
the main unit layer in the combined optimization process in most of the
cases. Foam cement block is preferred because it has low thermal con­
ductivity while having a high elastic modulus and density. The thickness
of the external, insulation, and internal finish layers are maximized for
all the climatic zones of 24-h occupancy buildings, while reduced
thicknesses were obtained in the case of 8-h occupancy buildings. This is
because the maximum amount of insulation and thermal mass are
preferred in the case of 24-h conditioned buildings.
Through the results obtained in the study, the following inferences
can be drawn about the interaction of thermal and noise insulation
performance of building envelope during independent and combined
optimization procedures:
• The independent noise insulation optimization process of multilayer
envelope walls does not have large degradation effect on the thermal
performance of the building envelope for both 8-h and 24-h occu­
pancy type buildings in tropical climates. although a slight increase
in the ALTE values of the final optimal solutions may be obtained,
there is an overall decrease in the ATLE vales of the final population
average.
• The thermal optimization process of multilayer envelope walls has
an adverse effect on noise insulation performance for both 8-h and
24-h occupancy type buildings in all the major tropical climatic
N.A. Khan and B. Bhattacharjee
zones. The degradation is largest in hot-dry climatic zones for the 24-
h occupancy buildings. For the 8-h occupancy buildings, degradation
is larger for the buildings falling under hot-dry and warm-humid
climatic zone.
• The interaction between the thermal and noise insulation perfor­
mance is sensitive to climatic zone and occupancy type.
• Combined or multifunctional optimization may not able to achieve
the same level of improvement in the performance objectives as in­
dependent optimization, but it still prevents the improvement of one
performance measure at the expense of other maintaining a balance
between the two and hence is desirable.
5. Conclusions
Most energy codes or proposed energy minimization methodologies
focus on thermal performance and ignore noise insulation, but
improving thermal performance independently has an adverse effect on
noise insulation performance in most cases. Similarly improving noise
insulation performance independently may lead to a slight degradation
in thermal performance. The level of thermal performance may govern
the noise insulation performance and vice-versa depicting an interrela­
tionship between the two. This interrelationship depends on the occu­
pancy type and climatic zone of the building under consideration. In the
case of combined optimization, the enhancement in the performance
measure is lesser compared to the independent optimization process, but
a simultaneous enhancement of both the performance measure is
APPENDIX
The curves for variation of thermal and noise insulation performance measures with generations for different optimization runs in the study are
given below:
Fig. A.1. Variation of ATLE with the optimization progress in thermal optimization, noise insulation optimization and bi-objective optimization in 24-hour
conditioned building (Delhi climate)
13
Building and Environment 200 (2021) 107948
achieved through the process which may be beneficial for the overall
occupant comfort and hence is recommended.
Data availability
Some or all data, models, or codes generated or used during the study
are available in a repository online in accordance with funder data
retention policies.
IMD (India Meteorological Department). (2018). Solar Radiant En­
ergy, Ministry of Earth sciences, India.
CBERD (U.S.-India joint Center for Building Energy Research and
Development). Thermo-Physical-Optical Property Database of Construction
Materials. Accessed June 21, 2020. http://carbse.org/reports-and-article
s/
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank IIT Delhi’s High-performance
computing facility for providing resources to carry out the
computations.
N.A. Khan and B. Bhattacharjee Building and Environment 200 (2021) 107948

Fig. A.2. Variation of OITC (Outdoor indoor transmission class) with the optimization progress in thermal optimization, noise insulation optimization and bi-
objective optimization 24-hour conditioned building (Delhi climate)

Fig. A.3. Variation of ATLE with the optimization progress in thermal optimization, noise insulation optimization and bi-objective optimization 8-hour conditioned
building (Delhi climate)

14
N.A. Khan and B. Bhattacharjee Building and Environment 200 (2021) 107948

Fig. A.4. Variation of OITC (Outdoor indoor transmission class) with the optimization progress in thermal optimization, noise insulation optimization and bi-
objective optimization 8-hour conditioned building (Delhi climate)

Fig. A.5. Variation of ATLE with the optimization progress in thermal optimization, noise insulation optimization and bi-objective optimization in 24-hour
conditioned building (Jodhpur climate)

15
N.A. Khan and B. Bhattacharjee Building and Environment 200 (2021) 107948

Fig. A.6. Variation of OITC (Outdoor indoor transmission class) with the optimization progress in thermal optimization, noise insulation optimization and bi-
objective optimization 24-hour conditioned building (Jodhpur climate)

Fig. A.7. Variation of ATLE with the optimization progress in thermal optimization, noise insulation optimization and bi-objective optimization in 8-hour condi­
tioned building (Jodhpur climate)

16
N.A. Khan and B. Bhattacharjee Building and Environment 200 (2021) 107948

Fig. A.8. Variation of OITC (Outdoor indoor transmission class) with the optimization progress in thermal optimization, noise insulation optimization and bi-
objective optimization 8-hour conditioned building (Jodhpur climate)

Fig. A.9. Variation of ATLE with the optimization progress in thermal optimization, noise insulation optimization and bi-objective optimization in 24-hour
conditioned building (Mumbai climate)

17
N.A. Khan and B. Bhattacharjee Building and Environment 200 (2021) 107948

Fig. A.10. Variation of OITC (Outdoor indoor transmission class) with the optimization progress in thermal optimization, noise insulation optimization and bi-
objective optimization 24-hour conditioned building (Mumbai climate)

