Lit

epanelisaninnov a
tiv
eli
ght
wei
ghtwa
ll
ing
productthati
sde s
ignedtoi
ncr
eas
eeffici
encyand
reduceinst
all
ati
ontime.

I
tisma deoutofl
ight
we i
ghtconc
retesandwiched
bet
wee ntwocalc
ium s
il
icat
eboards.T
hisgiv
e sit
s
di
sti
ncti
vedurabi
li
tywhil
ema i
ntai
ningaleveland
sm ot
mo hsurf
ace.

S
TC-
45dBt
o50dB
 litepanel
technical data sheet

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION: INSTALLATION METHOD:

1. Marking lines for installation

LITEPANEL is a non-load bearing lightweight concrete Based on the given plan, layout the reference lines for Litepanels, doors,
sandwich panel. It offers better thermal insulation, sound and window openings using visible marks on the floor, wall, slab, and
proofing, and fire resistance than your typical walling soffit.
material.
2. Applying Litepanel adhesive
Using a wet sponge, moisten the surface on which the adhesive is going
The innovative panel is intuitive in design which speeds up to be laid on. Mix the adhesive well to minimize shrinkage. After, apply a
installation time. layer of Litepanel Adhesive to the floor, wall and on the sides of the
Litepanel. Ensure that all the joints are fully filled. The compaction is
important since the adhesive, while hardening, tends to shrink slightly
SPECIFICATIONS: and thus pull away from the edges of the block.
Size: 0.61m x 2.44m x 0.1m
3. Installation of Litepanel
0.61m x 2.44m x 0.15m
Lay the first Litepanel into the right position. Lever from the bottom of
the litepanel using crowbar to ensure tight adhesion. Use a 2M level to
RAW MATERIALS: check the panel flatness and straightness.
Air entrained mortar (sand & cement) + Tension Fiber and
4. Fixing Litepanel
Calcium Silicate Board Temporary fix the Litepanel with wooden wedges and place. After, drill
a L shape, 9mmx180mmx75mm, 90° rebar dowel. Apply a concrete epoxy
CUSTOMER BENEFITS: on the dowel before attaching it to the slab, column or soffit.
Quick to install │
Economical │
Thermal Insulation │
Sound Insulation │
Lightweight │
Workable Strong & │ 5. Cutting Litepanels
The standard size of Litepanel is 2440mm x 608mm x 100/150. When the
Durable wall height or length is smaller than the Litepanel size, cut the panel
using circular saw or electric Sabre Cutter to the appropriate size and
then install.
PROPERTIES:

Color : Gray To install the second panel on top of the first, apply adhesive and then
insert 180mm x 9mm dia. bar from a 45° position to fix both panels
Toxicology : Non-Toxic together. Connect the panel to the soffit by attaching an L shape
9mmx200mmx75mm, 90° rebar.
Workability : Yes
6. Do the similar procedure for the succeeding panels.
Pullout Strength
7. Applying PU sealant
8mm Expansion Bolt : 180.49 kg The masonry should be cured for at least 3 days before applying
Litepanel flexible sealant. For anti-crack tape/mesh tape (optional),
10mm Expansion Bolt : 204.96 kg
allow the masonry to dry for 3 days before rendering over it. This is the
best practice to minimize cracks.
Compressive Strength (ASTM C513) : 400-500 psi

Acoustical Test (ASTM E336) : STC -57 dB 8. Slotting and Wiring

An electric saw or grinder and chisel is used to cut and create grooves
Fire Rating (ASTM E119) : Over 2 Hours for switch boxes, wires and pipes. Any gaps left behind can be filled
with Litepanel Adhesive.
Water Absorption (ASTM C1585-13) : 6%

NSCP Standard : Passed 9. Corner interlocking set-up of Litepanel is recommended unless

otherwise specified.
Weight
10. Litepanel is in uniform size, walls built with them provide an even
0.61 m x 2.44m x 0.1m : 115 kgs surface. Render the internal walls by adding a thin layer of fine skim coat
(2-3mm).
0.61 m x 2.44m x 0.15m : 167 kgs

Density : 750 km/m3 11. Apply a layer of waterproofing on the external side of the walls to
ensure weather proofing.
Board : Calcium Silicate Board
12. The structural support requirements of Litepanels must be followed
to ensure proper weather proofing.
 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE

LITEPANEL 4" (0.61m x 2.44m x 0.10m) P 2,136.60

LITEPANEL 6" (0.61m x 2.44m x 0.15m) P 2,922.47
LITEBLOCK™ Adhesive (25kg/bag) P 400.00

SAMPLE COSTING PER SQM

LITEPANEL 4"
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST/PANEL TOTAL/SQM

LITEPANEL 4" 1 SQM P 2,136.60 P 1,435.50

(0.61m x 2.44m x 0.10m)
LITEBLOCK™ Adhesive 4 KG P 16.00 P 64.00
(25kg)

Total Price (per sqm) P 1,499.50

OTHER MATERIALS
Deform bar (10mm x 6m) P 22.66
Concrete epoxy HV P 12.00
Hardie Putty P 48.10
Hardie Perforated Tape P 6.30

