See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236108052

Effect of Façade Shape for the Acoustic Protection of Buildings

Article in Building Acoustics · December 2010

DOI: 10.1260/1351-010X.17.4.317

CITATIONS READS

22 13,990

3 authors, including:

Lucia Busa Simone Secchi

Vie en.ro.se. Ingegneria University of Florence
12 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS 125 PUBLICATIONS 552 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Simone Secchi on 09 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

BUILDING ACOUSTICS · Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2010 Pages 317–338 317

Effect of Façade Shape for the Acoustic Protection

of Buildings*
Lucia Busa, Simone Secchi, Stefano Baldini
Department of Architecture Technology and Design, University of Florence, Italy
Via San Niccolò 93, 50125, Florence, Italy

(Received 21 September 2009 and accepted 20 February 2011)

ABSTRACT
Façade sound insulation can be improved by using high performance components or by
modifying the shape of the façade. In many cases, when high acoustic insulation levels are
required, the use of high performance components cannot be sufficient, for technical or economic
reasons.
The European standard EN 12354-3 [1] gives a simplified method to estimate the influence of
the façade shape in the reduction of sound pressure level at the outside of the building envelope.
In particular, the influence of the façade is evaluated for a number of building typologies as a
function of the general direction of the incoming sound and of the acoustic absorption coefficient
of the surface of the underside of the balcony.
In the paper, the results of a study on the influence of the façade shape on the incoming sound
are evaluated with reference to a great number of different typologies of buildings facades.
The study has been carried out by means of a prediction software based on the modified theory
of the ray tracing (pyramid tracing). Moreover, some of the configurations analyzed with the
prediction software have been tested also in a scale model.
With reference to a typical urban configuration, results are expressed as level difference
between the simple plane façade and the façade with different kind of shielding.

INTRODUCTION
The Standardized Façade Level Difference D2m,nT can be evaluated by means of Eq. 1,
defined by EN 12354-3 [1].

D2m,nT = R’ + ∆Lfs + 10 log (V / 6 T0S) (dB) (Eq. 1)

Where:
R’ is the façade sound reduction index (dB);
V is the volume of the receiving room (m3);
T0 is the reference value of the reverberation time (0, 5 s);
*This is an expanded version of a paper originally presented at the 19th International Congress on Acoustics, 2007.
318 Effect of Façade Shape for the Acoustic Protection of Buildings

S is the total area of the façade as seen from the inside (i.e. the sum of the area of all
façade elements) (m2);
∆Lfs is the level difference due to façade shape (dB), given by eq. 2.

∆Lfs = L1,2m – L1,s + 3 (dB) (Eq. 2)

Where:
L1,2m is the average sound pressure level at 2 m in front of the (shaped) façade (dB);
L1,s is the average sound pressure level on the outside surface of the façade plane,
including the reflecting effect of that plane (dB).
The estimation of the level difference DLfs can be carried out by means of the
empirical method defined in annex C of EN 12354-3 that considers only a few kinds of
façade shapes.
In the published literature [2 to 5], there are some studies about the effect of other
types of façade shape.
Anyway, these studies are referred to the analysis of a limited number of balconies’
shapes.
In this paper, the effect of many kinds of external façade shielding and balconies are
analysed by means of the computational method described in the following.