Fig. A.11. Variation of ATLE with the optimization progress in thermal optimization, noise insulation optimization and bi-objective optimization in 8-hour
conditioned building (Mumbai climate)

18
N.A. Khan and B. Bhattacharjee Building and Environment 200 (2021) 107948

Fig. A.12. Variation of OITC (Outdoor indoor transmission class) with the optimization progress in thermal optimization, noise insulation optimization and bi-
objective optimization 8-hour conditioned building (Mumbai climate)

References [13] K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, T. Meyarivan, A fast and elitist multiobjective
genetic algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6 (2) (2002) 182–197.
[14] M. Sahu, B. Bhattacharjee, S.C. Kaushik, Thermal design of air-conditioned
[1] A. Nguyen, R. Sigrid, R. Philippe, A review on simulation-based optimization
building for tropical climate using admittance method and genetic algorithm,
methods applied to building performance analysis, Appl. Energy 113 (2014)
Energy Build. 53 (2012) 1–6.
1043–1058.
[15] A. Olgyay, V. Olgyay, Solar Control & Shading Devices, Princeton University Press,
[2] H. Guan, S. Hu, M. Lu, M. He, M. Zhu, G. Liu, “People’s subjective and
Princenton, 1957.
physiological responses to the combined thermal-acoustic environments, Build.
[16] ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), Standard Classification for
Environ. 172 (January) (2020) 106709.
Rating Outdoor-Indoor Sound Attenuation, ASTM, PA, United States, 2016. ASTM
[3] M. Hamdy, A. Nguyen, J.L.M. Hensen, A performance comparison of multi-
E1332-16.
objective optimization algorithms for solving nearly-zero-energy-building design
[17] N.O. Milbank, J. Harrington-Lynn, Thermal response and the admittance
problems, Energy Build. 121 (2016) 57–71.
procedure, Build. Serv. Eng. 42 (1974) 38–51.
[4] K. Miskinis, V. Dikavicius, A. Buska, K. Banionis, Influence of EPS, mineral wool
[18] J.A. Clarke, Energy Simulation in Building Design, Butterworth Heinemen, Great
and plaster layers on sound and thermal insulation of a wall: a case study, Appl.
Britain, 2001.
Acoust. (2018) 62–68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2018.03.001.
[19] S.F. Ali, L. Sharma, D. Rakshit, B. Bhattacharjee, Influence of passive design
[5] R.A.J. Ribas, H.A. Souza, Acoustical and thermal performance of multilayer closing
parameters on thermal comfort of an office space in a building in Delhi,
panels used in steel-structured buildings, Revista Escola de Minas 70 (2) (2017)
J. Architect. Eng. 26 (3) (2020) 4020017.
149–156.
[20] IMD (Indian Meteorological Department), Solar Radiant Energy over India,
[6] Ł. Nowotny, J. Nurzyński, The influence of insulating layers on the acoustic
Ministry of Earth Sciences, India, 2009.
performance of lightweight frame floors intended for use in residential buildings,
[21] B. Brouard, A general method of modelling sound propagation in layered media,
Energies 13 (5) (2020).
J. Sound Vib. 183 (1) (1995) 129–142.
[7] D. Kumar, M. Alam, X. Patrick, W. Zou, J.G. Sanjayan, R. Ahmed Memon,
[22] J.F. Allard, N. Atalla, Propagation of Sound in Porous Media, John Wiley & Sons,
Comparative analysis of building insulation material properties and performance,
Ltd, 2009, pp. 243–281.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 131 (June) (2020) 110038.
[23] K.A. Mulholland, H.D. Parbrook, A. Cummings, The transmission loss of double
[8] M. Bhatnagar, J. Mathur, V. Garg, Development of reference building models for
panels, J. Sound Vib. 6 (1967) 324–334.
India, Journal of Building Engineering (2019) 267–277, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[24] CBERD ( U.S.-India joint Center for Building Energy Research and Development),
jobe.2018.10.027.
Thermo-Physical-Optical Property Database of Construction Materials, 2020.
[9] R.A. Mangkuto, M. Rohmah, A.D. Asri, Design optimisation for window size,
Accessed 21st June, http://carbse.org/reports-and-articles/.
orientation, and wall reflectance with regard to various daylight metrics and
[25] C. Churchill, T. Bednar, T. Mullner, M. Neusser, S. Hinterseer, Renovation and
lighting energy demand: a case study of buildings in the tropics, Appl. Energy 164
innovation using thermal insulation lining systems- Acoustic performance, Build.
(2016) 211–219.
Environ. (2021), 107807, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107807.
[10] J. Rana, R. Hasan, H. Rahman Sobuz, W. Vivian, Y. Tam, Impact assessment of
[26] D.L. Folds, C.D. Loggins, “Transmission and reflection of ultrasonic waves in
window to wall ratio on energy consumption of an office building of subtropical
layered media” 1102(1977), J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 62 (5) (1977) 1102–1109. N0.
monsoon climatic country Bangladesh, International Journal of Construction
[27] A. Kaushik, M. Arif, T. Prasad, O. John Ebohon, Effect of thermal comfort on
Management (2020) 1–26.
occupant productivity in office buildings: response surface analysis, Build. Environ.
[11] BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards), “Handbook on Functional Requirements of
180 (November 2019) 107021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107021,
Buildings (Other than Industrial Buildings)” SP-41, 1987. Delhi, India.
2020.
[12] BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards), National Building Code of India, in: Second
Revision, SP-7, Delhi, India, 2005.

19