Total Material Cost (VAT inclusive) P 1,588.56

LITEPANEL 6"
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST/PANEL TOTAL/SQM

LITEPANEL 6" 1 SQM P 2,922.47 P 1,963.49

(0.61m x 2.44m x 0.15m)
LITEBLOCK™ Adhesive 5 KG P 16.00 P 80.00
(25kg)

Total Price (per sqm) P 2,043.49

OTHER MATERIALS
Deform bar (10mm x 6m) P 22.66
Concrete epoxy HV P 12.00
Hardie Putty P 48.10
Hardie Perforated Tape P 6.30

Total Material Cost (VAT inclusive) P 2,132.55

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE

CONNECTION
DETAILS
S001
S002
S003
S004
S005
S006
S007
S008
S009
S0010
S0011
S0012
S0013
S0014
S0015
S0016
S0017
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE

LITEPANEL
TEST RESULTS
COMPRESSIVE STRENGHT TEST
FIRE RATING TEST
WATER ABSORPTION TEST
PULLOUT TEST
ACOUSTICAL TEST
EXTERIOR (WIND LOAD) TEST
PERFORMANCE TEST
;111 .$r . .,:': i
irj.l EF.n i!
i t:t ;F-_r tr ,'
11,, I

! li \\.1 1..,t
I ,l
\rli
,,.1::1.,
: tii 'i,
.,n3(]
I .0J
i
':E.'! l"
I
. f-l 'Li'l
i Aa :,
r; ..-,
o .-\ '
u3
,Jf
fti
':r
,;m
6' .tr
'-a.
.il. l.in
i-Q -
a
!1
o n,<- m
f .n
n
J
.'{

ttr
! .. !
iit)
*l

\5tli
F
trn iriill
ral
Il
-{ tr-t
H,'ll
t) 4tI
t1l i]

I
Hl
u,i ll I
I -.{: ll
l,
i. . tr'I
I
0l
=l rfl il
a dll
\l l.
iloI
ffit ll
-l:
(nl
E.l
-ilfl i

o,l,, rr: u' .lf

*'if,
:l rL I
UI
+l il
tr1. ui
1r1
6l [
'rf ir
I
'I '*t hlI
i!'
I
9.
l F
rc
;fil
:-i. ll
! ir:: ll
E,
It= frJI
ii+ H
d'I
I='li L ii
I ir' 1'"t' -,..
-t-
oa dI,
I i:
IA I
I

,l

I
Z,I
ul
rl
*t
r
-lo l.,
Eil
fl "
dl'
+l
.tr. l. - .

"l,,'[,
''
l',
 November 22,2022

MR. JOHN MICHAEL RAMAS

LITECRETE CORPORAfiON
!! {venue, Umapad, Mandaue City
Cebu 6014
CP: 0912 7OA 2ZSO

Dear Mr. Ramas:

This refers to the one (1) unit

of LITEPANEL measuring
of calciumsilicate-Bo3io,
Admixture that war tested
c"'*ionni"*[, ffi,:], 00mm x 61mmFiber
1 x 1000mm made
and speciar
roi iie iesiJtance ioilowing
forypropyrene
the
stipurated underAP.TM E11b,
was conducted inside
i* i:-"j:it{uqdi"onstruction and Materiars. The
standard specification
test
the compound r-fficnErE 6*por"tion, u.N. Avenue,
Mandaue citv' cebu on ruo,"ili.i')z,zozi.iierrrEelryrl
_of Umapad,
position to the flame that was exposed to horizontar
lasteJ ioi on. r,unorJ
-fir" l"nr;" (4z)minutes
temperature is ,olltolgg
pyrometer. The resurt of
ilt and the maximum
,inrtes using. a. thermocoupte attached
to a
the test is ,ho*n'in tn'J rlii"'n",o*.

With few
" _ the flame
&Oe as above
Same as above
Seme as above
Size of crack i
Same as above

ZL--'
 $31rrea;above
SgOe asEove
Size of Cracxt-

Same as above
Same as aboG
Same as above
Same al aOove
broken, enO of test
Note: The LITEPANEL (10omm
x x.1000mm) made of carcium siricate Board,
91,1, riu"i,ni
dpeciarAominure Jio not snow
;r"ffJllflfJ".f:?#t:;"?l1i;prsl"
derectwasobservedonryrft;;;rili:=;iJr::X%%:#-"r:;:ilffi
si1;n
defect was observed ontv artcr76,,-,,:?_,1^":1ly-:1"g" of exposur rnO", the flame. Ttre
observed on the litepanel
y:*H"",":]:
"u.r"""'in"t *"" ;ft;; under the frame. Eventuary, the
r+z *Nutes or the nrr" *iin an averase heat
[tr#:iy,.:*'',",t"J]Zg:.. "*poi,Irl-u,ioer
Conclusion:

