Segregating noisy activities from quiet activities can be achieved relatively simply Paul Howard, head of innovation, British Gypsum

Reflecting modern lifestyles, the 2003 amendments to the ADE requirements included a low frequency correction value (Ctr) in the performance criterion, to account for noise emitted by entertainment systems. Pre-completion sound testing was also introduced in a bid to ensure developers would deliver sufficiently homes with adequate levels of sound-proofing. However, it’s uncertain whether ‘designing by numbers’ can really be the whole solution for creating a comfortable living space in prac- tice. “The current ADE criteria are very familiar to many as the ‘pass or fail’ standards,” says Richard Keeble, senior acoustic consultant at RBA Acoustics, adding: “the procedures for demonstrating these through field measurement and analysis are well established among acousticians. However, it’s not always that simple.”

The wording that defines the level of soundproofing required is also ambiguous – it states that housebuilders only need to provide a “reasonable resistance” to sound. Keeble adds, “Many acousticians have a story to tell about a ‘dot and dab’ solid block wall or a curtain walling installation which ends up passing ADE due to the way the calculation works, but you can clearly hear your neighbour talking.”

He also says his consultancy had been involved in a situation in which occupants could hear excessive low frequency impact noise from upper floors, where the tested performance had exceeded minimum regulations by 20 dB and would on paper be considered sufficiently sound-proof. “Again, the subjective response doesn’t match up with the objective test result,” he explains. One potential reason that such inconsistencies exist could be the lack of Ctr-equivalent correction for low frequency impact sound insulation in ADE – however, the Ctr value may itself be an unneces- sary complication to testing methodologies that does not always deliver the required results. “The current version of ADE introduced Ctr, but field-tested Ctr can be difficult to predict,” says Keeble. “It’s very sensitive to frequencies which are very difficult to measure accu- rately, and it doesn’t do anything to help with hearing your neighbour’s voice.” The fact that Britain has the smallest homes in Europe is also partially to blame for this as wavelengths can at times be longer than room dimensions.


In practice, measures should provide adequate occupant protection, but also be economically viable for developers. Currently, the drive to achieve the bare minimum in sound insulation often trumps the potential to expand on these base levels. Paul Howard, head of inno- vation at British Gypsum, explains the reasoning: “The vast majority of organisations are looking to comply with the regulations at the lowest cost. People aren’t actually thinking what is necessary for the home, they tend to aim for a number and if they exceed that number, they tend to think they’ve over-engineered.”

Improving acoustics has been in focus in the commercial and work- place sectors, with modern offices designed to higher acoustic

standards in relation to their purpose. This approach to design can be particularly beneficial if transferred to the residential sector. Says Howard: “The mentality is very different when you’re designing for a regulation versus designing for a specific purpose to the occupants in the building.” He says a “major difference in performance” is possible if architects expand on the minimum regulations by just 10 dB.

Wellness at stake

Beyond satisfying building standards, the main purpose of adequate sound insulation in residential projects is reducing sources of stress in the home. Architect Richard Mazuch, who focuses on the wellness aspects of acoustics at IBI Nightingale, is keen to highlight the nega- tive impact of noise to our wellbeing, particularly in terms of sleep deprivation. He says: “We spend a third of our lives on 2 m2

of space

[the bedroom] – but how much money do we actually dedicate to that little space?” He quotes recent research carried out by Rand Europe, which concluded sleep-deprived workers cost the UK economy £40bn a year. Despite the material consequences, the problem remains ‘invisible’ according to Mazuch. “Noise is one of those great problems; unfortunately, we can never sort them out prop- erly because they are invisible – kind of like pollution – we know the figures but we continue not addressing them.” The drive for using more lightweight, flexible building materials has also led to reduced sound absorption. “You do what you can do on the shell,” Mazuch notes, “but I think designers can be smarter on the fittings and furnishing”. Paul Howard makes a similar point, stating that modern houses can be worse acoustically than older dwellings because of the use of thin plasterboards. “In high density living you have more sources that are generating more stressors,” Mazuch adds. “People are living on top of each other in these clusters, which creates a huge tension.” He notes more consid- eration should be given to ‘liminal’ (non-specific use) spaces in estates to escape from noise, but in housing, defining the purpose of each room remains a decisive factor when specifying the necessary level of acoustics. Howard says: “If you know you’ll be building for high density living, it’s all about planning acoustic zoning for people; about giving people a way of segregating noisy activities from quiet activi- ties – and this can be achieved relatively simply.”

Going forward

Despite ample evidence of the detrimental effect of excessive noise to our health and the steps taken by regulators to define base levels for new homes and conversions, providing adequate soundproofing in practice remains a complex task.

There has been a drive to expand the minimum levels, such as respected (although now defunct) assessment methodologies like the Code for Sustainable Homes requiring an improvement of at least three decibels on the base levels in ADE in order for a development to be awarded any credits at all. There has also been talk of a new inter- national standard – which will introduce a noise classification scheme for new dwellings and could work in the same way as EPCs. While this could drive the agenda forward, details of when it is likely to emerge and how it will work are scarce.

Richard Keeble reckons efforts should be focused on how to incor- porate common areas of complaint when it comes to acoustic standards. Paul Howard agrees, saying that consumer groups could be key to a substantial change in the industry. Meanwhile, the role of architects and acousticians remains largely advisory, with a host of solutions available for clients, but only if they are willing to go beyond the minimum criteria.



Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84