FACADE SHAPE AND MATERIALS

By studying the façades as an integrated system, that is designing their morphology
(overhangs, protrusions, recesses, parapet type, coating materials, etc), it is possible to
improve both acoustic protection from outdoor noise and outdoor acoustic climate. This
strategy is substantially different from the current one, which consists of replacing the
façade components with higher performing systems. For this purpose it is important to
underline that, generally, even small modifications of the design façade can give a better
acoustic protection without compromising other design requirements which often clash
with the acoustic ones (for instance ventilation versus acoustic protection).
A façade without overhangs or protrusions will be completely exposed to noise,
while a façade with either protruding or recessing elements will produce areas of shade
which increase with the building height.
In the existing building stock it is possible to find many examples of buildings with
self-shielding features to sound because of their shapes or their sound-absorbing
building texture.
Many of the morphological elements which compose a façade, if studied in the
proper way and in the context of the façade design itself, can become patterns which
characterize and, at the same time, qualify it. As one the following reported examples
shows, a double-glazed window, which is extremely effective in term of protection
against outdoor ambient noises, can become a façade characterizing element and not
just a simple element which was only added to remedy a loss of performance. The same
idea applies to overhangs, shields, loggias, balconies and so on.
Here a series of buildings will be evaluated in order to analyze their façade
morphology compared to their noise protection.
BUILDING ACOUSTICS · Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2010 319

The representations shown for each building are simple ideograms which will not,
consequently, take in consideration diffraction phenomena. The purpose of these figures
is to make noise reduction “visible” for each of the evaluated façade buildings, by
normalizing the context described in the analytical study which follows.

Figure 1. Chandigarh Capitol, Le Corbusier, Chandigarh, 1952–19651.

Figure 2. Residential and offices building, Barto + Barto, Nantes, 1998–20032.

1 Allen Brooks H., “Le Corbusier”, Electa, Milano, 1993.

2 Vicari A., “Insediamento per residenza ed uffici a Nantes”, Costruire in laterizio, n.104, March–April 2005.
320 Effect of Façade Shape for the Acoustic Protection of Buildings

Figure 3. Soka-bau area, Thomas Herzog, Wiesbaden, 2001–043.

Figure 4. DG bank, Frank Gehry, Berlin, 20014.

3Tucci F., Battisti A., “Thomas Herzog”, in Modulo, n°302, June 2004.
4Pavan V., “Pietra: il corpo e l’immagine”, Arsenale Editrice, Verona, 2003.
BUILDING ACOUSTICS · Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2010 321

Figure 5. Building 37 in Bicocca area, Boeri Studio, Milano, 20055.

Figure 6. Audiovisual library in Marengo area, Buffi Associati, Tolosa, 1997–046.

5Coppa A., “Facciate a secco”, Federico Motta Editore, Milano, 2006.

6Pieri E., “Mediateca nel quartiere Marengo”, Tolosa, Costruire in laterizio, n.104, March–April 2005.
322 Effect of Façade Shape for the Acoustic Protection of Buildings

THE BUILDING ARRANGEMENT STUDIED

The case studied is referred to a typical urban context with buildings five floors in
height, aligned along a road 10 m wide and with pavements 2.5 m deep on both sides
of the road (figure 7). In the model assumed, the road has vehicles along its central line
and has a length of 70 m to take into account the effect of the sound coming from the
lateral sides of the façade.

Reference façade Reference façade

Figure 7. Axonometric view and vertical section of the case studied.

The building façade analysed is the one on the right hand side of the vertical section
of figure 7. The façade on the left side is always the same with 1 m deep and 20 m wide
balconies. The test façade is flat and the effect of different shapes of building has also
been evaluated.

THE CALCULATION METHOD

Simulations have been carried out by means of the software DISIA, which has been
for years the “reference” computer code employed freely by Italian public
administrations, schools and universities for the calculation of sound propagation in
outdoors.
The code was developed and validated by Angelo Farina [6] at the request of the
Italian Environment Ministry, SIAR (Air Noise Pollution Service).
The program use an algorithm named “pyramid tracing” which is a version of ray
tracing approach and takes count of the effects of multiple reflections and of diffraction
of first and second order.
In the ray tracing method, a large number of rays is isotropically traced from the
point sources and reflect specularly over the boundaries, where part of their energy is
absorbed. This method is very time consuming.
On the other hand, in the pyramid tracing scheme, used in software DISIA, triangular
beams are generated at the sound source. The central axis of each pyramid is traced as
in the ray tracing method, being specularly reflected when it meets a surface. The three
corners of the pyramid follow the axis, being reflected from the same plane where it
BUILDING ACOUSTICS · Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2010 323