The identification and other technicaldescription

bv Mr' John ruic!19! nrrr",-[irecnEii of the LITEpANEL were provided
cebu' The LlrEPAruer- troo---; Eil;."tio.n, Mandaue city,
cement' Aggregat^eagltg1, ..:-q; ngoi,ili madsof!1apad,
carlium siricate Boarcr,
iJltpropytene riueilnd speciat Admixture,
accordance with ASTM E1le, Fi.e
achieved a FIRE REslsYArlde
r6sts or arirjir,g cor"ir;;ii;; and tested in
Materiars
nnrtNc-oi raii,rr-rurEs wHEN rEsrED
FIRE AGAINST INTERIOR
SUiEiCC ONLY. wrrl{

ffimrationspeciarist
Witnessed by:

SFO1 oinny D. Zamoras

 November 22,2022

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that the LITEPANEL,

of calcium silicate Board, cimgn-t measuring 100mm x 60mm x 1000mm made
special Admixture was tested--foreggrelai;l porypropyrene Fiber
-dr.'i"risincg_foilowing
w"t"r, and
stipulated unaeresrn ers, rii.]L1t" the standard
iffi;l::tion of Buitding construction and

ThE LITEPANEL TESTED IN

-iirrlures
ACCORDANCE WTH.4!IM E119, AGHIEVED A FIRE
REs lsrANcE RAING oF
ili
oF 1034'67oc WHEN rEsrED i'viin wiinen'evenacE HEAr rEl,rpERAru
RE
HRi aeniiii? rNrERroR suRFAcE oNLy.
This certification is issued for whatever
regat purpose it may se'e.

ar
SFO/| Danny D. Zamoras
BFP- Mandaue City
 4/|ffi
suu-uH
;"lm:^. "-o DPWH _ ERs

Poge ^f nl*:#. ACGREDITED LABORATORY

VALTD UNTTL :12 _
06 _ 2o2O
10ft
Doto
FEBRUARY 10, 2023
lebotvtoty No.
jI4"rL-2302-1001

Proj€et Nama
LITEPANEL

Lo@ttan

Controctor
LITECRETE CORP.
Moteriot Descrtptton
8mm Exponsion Bott,
Liteponet
Specificotion
ASTM D - 4/]36
Tesbd By R. Mencedem;;;m;;;:
tvlLl'/MLA Altied Mot. Tesung

ffi
Lob, Februory 10.2023
ffi# FI
EXPANSION IJTEPANEL EXPANSION ANCHOR
BOLT # TFIICKNESS BOLT
I.ENGTH DATE DATEPULL
(rNcFrEs) (INCHES) DIAMETEN GAUGE READING
INSTAI,T-FD TESTED
(MM) REMARKS
(KN)
1 ,+
z.s i B Feb. 1Q 2023 Feb. 10,2023
1.69
PASSED
2 4 2.5 8 Feb. 10 2023 Feb.10,2023
1.73
PASSED
3 4 2.5
Feb. 1Q 2023 Feb. 1Q 2023
I
: 1.75
PASSED
4 2.5 8 Feb. 1Q 2023 Feb. 10,2023
1.80

"I*I
PASSED
5 4
Feb.10 2n,
u, tuzJ 1.86 | nasseo
yefage Maximum
-.=...----.: Lor.t A^^li
-: "rP!eu, N.r\: L77 r-
_-m-i*qt" rad, Applied, kg.:
---______ tto*rt rad Applied,.lbs.:
PASSED
-
Pepo@By: -#-J

rlon
dtrl"o"g"rera;frfr
,necked&Attesbd
By:

opemtio's *#/"r, Material Eargineet II

}.]Jj.ra U^tflihTesting Labontoties
+-!E

DPWH _ BRS
ACOREDTTED LABORATORY
vALtD UNTIL : t2 _ 06 _
2o2O
I of 1

FEBRUAITY 10, 2023

AMTL- 2302_1OO2

ProJectName
LITEPANEL

Locdtion
,rrorarra, rroooffi
Conttoctor
LlTr6pgT= coRP.
"*"Y
Matoriol Description
lomm Exponsion Bott,
Liteponet
Speclflcotton
ASTM D _ 4436
Tested By R. Mencede,/H.8" A".#;;
tat_r/ut-* Ailied Mot, Testing Lob.
Februory 10,2c.23

EXPANSION IJTEPANEL EXPANSION ANCIIOR

BOLT # T}IICtrNESS I.ENG'I'H BOL? DATE DATB PTII,L GAUGEREADING
(rNCHEs) (TNCHES) OIAMETE&
INSTAIJ"ED
(trIM) TESTI]D (KN) REMARKS
I 4 2.7 10 Feb. Q,ZQ23 Feb. lQ 2023 2.t7 PASSED
2 4 )< 10 Feb. 10,2023 Feb.10 2023
2.A5 PASSED
3 4 2,5 10 Feb. 10, 2023 Feb. 1Q 2023
1.86 PASSED
4 4 2.5 10 Feb. 10, 2023 Feb. 10, 2023 )rt PASSED
5 4 2.5 10 Feb.10,2023 I Feb. 1,0,2023
1.e7 | nasseo
,l{aximum Loar r :rypueo,
l\,I\: 2.07
Applied, I(s.;
Jad -___
244.96 PASSED
fuIaximum Lr;ad
-\pplied. lhs:
Test Wttnessect by: |
--
-,
Ptepared By:
--
- -l

