W
woodhouse15 Mar 2024 14:47Hello everyone,
In 2021, we built a single-family house with an experienced timber builder. The architect had originally designed the house as a solid construction, but based on a recommendation, we decided to have it built as a timber frame house since we had waited over 1.5 years for the building permit / planning permission and were convinced by the ecological and especially fast construction method.
The house was assembled in three days, and then we decided to manage the interior finishing ourselves with our own craftsmen. All materials for the interior work were provided by the builder. Overall, we are satisfied with the construction, but the major issue is the impact noise and vibration when walking.
This is because we only had a floor build-up height of 12cm (5 inches) above the beams.
We thought we could live with it eventually, but it is extremely exhausting to hear the dull noises while lying in bed, and the noise from the floor above is almost unbearable.
I would like to briefly explain the structure of the ceiling from the ground floor to the first floor:
First of all, there are large beams measuring 24x10cm (9.5x4 inches) spaced about 65cm (26 inches) apart (cavities filled with insulation material)
> From below, closed with battens and drywall panels
> On top of the beams lies a 19mm (0.75 inch) OSB board
> On the OSB board, a 40mm (1.5 inch) impact sound insulation (Pavaboard by Pavatex) was laid
> Edge insulation strips were installed beforehand to prevent any contact with the walls
> Then a low-profile underfloor heating system by Schlüter
> The screeding contractor applied a thin cement screed of about 20mm (0.8 inch)
> Finally, a 14mm (0.55 inch) parquet flooring was glued on, resulting in a total floor build-up height of 12cm (5 inches), level with the floor-to-ceiling doors.
This recommendation came from the timber builder, but he rejected all responsibility. The house was generally very expensive, as we built during the costly 2021 construction period when raw material prices skyrocketed, making the disappointing result even more frustrating.
The children are growing and, as toe-walkers, the impact noise is becoming almost unbearable. These dull footfalls cause vibrations that reach the bed, and on the ground floor it feels like elephants are walking above.
By now, we are so far that we would consider moving out temporarily to have this construction defect fixed at a cost.
We are from NRW and are looking for a specialist to identify the cause and supervise the remediation work.
I look forward to your information and assistance.
Thank you very much!
In 2021, we built a single-family house with an experienced timber builder. The architect had originally designed the house as a solid construction, but based on a recommendation, we decided to have it built as a timber frame house since we had waited over 1.5 years for the building permit / planning permission and were convinced by the ecological and especially fast construction method.
The house was assembled in three days, and then we decided to manage the interior finishing ourselves with our own craftsmen. All materials for the interior work were provided by the builder. Overall, we are satisfied with the construction, but the major issue is the impact noise and vibration when walking.
This is because we only had a floor build-up height of 12cm (5 inches) above the beams.
We thought we could live with it eventually, but it is extremely exhausting to hear the dull noises while lying in bed, and the noise from the floor above is almost unbearable.
I would like to briefly explain the structure of the ceiling from the ground floor to the first floor:
First of all, there are large beams measuring 24x10cm (9.5x4 inches) spaced about 65cm (26 inches) apart (cavities filled with insulation material)
> From below, closed with battens and drywall panels
> On top of the beams lies a 19mm (0.75 inch) OSB board
> On the OSB board, a 40mm (1.5 inch) impact sound insulation (Pavaboard by Pavatex) was laid
> Edge insulation strips were installed beforehand to prevent any contact with the walls
> Then a low-profile underfloor heating system by Schlüter
> The screeding contractor applied a thin cement screed of about 20mm (0.8 inch)
> Finally, a 14mm (0.55 inch) parquet flooring was glued on, resulting in a total floor build-up height of 12cm (5 inches), level with the floor-to-ceiling doors.
This recommendation came from the timber builder, but he rejected all responsibility. The house was generally very expensive, as we built during the costly 2021 construction period when raw material prices skyrocketed, making the disappointing result even more frustrating.
The children are growing and, as toe-walkers, the impact noise is becoming almost unbearable. These dull footfalls cause vibrations that reach the bed, and on the ground floor it feels like elephants are walking above.
By now, we are so far that we would consider moving out temporarily to have this construction defect fixed at a cost.
We are from NRW and are looking for a specialist to identify the cause and supervise the remediation work.
I look forward to your information and assistance.
Thank you very much!
N
nordanney15 Mar 2024 14:54woodhouse schrieb:
I look forward to information and helpIt sounds like the upper floor ceiling is acting like a drum. A thin surface with a substantial resonance cavity underneath. No immediate solution due to a lack of experience with the stud frame. Perhaps consider replacing the insulation in the cavities with a denser material.
Hello questioner,
Regarding the basic structure of the floor construction, the originally chosen design seems reasonable to me. Except for the impact sound insulation layer.
If we look at the technical datasheet for "Pavaboard," we find the following manufacturer’s note:
"This wood fiber insulation, with a very high compressive strength of 200 kPa, is ideal for highly load-bearing dry and wet screed constructions."
------------------
Ideal materials for impact sound insulation in timber frame constructions are mineral wool or, for fire safety reasons, glass wool. These come in the form of compressed boards.
Now, let’s look at the text from the product description of PAVABOARD. It states that this underlay/board has a very high compressive strength of 200 kPa at 10% compression (Note: normative requirement for the test). Even a layperson should take notice here: high compressive strength always means a high material density. And the principle of impact sound insulation is that sound should be “neutralized” as much as possible within the material. The harder/denser a material is, the worse its ability is to absorb sound energy.