hits. The receivers are points, and a detection occurs when this point is inside the
pyramid being traced.
The calculation code implemented in DisiaPyr does not take into account the
interference effects caused by propagation at grazing incidence over the ground, nor the
ray curvature caused by temperature or air velocity vertical gradients, but these effects
may be neglected in the case of sound propagation over small distances in urban areas.
The evaluation of the sound energy diffracted from the free edges of a screen (the
sill of the balconies) is made using the Kurze formula [6] integrated in the software
algorithms.
A comparative study on the accuracy of the pyramid tracing method in the prediction
of outdoor sound propagation has concluded that the method is accurate in the
proximity of the source, while at greater distances (in the order of 100 m) the effects of
soil and temperature and velocity of air are more significant.
The characteristics of the building façades, assumed as input data in the simulation
program, are the following:
• masonry façade and balcony finished with reflecting plaster;
• window sill in reflecting masonry without openings;
• road surface in concrete or smooth asphalt.
Table 1 shows values of Sound Reduction Index (R) and of weighted absorbing
coefficient (α) of material used. Sound Reduction Index values are necessary to
compute sound transmission through the sill and the balcony floor, although these
quantities are usually negligible, while absorbing coefficient is necessary to compute
the reflections on different parts of the façade.

Table 1. Acoustic properties of material used in the model.

Façade and
balcony Window Road
Frequency ceiling Balcony floor Balcony sill glass surface

a R (dB) a R (dB) a a a
125 0.02 40.6 0.02 30 0.02 0.35 0.01
250 0.02 41.8 0.02 36 0.02 0.25 0.03
500 0.03 47 0.03 39 0.03 0.18 0.05
1000 0.04 47.3 0.04 46.3 0.04 0.12 0.02
2000 0.04 51.7 0.04 52.8 0.04 0.07 0.02
4000 0.03 55.3 0.03 52.5 0.03 0.04 0.02

Furthermore, the following software param have been assumed as input:

• receivers placed on a vertical section plane passing through the centre of the façade
with a grid space of 0.2 m;
• traffic line source (vehicles) reproduced as an array of point sources at a distance
of 3 m from each other;
324 Effect of Façade Shape for the Acoustic Protection of Buildings

• level of accuracy of the simulation: 10, corresponding to 8 × 210 pyramids traced

form each sound sources (i.e. from each point of the line source);
• time of following of the run of each pyramid: 2 seconds, corresponding to a max-
imum distance run by each ray of 2 × 340 = 680 m;
• temperature and humidity of the air: 15°C, 75%;
• diffraction level: 2, corresponding to the two possible diffraction paths consid-
ered for each ray (maximum level for the program);
• Random: 2, corresponding to the number of reflections after which the ray will
be randomly reflected. This allows to simulate the effect of the scattering of
sound while the main paths of the sound propagating over the façade are specu-
larly reflected.
Figure 8 shows the sound spectra of the line source used to simulate the traffic noise.

100
98
96
94
92
Lw (dB)

90
88
86
84
82
80
63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 8. Sound Power Level of the sources used to simulate the traffic noise.

THE RESULTS
As above mentioned, the receiver grid size used in the simulations is 0.2 m.
To better represent the sound propagation behind the balcony and to validate the
results obtained with this grid space, Figure 9 shows the results of the simulation
referred to a façade with a balcony 1.5 m deep and 4 m wide at the first floor of the
building, with a grid space of the receivers of 0.03 m. In this case, the model is the
same (urban context with buildings five floors height) but the simulation has been
made only for the space within the balcony at the first floor of the reference
building.
BUILDING ACOUSTICS · Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2010 325

88
87
86
85
6 84
h 2,4 m = 85 dBA 83
82
81
80
5
79
78
77
76
75
h 1,5 m = 81 dBA 74
5
73
72
71
70
69
4 68
67
66
65
64
4 63
h 0,3 m = 75 dBA 62
61
60
59
−1 −1 −0 −0
58
57
56

Figure 9. Lines of equal sound pressure level in the case of a 1.5 m deep and 4 m
wide balcony, at the first floor of the building with grid space of 0.03 m.