AIIied Meterial Testing

Labomtories
& QC Manager
Checked & Attosh
Utecrete Cor.p. By:
"d

LULI-'
rf. consas
Operations
Fr/ Material Engineer II
Allied r\l Testing Laboutories
 ACOUSTIC/NOISE CONTROL TEST REPORT

CLIENT: Litecrete Corp. ATTN: John Michael Ramas

UN Avenue, Umapad, Mandaue City,
Cebu
SUBMISSION DATE: 16 March 2023
TEST DATE: 13 March 2023
TEST TIME: 10:30 pm
TEST TYPE: Field Sound Transmission Test for a Precast Partition Wall

I. Abstract
This test involves the determination of the sound isolation properties of the Litecrete Corp, LITEPANEL
partition wall at the Sound Transmission Test room at Litecrete Corp. Acoustic Analysis, Inc. was
commissioned by Litecrete Corp. to ascertain the as built sound transmission performance of the Litepanel
150mm thick precast partition.
Acoustic Analysis conducted sound transmission tests by placing a measurement microphone in the
designated receiver room and then generating pink noise in an adjacent room designated as the source room.
The difference in sound pressure levels between the source room and the receiver rooms were then
computed to determine the amount of sound transmission loss achieved by the glass partition wall separating
the two rooms. A summary of the results and conclusions follows:
• The results of these tests do not represent the performance of the partition wall alone but the
entire noise isolation performance between rooms including, wall to mullion joints, slab to mullion
joints, the quality of installation/construction of the wall as well as any other flanking paths such
as wall penetrations.
• The average sound attenuation through the unit partition wall was measured to be 33.1 dB. A
Field Sound Transmission Class rating of FSTC 51 was computed from the transmission loss results
and is found to be within tolerance of the required STC 50-55 for a plastered 150mm CHB wall as
Field Test ratings are accepted to perform from three to six STC points lower than lab rated results
for installed partitions.
A more detailed account of the abovementioned testing can be found in the following sections of the
report.

1
II. Objectives
1. To determine the sound transmission performance of the concrete precast wall partition
2. To ascertain potential problems and recommend solutions for improvement if needed

III. Test Details

Test Specimen Description:
Wall - 4560mm by 2700mm, 150mm thick concrete precast wall (see Appendix A)

Test Room:
Dimensions: 23.17 sqm X 2.7m (See Appendix B)
Finishes:
Floor: Concrete
Ceiling: Fiber cement board
Rear Wall: Concrete
Side Walls: Concrete

Equipment: NTi Audio XL2 Acoustic Analyzer

NTi Minirator MR-Pro Signal Generator
Powered Speaker + Stand

IV. Procedure
1) An NTi XL2 Acoustic Analyzer was placed in a bare unfinished room, that was designated as the
Receiver Room (see room details in Appendix A)
2) A playback sound system consisting of 1 powered loudspeaker and a signal generator was placed
at the Source Room separated by the Test Partition
3) The background noise spectrum for the receiver room was measured and recorded
4) The speaker in the Source Room was positioned to produce a diffuse sound field
5) Broadband pink noise was generated from a signal generator and played through the speaker
system at a sound pressure level of approximately 100 dB
6) The spectrum level output of the speaker, at a 1-meter distance from the test wall and 1.2 meter
height, was measured and recorded using an NTi XL2 Acoustic Analyzer to obtain a reference source
output level.
7) The NTi XL2 Acoustic Analyzer was then transferred to the Receiver Room facing the shared wall at
a 1-meter distance and the transmitted sound pressure level (SPL), and its spectral data, was
measured and recorded
8) Steps 3 to 7 were repeated for 3 points along the test wall spaced approximately 1 meter away
from walls and 1 meter apart horizontally

2
 9) The Reverberation Time at the Receiver Room was measured and recorded

V. Results
LITECRETE LITE PANEL SOUND TRANSMISSION TEST RESULTS
1/3 Octave Background SPL (dB) Source SPL (dB) Receiver SPL (dB) Transmission Loss
125 26.2 76.2 54.8 21.3
160 30.1 78.2 52.5 25.7
200 33.0 79.1 55.1 24.0
250 32.3 77.7 56.3 21.4
315 33.5 78.8 56.2 22.7
400 35.6 81.3 56.1 25.2
500 29.5 79.3 52.8 26.6
630 29.2 78.2 48.4 29.7
800 30.0 78.5 45.6 32.9
1000 33.1 82.6 45.9 36.7
1250 36.2 85.9 46.1 39.8
1600 35.2 82.3 40.8 41.5
2000 29.4 83.2 39.4 43.8
2500 27.6 85.6 38.6 47.0
3150 25.2 83.9 37.6 46.3
4000 23.0 86.6 41.3 45.3
Average 30.6 81.1 48.0 33.1

3
 Field STC computations for the test partition tested are provided below. These do not represent the actual
performance of the partition alone but also other sound flanking paths.

