Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00387

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

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

Impact sound insulation of floor systems with hollow brick slabs

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: The improvement of acoustic performance construction systems is crucial. The flaws found
Received 17 February 2020 during the design of a building are often related to the lack of data that characterize the
materials used. Floor slab systems are one of the materials that influence acoustic
Keywords: performance, out of which composite slabs made of ribs and hollow bricks show up as
Impact sound common alternatives. The acoustic performance of this specific material is not entirely
One-way slabs known, considering the multitude of coatings that can be added. Therefore, this study
Prestressed concrete ribs and hollow bricks
compared measurements on impact sound pressure level for one-way rib and hollow brick
Floor coating systems
slabs using multiple coatings and gypsum ceiling, besides the 120 mm thick solid concrete
refence slab. The coatings included the use of a concrete cover (50 mm); concrete cover (50
mm) + resilient layer (10 mm) + screed (40 mm); concrete cover (50 mm) + resilient layer
(10 mm) + screed (40 mm) + gypsum board ceiling with thickness of 12.5 mm and plenum
of 150 mm; concrete cover (50 mm) + screed (40 mm) + the above-mentioned gypsum
ceiling; and concrete cover (50 mm) + screed (40 mm). The tests were performed in a
vertical acoustic resonant chamber built according to ISO 10140-5:2010. The results
showed that the use of gypsum ceiling along with resilient layer under the mortar screed
reduced the weighted impact sound pressure level by 41 dB, compared to other samples.
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

The impact sound is characterized as the action of a shock exerted on a compartmentalization element, which can spread
through all materials and construction elements connected to the floor system and diffuse sound energy over a wide
frequency range that results from the vibratory motion conducted by localized excitation [1,2]. For some non-homogeneous
floor systems, such as rib and hollow brick slabs, the impact sound propagation medium becomes a bit more complex than
homogeneous systems made of solid concrete slabs due to the orthotropic characteristics of the transmission medium [3].
Therefore, lab tests are essential to understand the characteristic of this type of construction system and properly predict
acoustic insulation, because traditional estimation methods of impact sound reduction are more adequate for homogeneous
heavyweight systems [4]. Composition, thickness and type of installation may characterize the floor system as homogeneous
due to the increased total thickness and the rigid connections, or heterogeneous due to the predominant transmission by
concrete beams arranged in a single direction [5,6].
The heterogeneity of a rib and hollow brick system causes significant differences on flanking transmission mechanisms,
compared to the homogeneity of a solid concrete slab of similar surface density. Hence, flanking sound transmission is one of
the main factors that limit acoustic insulation of precast rib and block slabs [7,8].
Rib and hollow brick slabs present weak spots concentrated in the spaces of the bricks, which allow internal sound
reverberation with amplification of sound waves at certain frequency bands [9].
The higher the mass of the surface under analysis, the less likely it will be to vibrate and thus transmit sound, and the
more rigid and continuous this structure, the less sound energy is transmitted through it [9,10]. Even though the mass of an
element may be very important for airborne sound attenuation, it plays a secondary role for impact sound insulation, since
vibration energy is greater and is applied directly to the building with little energy loss [11,12].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00387
2214-5095/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
2 / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00387

