ᐅ Improving Sound Insulation of Interior Walls After Construction
Created on: 6 Dec 2014 11:45
J
JacobHello,
we are dissatisfied with the sound insulation of two interior walls. One wall is between the bathroom (the shower is against this wall) and the bedroom, and the other wall is between the bedroom and the living room (for example, you can clearly hear the TV from the bedroom).
The wall structure is as follows: on both sides, 12.5 mm (0.5 inch) drywall and 12 mm (0.5 inch) OSB boards, 6x8 cm (2.4x3.1 inch) KVH stud timber, and an 8 cm (3.1 inch) cavity filled with 6 cm (2.4 inch) mineral wool insulation.
There are two options: either build a double-leaf wall from the bedroom side (meaning construct a similar wall with a gap to the existing one) or open the existing wall from one side (bedroom side) and replace the mineral wool in the 8 cm (3.1 inch) deep cavities with 7 or 7.1 cm (2.8 or 2.8 inch) thick sand-lime bricks to add mass.
The disadvantage of the first option is that many things would need to be changed, such as light switches, power outlets, and the flooring.
These are the two options my builder, who constructed the house, suggested.
Can anyone contribute advice on which option is more effective and provides better sound insulation?
we are dissatisfied with the sound insulation of two interior walls. One wall is between the bathroom (the shower is against this wall) and the bedroom, and the other wall is between the bedroom and the living room (for example, you can clearly hear the TV from the bedroom).
The wall structure is as follows: on both sides, 12.5 mm (0.5 inch) drywall and 12 mm (0.5 inch) OSB boards, 6x8 cm (2.4x3.1 inch) KVH stud timber, and an 8 cm (3.1 inch) cavity filled with 6 cm (2.4 inch) mineral wool insulation.
There are two options: either build a double-leaf wall from the bedroom side (meaning construct a similar wall with a gap to the existing one) or open the existing wall from one side (bedroom side) and replace the mineral wool in the 8 cm (3.1 inch) deep cavities with 7 or 7.1 cm (2.8 or 2.8 inch) thick sand-lime bricks to add mass.
The disadvantage of the first option is that many things would need to be changed, such as light switches, power outlets, and the flooring.
These are the two options my builder, who constructed the house, suggested.
Can anyone contribute advice on which option is more effective and provides better sound insulation?
The question is initially why the sound is being transmitted so strongly. What does the connection to the ceiling and floor look like? Is the floor/ceiling properly decoupled?
What is unlikely to help much is adding a second wall in front of the existing one. The sound will probably continue to be transmitted easily through the weak points mentioned above.
What is unlikely to help much is adding a second wall in front of the existing one. The sound will probably continue to be transmitted easily through the weak points mentioned above.
F
Ferma-Profi9 Dec 2014 15:59Hello Jacob,
I can only agree with the previous commenter. First, the actual cause of the poor sound insulation should be identified. Both filling in the wall cavity and building a second wall require significant effort. However, neither will be effective if sound is transmitted through, for example, non-decoupled connections to the wall, floor, or ceiling.
One more tip:
If you plan to build a new wall, I would recommend a framed wall with a covering of gypsum fiberboard. This provides an additional improvement in sound insulation.
I can only agree with the previous commenter. First, the actual cause of the poor sound insulation should be identified. Both filling in the wall cavity and building a second wall require significant effort. However, neither will be effective if sound is transmitted through, for example, non-decoupled connections to the wall, floor, or ceiling.
One more tip:
If you plan to build a new wall, I would recommend a framed wall with a covering of gypsum fiberboard. This provides an additional improvement in sound insulation.
I often see the term “sound-decoupled construction.” What exactly does that mean? I believe it was built that way.
As for our build, I know that we used KVH (timber studs) 6x8 cm (2½ x 3 inches) frames on the floor with an anti-vibration underlay (UW sealing tape). The same was done at the top near the ceiling. A few centimeters of gap were left at the walls, and the space was insulated with mineral wool. The OSB and drywall panels were installed a few millimeters away from floor, wall, and ceiling, and the gaps were sealed with acrylic. The laminate flooring was laid with a suitable expansion gap to the walls, and the baseboards were screwed to the walls with around 1 mm (0.04 inch) of clearance above the laminate.
On the ground floor, it was quite tricky because we have exposed ceiling beams. We had to do a lot of cutting and fitting around the beams to leave space for them. I wouldn’t be surprised if in some places the OSB or drywall panels actually touch a ceiling beam.
As for our build, I know that we used KVH (timber studs) 6x8 cm (2½ x 3 inches) frames on the floor with an anti-vibration underlay (UW sealing tape). The same was done at the top near the ceiling. A few centimeters of gap were left at the walls, and the space was insulated with mineral wool. The OSB and drywall panels were installed a few millimeters away from floor, wall, and ceiling, and the gaps were sealed with acrylic. The laminate flooring was laid with a suitable expansion gap to the walls, and the baseboards were screwed to the walls with around 1 mm (0.04 inch) of clearance above the laminate.
On the ground floor, it was quite tricky because we have exposed ceiling beams. We had to do a lot of cutting and fitting around the beams to leave space for them. I wouldn’t be surprised if in some places the OSB or drywall panels actually touch a ceiling beam.
Similar topics