FIELD SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS RATING

Test Data
Surface area of test wall (sqm): Aw = 12.312
Total absorption of receiver room Ar = 0.23

COMPUTE TL FSTC
ITERATION
TL=Lp source - Lp receiver +10LOG(Aw/ Ar)
Field Sound Transmission Class FSTC: 51 <iterate FSTC Here

Frequency Lps Lpr TL

Frequency Contour Level TL CL-TL 1=pass
(Hz) (dB) (dB) (dB)
(Hz) (dB) (dB) (dB) 0=fail
125 76.2 54.8 38.6
125 35 38.6 0.0 1
160 78.2 52.5 43.0
160 38 43.0 0.0 1
200 79.1 55.1 41.3
200 41 41.3 0.0 1
250 77.7 56.3 38.7
250 44 38.7 5.3 1
315 78.8 56.2 40.0
315 47 40.0 7.0 1
400 81.3 56.1 42.5
400 50 42.5 7.5 1
500 79.3 52.8 43.9
500 51 43.9 7.1 1
630 78.2 48.4 47.0
630 52 47.0 5.0 1
800 78.5 45.6 50.2
800 54 50.2 3.8 1
1000 82.6 45.9 54.0
1000 55 54.0 1.0 1
1250 85.9 46.1 57.1
1250 55 57.1 0.0 1
1600 82.3 40.8 58.8
1600 55 58.8 0.0 1
2000 83.2 39.4 61.1
2000 55 61.1 0.0 1
2500 85.6 38.6 64.3
2500 55 64.3 0.0 1
3150 83.9 37.6 63.6
3150 55 63.6 0.0 1
4000 86.6 41.3 62.6
4000 55 62.6 0.0 1
Sum of defficiencies: 17.93 1 =pass/fail

4
 VI. Discussions
An actual field test of this type cannot be used to rate the performance of a wall panel alone.
There are too many variables which could influence the results of the test. A test of this type gives
an indication of the real-world overall noise isolation between rooms including all boundary surfaces
and all possible sound transmission paths such as air gaps, wall penetrations, construction joints, and
solid borne transmissions. It is accepted that field transmission ratings can be lower by up to 6 - 9
STC points than lab tested ratings (See Appendix E).
The Field Sound Transmission Class of the Lite Panel Precast wall at the was determined to be
FSTC 51. Based on standard computations, the Lite Panel 150mm precast wall panel has the potential
to perform at an STC 57. This surpasses the accepted ratings for 150mm CHB partitions with 25mm
plastering on both sides. A 150mm thick CHB Hollow wall with 25mm plastering on both sides totaling
200mm thick performs at STC 49 whereas a 150mm CHB partition with all cells filled with 25mm
plastering on both sides totaling 200mm thick performs at an STC 54 (See appendix C & D). A minimal
amount of sound transmission due to flanking paths from a drainpipe was perceived which would
lower the tested performance of the partitions.

Jose F. Hermano
President
Acoustic Analysis, Inc.

5
APPENDIX A: WALL DETAILS

6
7
APPENDIX B: ROOM DETAILS

8
APPENDIX C: 150mm CHB Wall hollow with 25mm plastering on both sides

9
APPENDIX D: 150mm CHB Wall filled with 25mm plastering on both sides

10
APPENDIX E: STC versus F

11
12
 PERFORMANCE TEST

OF

PARTITION WALL SYSTEM

USING

LITEPANEL 100MM THK

TESTED WITH REFERENCE TO

BS 5234 Part 2 : 1992

SUMMARY

Tested For Litepanel 100mm thk

Test Date June 5 - 6, 2023

Test Method Reference to BS 5234 Part 2 : 1992

Test Description The purpose of the test is to determine the resistance to damage of
partition system for use as internal walls of building.

Test Results

Table 1. Summary of grade requirements and principal test performance levels

Grade performance achieved

Requirement
Severe Duty (SD)

Partition Stiffness Passed

Small hard body impact

Surface damage Tested

Perforation Passed

Large soft body impact

Damage Passed

Structural damage Passed

Door Slam Passed

Table 2. Summary of tests for crowd pressure, lightweight and heavyweight

anchorages

Requirement Performance achieved

Crowd pressure Refer to 3.7

Lightweight anchorage – pull out Refer to separate pull out test report
Lightweight anchorage – pull down 250 N

Heavyweight anchorage – wash basin 1000 N

Heavyweight anchorage – wall cupboard 4000 N

Certified by:
1. TEST SETUP
Litepanel 100mm thk was installed as the wall specimen with 5100mm width x 2440mm height and a partition
junction assembly of a right-angle corner with a return of 1200mm for the performance test.

A doorset 1000mm width x 2100mm height and a 600mm run of partition flanking at one side of the doorset
was included in the wall specimen.

The setup was installed from May 29 – June 1, 2023.

Fig 1. Litepanel wall specimen for performance test

2. DESCRIPTION OF TESTS
The following tests were conducted with reference to British Standard 5234 Part 2:1992:
It is noteworthy that this test purportedly applied Note in Section 2.1 in BS 5234 Part 2: 1992 which states that
“dead weights, at a conversion of 1 kg to 10 N, may be used to apply forces specified”.