Precast rib slabs are known for their ribs made of reinforced and precast concrete. Filling elements are usually composed
of clay materials or expanded polystyrene (EPS), which are later covered with a layer of concrete that ensures the distribution
of acting stresses, increases flexural strength and levels the floor [13]. This filling not only replaces part of the traction slab
element, but also supports the fresh concrete cover until it has hardened.
According to Schiavi, Tarizzo and Astolfi, [7], the acoustic radiation of concrete rib and hollow brick structures relies on
the non-diffusivity of the vibrational field, the presence of structural discontinuities of the orthotropic systems, the
complexity of the element modal density and the acoustic radiation from an irregular area such as a slab made of two
different materials. The authors also stated that a concrete rib and brick slab can be considered as a ribbed plate that is rigidly
connected to hollow clay bricks that ease static load distribution. The acoustic response to impact excitation on this type of
slab, due to resonances and high efficiency of element radiation, especially at high frequencies, is significantly different from
the trend of the spectrum of a monolithic and homogeneous concrete slab, which can be considered a rigid structure.
In order to improve the acoustic insulation of rib and hollow brick slabs, floating floor must be used to levelling the system
[13]. Floating floor is a construction system that consist in a rigid element, such as screed or rigid plate, on top of a resilient
material also known as elastic layer, which disconnects it from structural and non-load bearing elements of a building [4,9,14].
The impact sound insulation of slabs is measured by the transmitted sound pressure level, producing a relation in which
the greater the level, the lower the insulation. To improve the acoustic performance of a structural slab, it is possible to use
floating floor, resilient coating materials, suspended ceiling grids, floating floor and structure discontinuity, besides the
floating floor [2,9,10].
Floor coatings does an important role for the control of impact sound transmission, bearing in mind that there are two
major attenuation systems, flexible floor coatings and floating floor systems [13,15]. The first can be exemplified by carpets or
polymeric-origin materials. In that case, impact sound reduction is a consequence of the increased time of impact, due to the
characteristics of the elastic material [2]. Therefore, the increase in impact time is related to the elastic characteristics of the
floor coating, which reduces the excitation spectrum to be irradiated by the structural slab.
For Semprini and Barbaresi [16], impact sound performance of rib and hollow brick slabs is much different from the levels
observed in a homogeneous monolithic concrete slab, since the rib and hollow brick system comprises high levels of acoustic
radiation that occur at high frequencies, mainly as a result of resonances from the hollow cores of the bricks. The authors
concluded that the system presents higher vibrational response starting at the band of 1000 Hz, compared to a solid concrete
slab. This increase at high-frequency bands leads to higher weighted values, as a consequence of the greater weight of treble
sounds in the calculation of ISO 717-2.
Nunes and Patrício [3] presented results of computational models using the finite element analysis of the vibrational
response of non-homogeneous slabs after the impact sound test. The study simulated slab models with covered with 50 mm
of concrete. The authors compared a solid slab, a rib and brick slab, a ribbed slab and a ribbed slab filled with EPS formwork
and found out that the ribbed slab, despite having the highest structural rigidity, was not the most efficient for reducing
vibratory irradiations. Furthermore, adding EPS formwork to the ribbed slab did not cause significant changes in the
performance of the ribbed slab. The computational model of the rib and brick slab presented higher vibrational peak at high
frequencies, suggesting higher vulnerability to impact sound insulation.
Floating floor becomes more efficient when not connected to the walls, so that the vibrations suffered by the screed are
not transmitted to other points of the structure. This insulation helps preventing acoustic bridges, that is, a rigid binding
between the floating floor and the structure such as the footer. The floating floor system resembles a simplified physical
model whose mass is defined by the screed surface density (m’), the spring determines the dynamic stiffness of the resilient
material (s’) and the system damping is equivalent to the internal friction of the insulating material. That way, resilient
materials must to be able to damp the impact of a slab [13,17].
Suspended ceiling systems are not as efficient for impact sound insulation as treating the construction system at the
surface that generates sound. However, the use of this technique becomes one of the few options when it is not possible to
perform any treatment in the sound receiving room [18–20]. In those cases, such as in multi-level buildings, installing a
ceiling can decrease impact sound insulation flaws, which are usually related to discomfort factors [17].
Therefore, this study aimed to characterize the impact sound insulation of floor compositions with rib and hollow brick
slabs with different types of coating and gypsum ceiling.

2. Materials and methods

The impact sound insulation was characterized in laboratory for 5 floor system configurations with rib and hollow brick
slab, as described in Fig. 1.
For means of comparison, a 120 mm thick solid concrete slab with bulk density of 2500 kg/m3 was tested. This sample
follows the requirements proposed in ISO 10140-5:2010 for standard sample test.
The structural element used in this study was a slab with prestressed rib and hollow clay brick, with height of 120 mm and
brick width of 300 mm (Fig. 2). The ribs were made of concrete with compressive strength of 30 MPa and wire thickness of 4 mm.
The concrete of the cover was crafted in laboratory and had compressive strength of 25 MPa, and density of 2,400 kg/m3.
The cure is an important process for strength gain and were performed with a plastic membrane curing wet sustained. All
test specimens received a cover with 50 mm of thickness. As the strength resistance is not part of the work, axial
compression and slump tests were not shown.
 / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00387 3

Fig. 1. Characterization of the samples used in this study.

Fig. 2. Dimensions of the rib and hollow brick slab.