The values used for the comparison of the effect of different façade shapes are those
referred to the points placed at a distance of 0.2 m from the flat façade and at the eight
of 0.3, 1.5 and 2.4 m from each floor level (Figure 10).
Figure 11 shows the results in the case of balconies 1.5 (left) and 3 (right) m deep
and 4 m wide; the façade analysed (and compared with the flat façade) is the one on the
right side of each graph.
Figure 12 shows the results in the case of terraces 1.5 and 3 m deep, with the façade
staggered.
In this case, the reduction in sound pressure levels is due also to the increasing
distance between the façade and the traffic line.
The effect of horizontal light shelves placed at the top or the bottom of the window
has also been evaluated, and is presented only in the tables of synthesis (table 6 and
table 7).
In tables 2–13, the results of the level difference between plane façade and shaped
façade are synthesized, with reference to the central receiver of the façade at a distance
of 1.5 m from the floor (to simulate the human ears position) and at 0.2 m from the flat
façade.
In the case of facades with balconies or galleries, the reduction of sound pressure
level may be improved by means of absorbing materials positioned on the inside
surfaces of the balcony or gallery or on the façade surface. These materials may reduce
the sound reflected by the surfaces of the façade and increase the level difference due
the façade shape.
Figure 10. Lines of equal sound pressure level in the case of flat façade.

15 88
15 87
14 4th FLOOR
86
0,3 m = 66 dBA 14
4¡ FLOOR 85
1,5 m = 74 dBA
0,3 m = 65 dBA 84
13 1,5 m = 71 dBA 83
2,4 m = 78 dBA 13 2,4 m = 76 dBA 82
12 12 81
80
11 3th FLOOR 3¡ FLOOR 79
0,3 m = 74 dBA 11 0,3 m = 76 dBA 78
10 1,5 m = 79 dBA 1,5 m = 79 dBA 77
2,4 m = 81 dBA 10 2,4 m = 81 dBA 76
9 9
75
74
8 2th FLOOR 2¡ FLOOR 73
8 72
0,3 m = 73 dBA 0,3 m = 78 dBA
7 1,5 m = 80 dBA 1,5 m = 80 dBA 71
2,4 m = 82 dBA 7 70
2,4 m = 82 dBA
69
6 6 68
67
5 1th FLOOR 5 1¡ FLOOR 66
0,3 m = 75 dBA 0,3 m = 79 dBA 65
4 1,5 m = 81 dBA 4 1,5 m = 81 dBA 64
2,4 m = 84 dBA 2,4 m = 83 dBA 63
3 3 62
61
2 GROUND FLOOR 2 GROUND FLOOR 60
0,3 m = 83 dBA 0,3 m = 83 dBA 59
1 1,5 m = 83 dBA 1 1,5 m = 84 dBA 58
2,4 m = 84 dBA 2,4 m = 85 dBA 57
56
−14 −13 −12 −11 −10 −9 −8 −7 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 −14 −13 −12 −11 −10 −9 −8 −7 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0

Figure 11. Lines of equal sound pressure level in the case of 1.5 (left) and 3 (right) m
deep and 4 m wide balconies with closed window sill.