2.1. DETERMINATION OF PARTITION STIFFNESS (modified)

The test is to establish the ability of the partition to withstand people or ladder leaning against the partition wall
without causing unacceptable cracking or movement.

A static horizontal load total of 500 N was applied using a pre-weighed steel frame inclined on the partition
through 150mm dia steel plate with a contact rubber pad of 6mm thk. The load was applied at a height of
1500mm from the bottom of the setup. Deflection was taken on the load side at 125mm above the center point
of load application. A pretest load 100 N was maintained for 2 minutes then deflection was recorded. The load
was then applied in 100 N increments until 500 N before unloading and was sustained for 2 minutes in each
loading. Deflection was recorded at the end of the 2-minute intervals while the residual deflection was recorded
after 1 hour or when the partition has fully stabilized.
2.2. DETERMINATION OF SURFACE DAMAGE BY SMALL HARD BODY IMPACT
The test is to determine the resistance of the partition to damage from impacts by small, hard objects. A 3 kg /
50mm dia steel sphere impactor was used to simulate hard body object. It was attached to a 600mm length
swinging arm.

Total of 11 positions were selected on the partition for the test. Each position was subjected to 10 N•m impact
energy by raising the impactor at 63.6 then released. Bouncing or secondary impact of the impactor was
prevented.

The depth of indentation was recorded on each position. The 11th position was tested at the partition junction.

2.3. DETERMINATION OF RESISTANCE TO DAMAGE BY LARGE SOFT BODY IMPACT

The test is to simulate impact caused by people falling against or any large, soft object such as a ball hitting the
partition wall. A spheroconical bag 600mm x 400mm filled with hardened glass beads with a total weight of 50
kg was used as the impactor to simulate large soft body object.

Total of 3 positions were selected on solid point (no joint) of the partition for the test. Each position was subjected
to 100 N•m impact energy by raising the impactor to give a drop height of 204mm. The line was released and
prevented from bouncing.

Permanent deformation was recorded after the partition was allowed to stabilize for 5 minutes. The 3rd position
was tested at the partition junction.

2.4. DETERMINATION OF RESISTANCE TO PERFORATION BY SMALL HARD BODY IMPACT

The test is to determine the resistance of the partition to perforation from impacts by small, hard objects. A 3 kg
/ 50mm dia steel sphere impactor was used to simulate hard body object. It was attached to a 600mm length
swinging arm.

Total of 11 positions were selected on the partition for the test. Each position was subjected to 30 N•m impact
energy by raising the impactor at 131.8 then released. Bouncing or secondary impact of the impactor was
prevented.

The partition was inspected for any damage or perforation on each position. The 11th position was tested at the
partition junction.

2.5. DETERMINATION OF RESISTANCE TO STRUCTURAL DAMAGE BY LARGE SOFT BODY IMPACT

The test is to simulate impact caused by people falling against or any large, soft object such as a ball hitting the
partition wall. A spheroconical bag 600mm x 400mm filled with hardened glass beads with a total weight of 50
kg was used as the impactor to simulate large soft body object.

Total of 3 positions were selected on solid point (no joint) of the partition for the test. Each position was subjected
to 3 impacts with impact energy of 120 N•m by raising the impactor to give a drop height of 245mm. The line
was released and prevented from bouncing.
The partition was inspected for any surface or structural damage.

2.6. DETERMINATION OF THE EFFECTS OF DOOR SLAMMING

The test simulates a door being forcefully slammed by a person, wind, or tensioned door closer.

A 60 kg door leaf was slammed through an opening angle of 60 using a 15 kg test weight for 100 times. A pre-
slam test (3 times) was done, and residual displacement was recorded. The partition and door frame were
allowed to stabilize for 5 minutes before measuring residual displacement. Any damage during and after the test
was also recorded.

2.7. DETERMINATION OF RESISTANCE TO CROWD PRESSURE (modified)

The test simulates a uniform band load such as a crowd leaning against the wall.

A separate wall specimen 3m x 2.4m was horizontally placed with concrete beam as the base and the side with
dowel resting on top of metal channel as soffit, imitating seismic joint. Instead of timber beam, a 10” x 6” I-beam
was placed 1.2m from the base and was used to apply concentrated load on the specimen. An increment of 125
kg up to 2250 kg was loaded through the I-beam.

Deflection was measured above the beam. Any changes during the test was recorded.

2.8. LIGHTWEIGHT ANCHORAGE PULL DOWN TEST

The test bracket was mounted on the partition where one side has the anchorage, and the other side is where
the load test is. Pull-up shim plate was placed before tightening the anchorage. A pull down load of 250 N parallel
to the wall was applied on the bracket. The load was sustained for 1 minute before unloading. Displacement
was measured just above the bracket. It was also recorded whether the pull-up shim plate was released or not.