The hollow bricks were manufactured from red clay, with specific weight of 600 kg/m3, dimensions of 300  120  200
mm (width, height and length), respecting the physical limits of ASTM C62:17. The floating floor used an expanded
polyethylene layer with density of 20 kg/m3, compressive creep of 7.66 % and dynamic stiffness of 28 MN/m3. The ceiling was
crafted from gypsum boards with thickness of 12.5 mm and plenum of 150 mm, as depicted in Fig. 3.
The samples were cast on a metal frame with internal dimensions of 4.01  4.11 m, which allowed the system to be lifted
into the test chamber. The ribs were distributed along the shorter dimension of the metal structure (Fig. 4).
The floating floor of samples SB and SC was executed as depicted in Fig. 5, without connecting the resilient layer and the
screed to the other elements of the chamber.
The sample was installed on top of the receiver chamber and then the source chamber was placed over it with load
distribution by metal beam and sling (Fig. 6).
The tests to determine the normalized (Ln) and weighed (Ln,w) impact sound pressure levels followed the procedures of
ISO 10140-3:2010 and ISO 10140-4, with measurements in one-third octave bands between 100 and 5000 Hz and
determination of the single-number quantities according to ISO 717-2:2013.
The measurement apparatus was manufactured by Acoem 01 dB and comprised: LS02 omnidirectional noise source, LS02
power amplifier, FUSION Smart Sound & Vibration Analyzer, G.R.A.S. microphone with FUSION preamplifier and Cal21
acoustic calibrator.

Fig. 3. Ceiling installation stages: (a) installation of support bolts on the ribs, (b) fixation of the gypsum boards on the metal guides and (c) treatment of gaps
between boards.
4 / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00387

Fig. 4. Stages of execution of the slab and the concrete cover.

Fig. 5. Applying resilient layer and screed to the slab with concrete cover.

Fig. 6. Impact sound insulation reverberant chamber (a) Sample positioning (b) placing the top chamber.

3. Results

Fig. 7 plots values in one-third octave bands for the test specimens. Regarding the sound pressure level and the
frequencies analyzed, it was noted that the progressive addition of layers resulted in lower Ln,w values.
The slab with no cover or ceiling, named SA, presented an ascending curve, compared to the solid concrete slab SP, with
higher tonal component for treble sounds, and a consequent acoustic insulation debilitation (Fig. 7). It is possible to state that
the rib and hollow brick slab, compared to a solid concrete slab with equal thickness, is less efficient for insulation at high-
frequency bands, due to the resonance effect within the hollow cores of the clay elements [3,8,21].
The addition of 40 mm of screed, sample SE, decreased the sound levels measured from the 315 Hz band, although the
graphical profile maintained the characteristic of a rigid system, with increased sound levels up to the 3,150 Hz band (Fig. 8).
The decrease in sound levels without graphical profile change is typical for the cases when the thickness of the floor system is
increased without the installation of some sort of damping mechanism, as Hassan [10] noted. Therefore, it is possible to
affirm that the use of screed with thickness of 40 mm applied to a rib and hollow brick slab can be regarded as a viable option
to increase the acoustic insulation of the construction system, despite its inefficiency for reducing the higher discomfort
caused by treble sounds
 / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00387 5

Fig. 7. Comparison between the pre-cast rib and hollow brick slab (SA) and the solid concrete slab (SP).

Fig. 8. Comparison between pre-cast rib and hollow brick slab (SA) plus 40 mm thickness screed (SE) plus gypsum ceiling with 150 mm plenum (SD).

Sample SD, which comprised screed of 40 mm and gypsum ceiling, yielded the same values as the sample with screed and
no ceiling up till the 1,250 Hz band. Between 1600 and 5,000 Hz it is possible to observe the influence of the resonant cavity
created by the gap between the structural slab and the ceiling, with higher sound levels than sample SE (Fig. 8). For floor
systems, the greatest concern usually regards impact sounds, even though the vibrational response of these construction
systems can be complex and, in most cases, it is difficult to treat separately the phenomena of transmission by air and by solid
means, as in the case of systems with ceiling. In those cases, according to findings of previous studies, filling the plenum
space with sound-absorbing material shall make the floor system more efficient for impact sound insulation.
Samples SB and SC, which comprised floating floor, get higher decreases in sound levels, bearing in mind that sample SC,
with gypsum ceiling and floating floor, had the typical graphical profile of an efficient dampening system, as the sound levels
started decreasing at the 200 Hz band (Fig. 9). This decrease is common for floating floor systems, in which the system
vibrational response is sensitively attenuated in the primary mechanical excitation point, just like previous studies had
noted [11,22,23].
Fig. 10 presents the weighted results for Ln,w, taking into account that the effect of the addition of floating floor was
assessed along with the greater decrease in the weighted sound level of samples SB and SC.
The high Ln,w value of 90 dB of sample SA can be explained by the lack of rigidity of the slab structure, which was
considered non-homogeneous and orthotropic, as per findings of Hopkins [9], in comparison with a solid concrete slab,
whose acoustic response is well-known. In that sense, the results for the solid concrete slab SP and the sample with screed
only, SE, can be compared. Sample SE had 50 mm of concrete plus 40 mm of screed, rendering a total of 90 mm of rigid
6 / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00387

