ᐅ Ytong Aerated Concrete vs. Wienerberger Poroton T9

Hello everyone,

Until now, I always thought that Poroton TP had a slight advantage in sound insulation compared to aerated concrete.

However, according to the datasheets, this does not seem to be the case at all.

Both have a thermal conductivity (lambda) of 0.09 W/(m·K) with a U-value of 0.23, so in terms of energy efficiency, they are basically the same.
When it comes to sound insulation, however:

Poroton: Sound Reduction Index (Rw) 41.8
Porous concrete: Sound Reduction Index (Rw) 47.3

Are these values correct? Everywhere I read, Poroton is said to have better sound insulation.

Then compare the building material sound insulation rating Rw. Even after considering the installation of the bricks, windows, window installation, and so on, you will notice that there are laboratory values and "real" differences. In the finished house, these differences are not as significant as initially thought.

However, if you need genuine soundproofing, both types of bricks are only suitable to a limited extent. So, tell me, what kind of noise do you need protection from?

P.S. The Poroton bricks contain so much air (chambers) that this reduces the sound insulation. That explains the values.

nordanney schrieb:
P.S. Poroton contains so much air inside (chambers) that this lowers the sound insulation. Hence the values.

Both aerated concrete and porous bricks contain air pockets in their material, which do not affect their sound insulation properties—neither improving nor worsening them. Apart from this "rigid foam-like consistency," aerated concrete is "solid," while the porous brick acts like a bundle of tubes and, when unfilled, practically "resonates." When filled, it behaves like a bass reflex box, transmitting vibrations more slowly and at a "deeper" frequency.

I advise against relying solely on datasheet interpretation. ("Forget the ring ..." – Mel Brooks in "Spaceballs").

Moreover, there are so many mistakes that can be made at detail connections that create sound bridges, which can completely negate any difference made by the material itself.

Stick to my stone mantra!

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

Thank you for the quick help! In the end, both options won’t differ much; it’s better to focus on details like the roller shutter box, windows, etc. We don’t have any noise issues from outside anyway, so that is less important. Both are offered to us at the same price. What surprised me, however, is that the difference in the specification sheets is almost 6dB, which is quite significant on paper!

For aerated concrete, the main advantage for me is being able to hang something on the wall later on...

sarajevo83 schrieb:
However, I was surprised that the difference in the data sheets is almost 6dB, which is quite a lot on paper at least!

This is a laboratory measurement of a single brick, not the entire wall.

Think of it like the WLTP value for fuel consumption. It doesn’t reflect real-life conditions either.

To my knowledge, aerated concrete—at least for interior walls—is available in different density classes that offer varying levels of sound insulation. The datasheet you linked refers to a PP2, but there are also PP4 and PP6 options. These, however, are significantly heavier and more expensive.