2.9. HEAVYWEIGHT ANCHORAGE (WASH BASIN) ECCENTRIC DOWNWARD LOADING TEST

A steel bracket identical to a standard wash basin was mounted on the partition and the shims were inserted
before tightening the anchorage. A preload of 200 N was gradually applied and maintained for 1 minute before
unloading. Cyclic load of the following sequence was then applied at approximately 1 minute intervals:
500, 750, 500, 500, 750, 500, 750, 500, 1000, 500, 1000, 500, 1250, 500, 1250, 500, 1500, 500, 1500 & 500 N.

Maximum deflection was recorded at each measuring point. Residual deflections were taken after 5 minutes
from unloading on both faces midpoint between the brackets. Any damage during and after the test was also
recorded.

2.10. HEAVYWEIGHT ANCHORAGE (HIGH LEVEL WALL CUPBOARD) ECCENTRIC DOWNWARD

LOADING TEST
A steel bracket identical to a standard wall cupboard was mounted on the partition and the shims were inserted
before tightening the anchorage. A preload of 200 N was gradually applied and maintained for 1 minute before
unloading. Incremental load of the following sequence was then applied at approximately 1 minute intervals:
500, 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500, 3000, 3500, 4000 N.
Maximum deflection was recorded at each measuring point. Residual deflections were taken after 5 minutes
from unloading on both faces midpoint between the brackets.
3. INDIVIDUAL TEST REPORTS

3.1. STIFFNESS (modified)

Grade tested: Severe Duty

Load applied: 500 N

Residual
Load Duration Deflection Condition of
Deflection BS 5234 Part 2: 1992 Requirements
(N) (min) (mm) specimen
(mm)

Pretest
load of 1 0 - 1. There shall be no damage or
100 N detachment, loosening or
dislodgement of partition wall’s
100 2 0 - parts or fixing.

2 No damage
200 0 -
occurred
2. The maximum deflection and
300 2 0 - residual deformation shall not
400 2 0 - exceed 10 and 1 mm respectively.

500 2 0 0.0

Fig 2. Location of applied load for determination of partition stiffness

3.2. SURFACE DAMAGE BY SMALL HARD BODY IMPACT

Grade tested: Severe Duty

Impact energy level: 10 N•m

Depth of
Impact X Y Condition of
indentation BS 5234 Part 2: 1992 Requirements
Position (mm) (mm) specimen
(mm)

1 2058 608 1.2

1. No specific criterion for acceptance
2 2220 608 1.5
3 2415 608 1.2
2. Attached photographs of surface
4 2585 608 1.4 damages for the authority
5 2925 608 1.4 judgement to be made whether can
be easilyrepaired for acceptance
6 3258 608 1.4 Tested
7 3585 608 1.4
8 3995 608 1.4
9 4237 608 1.5
10 4498 608 1.2
11 170* 608 1.4
* Standard X position for corner junction is 75mm from the corner. Due to frame limitation, 11th position was tested at 170mm from the corner.

Fig 3. Locations of small hard body impact for

surface damages (above)
Fig 4. Close up view of indentations (left) –
surface damage by small hard body
3.3. DAMAGE BY LARGE SOFT BODY IMPACT

Grade tested: Severe Duty

Impact energy level: 100 N•m

Residual Condition
Impact X Y
deflection of BS 5234 Part 2: 1992 Requirements
Position (mm) (mm)
(mm) specimen

1 2885 1200 1.0 The partition wall and right angle junction shall
No be capable of withstanding the impact energy
2 4100 1200 1.0 damage without sustaining either permanent
occurred deformationin excess of 2 mm or any damage.
3 865* 1220 1.0
* Standard X position for corner junction is 200mm from the corner. Due to frame limitation, 3rd position was tested at 865mm from the corner.

Fig 5. Locations of large soft body impact for resistance to damage

3.4. PERFORATION BY SMALL HARD BODY IMPACT

Grade tested: Severe Duty

Impact energy level: 30 N•m

Impact X Y Depth Condition of

BS 5234 Part 2: 1992 Requirements
Position (mm) (mm) (mm) specimen

1 2425 500 4.1

2 2651 500 4.2
3 2815 500 3.8
4 2945 500 3.8
5 3127 500 3.7 There shall be no perforation of the
partition wall on corner junction, or
6 3286 500 3.6 No perforation
panel after being subjected to the
7 3463 500 4.0 impact energy.
8 3917 500 3.7
9 4108 500 3.8
10 4279 500 3.7
11 180* 500 3.8
* Standard X position for corner junction is 75mm from the corner. Due to frame limitation, 11 th position was tested at 180mm from the corner.

Fig 6. Locations of small hard body impact for

perforation (above)
Fig 7. Close up view of indentations (left) -
perforation by small hard body
3.5. STRUCTURAL DAMAGE BY LARGE SOFT BODY IMPACTS

Grade tested: Severe Duty

Impact energy level: 120 N•m

Impact X Y
(mm) (mm) Condition of BS 5234 Part 2: 1992 Requirements
Position specimen

1 2885 1400 The partition wall shall be capable of

withstanding the impact energy, without
No damage occurred
collapsing or dislocating the partition wall or its
2 4100 1400 fixings.