Now, before critics raise objections, it is a justified point that every material used for impact sound insulation only absorbs specific sound frequencies. This can mean that one material absorbs higher frequencies better, while another absorbs lower frequencies better.
Back to the product datasheet: this shows a compressive strength of 200 kPa for the "Pavaboard" underlay. Now, for comparison, let’s look at the datasheet of a mineral wool impact sound insulation. There, depending on the insulation type, compressive stress ranges between 5 kPa and 40 kPa. This means that this impact sound insulation can absorb significantly less stress internally than "Pavaboard." However, a functioning impact sound insulation is characterized by its inability to absorb high stress, but rather to convert it into deformation due to its “springy” properties.
(I hope I was able to explain myself clearly on this rather complex topic.) This means: from my point of view, the impact sound insulation underlay used should not have been applied in timber frame construction, but rather glass wool or mineral wool.
----------------------------
What now arises from this point onward is the question of how to proceed further.
From my own experience, I can say with near certainty that, due to the expected high renovation costs, an agreement between the parties and those responsible will not be possible. It will lead to a legal dispute, during which the court will involve one or more acoustics experts. Their measurements will provide a very clear assessment of the situation.
I myself worked on a similar case as an expert witness in court. Since sound insulation is not my field of expertise, I obtained court approval to involve an acoustics expert. This was granted, and I was surprised at the professional conclusions that could be drawn from the measurement curves obtained!
This means: without an acoustics expert and their measurements, no decisions will likely be made.
-----------------
Sorry for this "bad" news: KlaRa
Regarding the basic structure of the floor construction, the originally chosen design seems reasonable to me. Except for the impact sound insulation layer.
If we look at the technical datasheet for "Pavaboard," we find the following manufacturer’s note:
"This wood fiber insulation, with a very high compressive strength of 200 kPa, is ideal for highly load-bearing dry and wet screed constructions."
------------------
Ideal materials for impact sound insulation in timber frame constructions are mineral wool or, for fire safety reasons, glass wool. These come in the form of compressed boards.
Now, let’s look at the text from the product description of PAVABOARD. It states that this underlay/board has a very high compressive strength of 200 kPa at 10% compression (Note: normative requirement for the test). Even a layperson should take notice here: high compressive strength always means a high material density. And the principle of impact sound insulation is that sound should be “neutralized” as much as possible within the material. The harder/denser a material is, the worse its ability is to absorb sound energy.
Now, before critics raise objections, it is a justified point that every material used for impact sound insulation only absorbs specific sound frequencies. This can mean that one material absorbs higher frequencies better, while another absorbs lower frequencies better.
Back to the product datasheet: this shows a compressive strength of 200 kPa for the "Pavaboard" underlay. Now, for comparison, let’s look at the datasheet of a mineral wool impact sound insulation. There, depending on the insulation type, compressive stress ranges between 5 kPa and 40 kPa. This means that this impact sound insulation can absorb significantly less stress internally than "Pavaboard." However, a functioning impact sound insulation is characterized by its inability to absorb high stress, but rather to convert it into deformation due to its “springy” properties.
(I hope I was able to explain myself clearly on this rather complex topic.) This means: from my point of view, the impact sound insulation underlay used should not have been applied in timber frame construction, but rather glass wool or mineral wool.
----------------------------
What now arises from this point onward is the question of how to proceed further.
From my own experience, I can say with near certainty that, due to the expected high renovation costs, an agreement between the parties and those responsible will not be possible. It will lead to a legal dispute, during which the court will involve one or more acoustics experts. Their measurements will provide a very clear assessment of the situation.
I myself worked on a similar case as an expert witness in court. Since sound insulation is not my field of expertise, I obtained court approval to involve an acoustics expert. This was granted, and I was surprised at the professional conclusions that could be drawn from the measurement curves obtained!
This means: without an acoustics expert and their measurements, no decisions will likely be made.
-----------------
Sorry for this "bad" news: KlaRa
W
woodhouse16 Mar 2024 13:36nordanney schrieb:
It sounds like the upper floor ceiling is acting like a drum. A thin surface with a substantial resonance cavity underneath. No quick solution due to lack of experience with the stud framework. Perhaps replacing the insulation in the cavities with a denser material. Hello nordanney, thank you very much for your assessment. I also suspect it is a kind of resonance cavity because the thin screed layer rests on the lightweight studded panel of the underfloor heating. We have also considered insulating the cavities with concrete.
I am looking for an expert or soundproofing consultant who can investigate this and then recommend a reliable construction method.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you
W
woodhouse16 Mar 2024 13:43KlaRa schrieb:
Sorry for this “bad” news: KlaRaHi KlaRa, thank you for the detailed information. The news isn’t bad; we understand that a costly fix is necessary, and we are prepared to allocate time for it, of course. We just want a solution.
Pavaboard is widely used as an underlayment, the carpenter uses it in almost every house, and the supplier also recommended it as an underlayer. In the end, isn’t glass wool too soft?
PAVABOARD is ideally suited as an underlayer beneath all types of liquid screeds, dry screeds, as well as engineered hardwood and laminate flooring. Due to its high compressive strength, the board is perfectly suitable for applications with heavy loads.We do not want any legal dispute or lawsuit since it was ultimately our decision to use this based on the recommendation, so as mentioned above, this is not a turnkey prefab home solution.
Does anyone know contacts for specialists who can inspect this and ultimately manage the noise mitigation?
Many thanks in advance!
N
Nice-Nofret17 Mar 2024 10:35A carpet instead of hardwood flooring would also help.
Similar topics