Fig. 9. Comparison between pre-cast rib and hollow brick slab (SA), plus 40 mm thickness screed above a resilient layer with 10 mm thickness (SB), plus
gypsum ceiling with 150 mm plenum (SC).

Fig. 10. Comparison between weighted normalized impact sound pressure level of all specimens tested.

materials homogeneously distributed along its area, and achieved a difference of 3 dB compared to the solid slab SP, with
thickness of 120 mm. This difference comes close to that of Hassan [10], who estimated a decrease of 1 dB in the weighted
value for each solid concrete thickness centimeter. Therefore, it can be stated that the rib itself is not enough to provide the
rigidity needed to increase the system acoustic insulation. In the same way as the frequency band results, the weighted
values were also relevant for the dampening of the floating floor, with a difference between results for SA and SB of 25 dB.
The influence of the installation of gypsum ceiling was confirmed after comparing systems SB and SC, and systems SE and
SD, as they resulted in differences of 16 and 13 dB respectively. These values are in line with those found in other studies that
indicate the difference of about 10 dB for solid slab systems [19].
Considering an uncertainty made by GUM method, the expanded uncertainty stands above 2 dB. Even thou the
weighted results kept a discernible difference among them. The one those stand in an equal result, considering the
uncertainty, was sample SE and SP.

4. Conclusions

Non-homogeneous floor slab systems present a challenge for acoustic insulation estimations. Nonetheless, this type of
system is still widely used in several countries due to its lower cost and structural load than solid concrete systems.
This study assessed different compositions of rib and hollow brick floor slab systems through lab tests. By analyzing the
results of each composition, it was noted that the addition of layers, such as screed, resilient layer or suspended gypsum
ceiling, improved the acoustic performance of the rib and hollow brick slab, minimizing the vulnerability inherent to the
system’s orthotropic nature.
Slab sample SA, which had only the 50 mm cover, turned out to be more vulnerable to high-frequency impact sound
insulation, with Ln,w of 90 dB. This performance may have resulted solely from to the homogeneous layer formed by the
cover, thereby disregarding the rib and hollow brick set for means of acoustic insulation.
 / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00387 7

Installing the gypsum board ceiling yielded an increase in the acoustic insulation capacity of the systems tested. It should
be noted, though that the components in charge of flank transmission must be considered in the acoustic insulation
estimations of the building.
Considering the uncertainty, a sample with concrete cover with 50 mm thickness among a rib and hollow brick and a
screed with 40 mm thickness on the top, get along with the result of a solid concrete slab with 120 mm thickness.

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.