Fig 8. Locations of large soft body impact for resistance to structural damage
3.6. DOOR SLAM

Grade tested: Severe Duty

Door weight: 60 kg

Residual
Number of Condition of
deflection Observations BS 5234 Part 2: 1992 Requirements
slams specimen
(mm)

1. The partition shall not be damaged,

Pretest of 3 - nor shall door frame fittings and
architraves become detached or
loose after the door leaf has been
Partition not
slammed.
Hairline crack on lintel damaged.
30 -
started to show 2. The closing jamb of the door frame
No frame
shall not be permanently displaced
Hairline crack on stiffener fittings were
by more than 3mm as a result of the
70 - on the lock side started to detached or
pre-slam test and by more than 1 mm
show became loose.
as a result of the main slam test, from
its position at the start of the test,
100 Neither of the cracks measured at 1.0m above the bottom
1.0
propagated or widened of the door leaf.

Fig 9. Locations of small hard body impact for perforation

3.7. CROWD PRESSURE (modified)

Load applied: 2250 kg

Residual
Load Duration Deflection
deflection Observations Condition of specimen
(kg) (min) (mm)
(mm)

Pretest
1 0.0 0.0
of 200
125 2 0.0 -
250 2 0.0 -
375 2 1.0 -
500 2 1.0 -
625 2 1.0 -
750 2 1.0 -
875 2 1.0 -
1000 2 1.0 -
Sample did not collapse or
1125 2 2.0 - shatter
1250 2 3.0 - Visible crack at beam and panel joint
1375 2 3.0 - Joints near dowel side start to tear
1500 2 3.0 -
1625 2 3.0 -
1750 2 3.0 -
Crack widened to 1mm at beam
1875 2 5.0 -
and panel joint
2000 2 5.0 -
2125 2 5.0 -
2250 2 6.0 8.7
There shall be no collapse or damage that would render the partition wall
BS 5234 Part 2: 1992 dangerous, due to any of its parts becoming dislodged or shattered, in a manner
that could cause injury.

Fig 10. Setup of the modified crowd pressure test

3.8. LIGHTWEIGHT ANCHORAGE PULL DOWN

Load applied: 250 N

Type of anchorage used: 6mm dia screw, 10” wall plug

Duration Deflection Condition of

Load (N) BS 5234 Part 2: 1992 Requirements
(min) (mm) specimen

1. The partition wall shall withstand the traverse load

without releasing the pull-up shim plate or
damaging the partition other than superficial
No damage
250 1 0.5 cracking .
occurred
2. The maximum movement of the pull-down bracket
shall not exceed 2mm.

Fig 11. Location of applied load for lightweight anchorage pull down test

Fig 12. Anchorage used for pull down test

3.9. HEAVYWEIGHT ANCHORAGE WASH BASIN

Load applied: 1000 N

Type of anchorage used: G.I. expansion shield with lag screw 5/8” x 2 ½“

Time Deflection (mm) Residual deflection (mm) Condition of

Load (N) specimen
(min) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Pretest load
1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
of 200
500 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - - -
750 1 0.3 0.2 1.0 1.0 - - - -
500 1 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 - - - - Pull up shim
750 1 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.2 - - - - plate not
500 1 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.1 - - - - released
1000 1 0.5 0.8 0.2 0.2 - - - - Refer to Fig 23
500 1 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 - - - - in Annex
1000 1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 - - - -
500 1 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.2 - - - -
1250 1 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.7 - - - -
500 1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.0
The anchorages shall be capable of withstanding the load selected applied to
BS 5234 Part 2: 1992 the 2 linked brackets without releasing either pull-up shim plate, exceeding 20
mm deflection or 1 mm residual deformation limits and without loosening,
detaching, or damaging the partition wall.

Fig 13. Location of applied load for heavyweight anchorage wash basin eccentric downward loading test

Fig 14. Anchorage used for wash basin test

3.10. HEAVYWEIGHT ANCHORAGE WALL CUPBOARD

Load applied: 4000 N

Type of anchorage used: G.I. expansion shield with lag screw 5/8” x 2 ½“

Time Deflection (mm) Residual deflection (mm) Condition of

Load (N) specimen
(min) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Pretest load
1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
of 200
500 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - - -
Pull up shim
1000 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - - - plate not
1500 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 - - - - released
2000 1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.5 - - - -
2500 1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 - - - - Refer to Fig 24
3000 1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 - - - - in Annex
3500 1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 - - - -
4000 1 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3
The anchorages shall be capable of withstanding the load selected applied to
BS 5234 Part 2: 1992 the 2 linked brackets without releasing either pull-up shim plate, exceeding 5
mm deflection or 1 mm residual deformation limits and without loosening,
detaching, or damaging the partition wall.

Fig 15. Location of applied load for heavyweight anchorage wash basin eccentric downward loading test

Fig 16. Anchorage used for wash basin test

ANNEX: TEST SETUP

Fig 17. Stiffness test Fig 18. Small hard body impact test

Fig 19. Large soft body impact test

 Fig 20. Door slam test

Fig 21. Crowd pressure test

Fig 22. Pull down test Fig 23. Wash basin test

Fig 24. Wall cupboard test