Figure 12. Lines of equal sound pressure level in the case of 1.5 (left) and 3 (right) m
deep and 4 m wide balconies.
BUILDING ACOUSTICS · Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2010 327

Figure 12. (Continued)

The absorber system used for the simulations is a resonant system whose details and
sound absorption coefficient are shown in figure 13.
As the noise emission spectrum of the source we used for the current study is
dominated by low and medium frequencies (figure 8), it was necessary, in order to
optimize sound reduction, to select a resonant system that was particularly effective at
the above mentioned frequencies.
In the following tables level differences between flat façade and shaped façade for
some analyzed configurations are shown. All results are referred to the central receiver
of the façade, 1.5 m above the floor level and 0.2 m from the façade. In tables 2 to 5
balconies are 4 m wide.

Table 2. Level differences for balconies with open banisters.

Balcony depth (m) Ground floor 1° Floor 2° Floor 3° Floor 4° Floor

1.5 0 –1 –1 1 3
2 0 –2 0 1 3
3 –1 –1 –1 1 4
328 Effect of Façade Shape for the Acoustic Protection of Buildings

Table 3. Level differences for balconies with closed window sill.

Balcony depth (m) Ground floor 1° Floor 2° Floor 3° Floor 4° Floor

1.5 0 1 1 2 6
2 -1 1 1 2 7
3 -1 1 1 2 9

Table 4. Level differences for 1.5 m deep balconies with closed window sill
differently inclined out of vertical line.

Tilt of the balcony

sill (°) Ground floor 1° Floor 2° Floor 3° Floor 4° Floor

10° 0 2 1 3 7
15° 0 2 1 5 6
20° 0 2 1 3 7
BUILDING ACOUSTICS · Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2010 329

Table 5. Level differences for 1.5 m deep balconies with closed window sill and
downward surface lining differently inclined out of horizontal line.

Tilt of the downward

surface lining (°) Ground floor 1° Floor 2° Floor 3° Floor 4° Floor

10° –1 0 0 2 5
15° –2 –1 0 3 6
20° –2 –1 1 3 5

Table 6. Level differences for 1.2 m wide horizontal light shelves.

Depth of the light

shelf (m) Ground floor 1° Floor 2° Floor 3° Floor 4° Floor

0.4 0 0 0 1 1
0.8 0 0 1 2 2
330 Effect of Façade Shape for the Acoustic Protection of Buildings

Table 7. Level differences for 0.4 – 0.8 m deep and 1.2 m wide light shelves,
inclined 30° degrees out of horizontal line.

Depth of the light

shelf (m) Ground floor 1° Floor 2° Floor 3° Floor 4° Floor

0.4 0 1 1 3 3
0.8 –1 2 3 5 4

Table 8. Level differences for façade with 20 m wide staggers

and open banisters.

Stagger depth (m) Ground floor 1° Floor 2° Floor 3° Floor 4° Floor

1.5 0 0 1 3 3
3 0 2 4 5 5
BUILDING ACOUSTICS · Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2010 331

Table 9. Level differences for façade with 20 m wide staggers and closed
window sill.

Stagger depth (m) Ground floor 1° Floor 2° Floor 3° Floor 4° Floor

1.5 0 5 6 11 8
3 0 7 10 12 11

Table 10. Level differences for the façade covered with the absorbing system on
the ceiling of balconies.

Ground floor 1° Floor 2° Floor 3° Floor 4° Floor

0 3 3 3 8
332 Effect of Façade Shape for the Acoustic Protection of Buildings

Table 11. Level differences for the façade covered with the absorbing system on
the internal side of the closed window sill.

Ground floor 1° Floor 2° Floor 3° Floor 4° Floor

–1 2 1 2 8

Table 12. Level differences for the façade covered with the absorbing system on
the ceiling balconies and on the plane of the façade.

Ground floor 1° Floor 2° Floor 3° Floor 4° Floor

2 6 6 8 11
BUILDING ACOUSTICS · Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2010 333

Table 13. Level differences for the façade covered with the absorbing system on
the internal side of the closed window sill and on the plane of the façade.