References

[1] C. Hopkins, Determination of vibration reduction indices using wave theory for junctions in heavyweight buildings, Acta Acust. United Acust. 100
(2014) 1056–1066, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3813/AAA.918785.
[2] J.V. Patrício, Acústica nos edifícios, 6th ed., Verlag Dashöfer, Lisbon, 2018.
[3] M.F. Oliveira, J.V. Patricio, Impact noise of non-homogeneous floors: analysis of different input parameters for computational modeling predictions, J.
Civ. Eng. Archit. 11 (2017) 274–281, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.17265/1934-7359/2017.03.007.
[4] M. Caniato, F. Bettarello, P. Fausti, A. Ferluga, L. Marsich, C. Schmid, Impact sound of timber floors in sustainable buildings, Build. Environ. 120 (2017)
110–122, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.BUILDENV.2017.05.015.
[5] C. Hopkins, Airborne sound insulation of beam and block floors: direct and flanking transmission, Build. Acoust. 11 (2004) 1–25, doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1260/1351010041217211.
[6] C. Hopkins, P. Turner, Field measurement of airborne sound insulation between rooms with non-diffuse sound fields at low frequencies, Appl. Acoust.
66 (2005) 1339–1382, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2005.04.005.
[7] A. Schiavi, P. Tarizzo, A. Astolfi, Considerations on the impact sound pressure level of bare floor slabs in hollow brick and concrete, Inter-Noise 2010 -
Noise Sustain., Institute of Noise Control Engineering, Lisbon, 2010, pp. 1–8.
[8] G. Semprini, A. Di Bella, A. Schiavi, A. Astolfi, L. Barbaresi, L. Luison, C.M. Pontarollo, P. Tarizzo, Acoustical behaviour of bare floor in hollow brick and
concrete - Italian building technology, Inter-Noise 2010 - Noise Sustain., International Institute of Noise Control Engineering, Lisbon, 2010.
[9] C. Hopkins, Sound Insulation, Elsevier Ltd., Burlington, 2012.
[10] O.A.B. Hassan, Building Acoustics and Vibration: Theory and Practice, World Scientific Publishing Company, Incorporated, London, 2009.
[11] H.S. Park, D.Y. Yoon, T. Cho, Influence of plan configuration on low frequency vibroacoustic behaviour of floating floor with low natural frequency, Appl.
Acoust. 158 (2020)107040, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2019.107040.
[12] D.A. Bies, C.H. Hansen, Engineering Noise Control: Theory and Practice, 4th ed., CRC Press, New York, 2017.
[13] A. Schiavi, Improvement of impact sound insulation: a constitutive model for floating floors, Appl. Acoust. 129 (2018) 64–71, doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.apacoust.2017.07.013.
[14] S.Y. Yoo, J.Y. Jeon, Investigation of the effects of different types of interlayers on floor impact sound insulation in box-frame reinforced concrete
structures, Build. Environ. 76 (2014) 105–112, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.03.008.
[15] J.K. Borges, F. Pacheco, B. Tutikian, M.F. de Oliveira, An experimental study on the use of waste aggregate for acoustic attenuation: EVA and rice husk
composites for impact noise reduction, Constr. Build. Mater. 161 (2018) 501–508, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.11.078.
[16] G. Semprini, L. Barbaresi, Experimental results of flanking transmission in hollow brick and concrete- slab floor, in: A.- DAGA (Ed.), AIA - DAGA 2013,
Merano, 2013, pp. 742–745, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1491.9283.
[17] J.H. Kim, J.Y. Jeon, Effects of vibration characteristics on the walking discomfort of floating floors on concrete slabs, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 136 (2014) 1702,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4894686.
[18] M.S. Mosharrof, J. Brunskog, F. Ljunggren, A. Agren, An improved prediction model for the impact sound level of lightweight floors: introducing
decoupled floor-ceiling and beam-plate moment, Acta Acust. United Acust. 97 (2011) 254–265, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3813/AAA.918405.
[19] R. Tomitaka, R. Nojima, K. Masuda, Study on reduction of floor impact sound by heavy impact source using double-layered ceiling with damping by
granular materials, J. Environ. Eng. 81 (2016) 29–39, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3130/aije.81.29.
[20] S. Na, I. Paik, S. ho Yun, H.C. Truong, Y.S. Roh, Evaluation of the floor impact sound insulation performance of a voided slab system applied to a high-rise
commercial residential-complex building, Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 13 (2019), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40069-018-0315-y.
[21] J.V. Patrício, Can beam-block floors be considered homogeneous panels regarding impact sound insulation? Build. Acoust. 8 (2001) 223–236, doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1260/1351010011501920.
[22] C. Calleri, A. Astolfi, L. Shtrepi, A. Prato, A. Schiavi, D. Zampini, G. Volpatti, Characterization of the sound insulation properties of a two-layers
lightweight concrete innovative façade, Appl. Acoust. 145 (2019) 267–277, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2018.10.003.
[23] W. Lee, K. Kim, S. Lim, Improvement of floor impact sound on modular housing for sustainable building, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29 (2014) 263–
275, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.054.

Camila Fernandes Natus Souza

Fernanda Pacheco
Maria Fernanda Oliveira*
Rafael Ferreira Heissler
Bernardo Fonseca Tutikian
Institute of Technology for Civil Construction (itt Performance), Unisinos University, Brazil

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mariaon@unisinos.br (M. Oliveira).

Received 17 February 2020