Ground floor 1° Floor 2° Floor 3° Floor 4° Floor

2 5 3 5 11

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
5000
100
125
160
200
250
315

500
630
800
400

28 4
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 13. Detail (measures are in millim) and sound absorption coefficient of the
absorbing system used for the façade surfaces.

Tables 10–13 show all the results of the difference between plane façade and shaped
façade with absorbing material in different positions.
The red line indicates the position of the absorbing material of the facade.
In all cases, the balconies are 1.5 m deep and 20 m wide.
Results of this study have already been presented in synthetic form in the
proceedings of 19th International Congress in Acoustics [7].

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ON A SCALE MODEL

To validate and better characterize results obtained with the analytical model presented
in the previous paragraphs, a 1:5 scale model has been realized.
334 Effect of Façade Shape for the Acoustic Protection of Buildings

The model simulates, as for the simulations described above, a facade of 5 floors at
a distance of 10 m by a similar façade. The main dimensions of the model are 3.88 (m)
height and 2.00 (m) wide.
The frequency band analyzed is 500–16000 Hz, which corresponds in real life to
100–3150 Hz, as frequencies are multiplied by the scale factor of the model.
The material used to build the model is Medium Density Fireboard (MDF) panels
10 mm thick, while the main structure of the model has been made out of solid wood.
As for the simulations described in the previous paragraphs, a building with
plastered facades has been considered. The plaster has approximately a sound
absorption coefficient α of 0.07 at 1000 Hz, which corresponds to the coefficient of the
panel in MDF at 5000 Hz.
The main components of the model are the facade being analysed, the roadway and
the adjacent building facade.
As in the simulations, the following kinds of facades have been analysed: flat
façade, façade with balconies with open banisters and façade with balconies with
closed window sill.
To simulate the traffic noise a single point sound source was placed in the centre of
the roadway.
The TangBand W3-871SC loud speaker, whose sound spectra and photo are shown
in figure 15, was inserted in a MDF box with the main side inclined 45° from the
vertical.
The transducer used was a 1/2 inch random incidence pressure microphone (figure 17);
signal acquisition and frequency analysis was carried out in third octave frequency
bands by means of real time analyzer 01 dB model Symphonie.
Each façade floor of the scale model has been divided into 5 measuring points placed
along the central axis 10 cm away from each other as shown in figure 16. The

(C) (D)

(A)

(B)

Figure 14. The main parts of the scale model: (A) Sound Source, (B) roadway,
(C) opposite façade, (D) façade of analysis.
BUILDING ACOUSTICS · Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2010 335

(dB) SPL vs Frequency

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 (Hz)
0
20 50 100 200 500 1k 2k 5k 10k 20k

Figure 15. Frequency response of the loudspeaker (left) and photo of loudspeaker
box.

5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1

Figure 16. Identification of insertion points of the microphone on a floor.

microphone was inserted into a hole corresponding to the measuring point at a distance
of 5 cm from the front of the scale model. The holes which were not used were properly
sealed.
Measurements have been carried out with white noise radiated by the loudspeaker
for a duration of 10 s for each measurement.
To compare values obtained with the scale model with simulations and with values
reported in EN 12354-3, measuring point 3 and 4 were chosen, in relation to a height
of 1.5 m from each floor level. Sound pressure levels measured at these points were
averaged out to obtain a single reference value to be compared with the corresponding
value measured in the plane façade.
Another test was carried out in the the façade with balconies and closed window
sill with the addition of sound-absorbing material on the ceiling of balconies. The
material used was a carpet 5 mm thick attached on the ceiling of balconies as shown
in figure 18.
336 Effect of Façade Shape for the Acoustic Protection of Buildings

5 cm

Figure 17. Position the microphone in the scale model.

Figure 18. On the left image of the model with input of sound absorbent material; on the
right absorption coefficient at various frequencies of the carpet from 5 mm.

Sound absorption coefficient of the carpet is quite different from that of the material
used for the simulations, especially at lower frequencies and this can affect the final
results.
Values of sound pressure level difference obtained in the scale model are compared
in figure 19 with those obtained in the simulation.
Configuration A and B are related to the of facade with balconies and closed window
sill while configuration C shows the facade with balconies and closed window sill and
sound absorbing material placed in the ceiling of the balconies.

CONCLUSIONS
Results of simulations and of scale model measurements show a significant effect of the
façade shape over the propagation of outdoor noise in the façade plane.
Scale model measurements partially confirm the simulations with greater differences
at the second level of the facade, probably due to the geometrical configuration chosen,
as shown in a previous study of Hossam El Dien and Woloszyn [3].
BUILDING ACOUSTICS · Volume 17 · Number 4 · 2010 337

Figure 19. Value ∆Lfs of acoustic model (MOD) compared with simulations (SIM).

From table 2, the following main consideration may be deduced:

• balcony depth (table 2): the effect of the balcony depth is relevant (positive) only
for the higher floors. At the ground floor the balcony depth is not relevant;
• balcony length (gallery): in general the study points out that the effect of balcony
length greater than 4 m is not relevant;
• structure of the window sill (table 3): section of the window sill creates a greater
reduction of 1–3 dB if compared with an open banisters; this positive effect
increases at higher floors;
• inclination of the window sill (table 4): an inclination of 10° forward produces a
positive effect of 1 dB at every floor, as a consequence of the reduction of sound
transmission for diffraction over the upper side of the window sill;
• inclination of the ceiling balcony (table 5): the inclination of this surface of the bal-
cony produces no relevant effect on sound propagation;
• inclination upward of the light shelf (table 7): for inclinations greater than 30°
upward the level difference may increase of 2–3 dB at higher floors, in compared
to horizontal light shelves;
• staggered façades (tables 8–9), with full window sills, produce a great positive
effect on level difference; with staggers of at least 3 m, the level difference may be
greater than 10 dB, but this effect is partially due to the increased distance between
the façade plane and the traffic line.
 338 Effect of Façade Shape for the Acoustic Protection of Buildings

From table 10 to table 13, which refer to façades partially or totally covered with
the absorbing material described in figure 14, the following further considerations may
be deduced:

• at the ground floor the effect of absorbing linings is relevant only with complete
covering of façade surfaces;
• the effect of absorbing linings of the façade increases at higher floors;
• in general, the better solution, which minimises the use of absorbing material (and
also better protects this material from weather effects) is the one with the absorbing
material positioned on the ceiling balcony and on the internal side of the window
sill.

REFERENCES
1. EN 12354-3: “Building acoustics—Estimation of acoustic performance of
buildings from the performance of elements—Part 3: Airborne sound insulation
against outdoor sound”.
2. Hossam El-Dien H., “Acoustic performance of high rise building facades due to
its balconies form”, Fifth European Conference on noise control; Euronoise,
Naples (2003).
3. Hossam El-Dien H., P. Woloszyn, “Prediction of the sound field into high-rise
building facades due to its balcony ceiling form”, Applied Acoustics, 65 (2004),
431–440.
4. Hossam El-Dien H., P. Woloszyn, “The acoustical influence of balcony depth and
parapet form: experiments and simulations”, Applied Acoustics, 66 (2005),
533–551.
5. Hothersall DC, HoroshenkovKV, Mercy SE., “Numerical modelling of the sound
field near a tall building with balconies near a road”, Journal of Sound and
Vibration (1996), 198(4), 507–15.
6. Farina, A., “Validation of the pyramid tracing algorithm for sound propagation
outdoors: comparison with experimental measurements and with the ISO/DIS 9613
standards”, in Advances in Engineering Software, 31 (4), April 2000, 241–250.
7. Busa, L., Secchi, S., “Effect of facade shape for the acoustic protection of buildings”,
in Proceedings of 19th International Congress in Acoustics, Madrid, 2–7 Sept. 2007.

View publication stats