News Center

Let’s talk about low-density board.


Recently, there have been quite a few inquiries about low-density boards, so I’ve decided to write an article to explain everything clearly.

First, let’s clarify: the low-density boards we’re referring to here are fiber-reinforced cement products, including fiber-cement boards and calcium silicate boards.

 

 

So, what exactly is low-density board? Here, we’re primarily discussing asbestos-free boards; chrysotile asbestos-based boards are not within the scope of this discussion.

 

 

In fact, the current industry standards for fiber-cement boards and calcium silicate boards—namely, “JC/T412.1 Fiber-Cement Flat Boards, Part 1: Asbestos-Free Fiber-Cement Flat Boards” and “JC/T564.1 Fiber-Reinforced Calcium Silicate Boards, Part 1: Asbestos-Free Calcium Silicate Boards”—do not contain any provisions specifically addressing low-density boards. With regard to “density,” there is only a brief statement: the apparent density shall not be less than the specified value indicated in the manufacturer’s documentation.

 

 

This is awkward—when it comes to the low-density boards and high-density boards that everyone often talks about, the standards actually fail to provide a clear definition. The phrase about “density” in the standard above, translated into plain language, boils down to this: The name doesn’t matter; I’ll decide the density myself. It truly confirms that old saying: If you’re not embarrassed, it’s others who are.

 

 

As we all know, the current industry standards for fiber-cement boards and calcium silicate boards were issued in 2018 and came into effect on September 1, 2018. But did the earlier standards contain more detailed specifications regarding “density”? Surprisingly, they did. Not only do the standards JC/T412.1-2006, "Asbestos-Free Fiber-Cement Flat Boards," and JC/T564.1-2008, "Asbestos-Free Calcium Silicate Boards," include statements related to "density," but we also found relevant clauses in the standard JC/T566-2022, "Perforated Fiber-Cement Boards for Sound Absorption." However, taken together, these provisions—scattered across various now-abolished and current standards—are not consistently worded. The following table provides a detailed breakdown:

 

Standard Name

Relevant provisions

Excerpt from the terms and conditions

JC/T412.1-2006 Asbestos-Free Fiber Cement Flat Sheets

6.3 Physical Properties

Low density: 0.8 ≤ D ≤ 1.1 g/cm³;

Medium density: 1.1 ≤ D ≤ 1.4 g/cm³;

High density: 1.4 ≤ D ≤ 1.7 g/cm³

JC/T564.1-2008 Asbestos-Free Calcium Silicate Board

6.3 Physical Properties

D0.8:D ≤ 0.95 g/cm³;

D1.1: 0.95 < D ≤ 1.20 g/cm³;

D1.3:1.20 < D ≤ 1.40 g/cm³;

D1.5:D > 1.40 g/cm³

JC/T566-2022 Perforated Fiber Cement Board for Sound Absorption

6.4.1 Physical Properties

Low density ≤ 1.0 g/cm³;

Medium density > 1.0–1.3 g/cm³;

High density > 1.3 g/cm³

 

It should be noted that although the standard “JC/T566-2022 Perforated Fiber Cement Board for Sound Absorption” does not explicitly mention calcium silicate boards in its title, Clause 3—Terms and Definitions, Item 3.1—Perforated Fiber Cement Board for Sound Absorption—defines such boards as those made from asbestos-free fiber cement slabs or asbestos-free calcium silicate boards, which have been perforated to produce panels with identically shaped holes arranged symmetrically (or asymmetrically). Note: These boards are commonly referred to as perforated boards. It is thus clearly stated that this standard applies to calcium silicate boards as well.

 

 

Now, here’s the issue: Although both “JC/T412.1-2006 Asbestos-Free Fiber Cement Flat Boards” and “JC/T564.1-2008 Asbestos-Free Calcium Silicate Boards” contain provisions regarding density, these two standards have already been superseded by newer ones. Yet, the new standards fail to carry over the original standards’ specific density classifications. In other words, many manufacturers today are simply making unsubstantiated claims about “low-density boards”—they’re just playing with words and engaging in semantic games.

Why do you say that?

Because as long as you’re willing, even if you’re talking nonsense all the time, no one can fault you for it.

 

 

Doesn’t that sound kind of magical? Reality is always more fascinating than any story. Let me give you an example: Suppose you’ve developed a board with a density of 1.25 g/cm³—whether you call it fiber-cement board or calcium silicate board. Now, you decide to give it a brand-new name: “low-density **board”—and then publicly claim its density is actually 1.0 g/cm³. What’s going to happen? Absolutely nothing. As long as this board isn’t used for perforated panels, no one will dare accuse you of outright lying. Even if a testing agency conducts a spot check on your board at the site, they’ll still stamp the report with a “pass” label. Haha—that’s pretty funny, isn’t it? And yet, it’s dead serious.

Of course, extreme situations may arise, but they won't last long—eventually, the market will give those who merely talk about innovation a satisfying answer.

 

 

Regarding inquiries about low-density boards, to sum it up in one sentence: Since the new standards categorize boards into three classes—A, B, and C—each corresponding to different application scenarios ranging from outdoor to indoor use, boards must possess varying physical properties to meet these diverse requirements. As long as they satisfy the performance criteria for each of these A, B, and C categories, there’s no need to obsess over density. Wouldn’t it be even better if they could achieve both light weight and high strength? Conversely, even if your board has an extremely low density, but its physical performance is utterly poor—rendering it as brittle as crumbled cookies—what’s the point of pursuing low density for its own sake?

For users, simply clarify what you need and choose accordingly—after all, the three categories of fiber-cement products already cover most of our application scenarios. If you’re dealing with special applications where density is particularly important and you’re looking for lower-density inorganic boards, there’s no need to stick exclusively to fiber-cement products. Instead, consider alternatives such as magnesium oxide boards or gypsum boards. On thicker boards within the so-called low-density range, you might find even greater cost-effectiveness.

Disclaimer: Some images are sourced from the internet. If any infringement occurs, please contact us for removal.

 

Related Content


Definition: Calcium Silicate Board

In everyday life, we sometimes encounter cases of homonyms. During casual conversation, when referring to people with the same name, we have to add prefixes or suffixes for clarification; otherwise, it becomes unclear who we’re talking about. This phenomenon isn’t unique to Chinese speakers—after frequent exchanges between Chinese and foreign literary and artistic works, the prevalence of names like Tom, Jimmy, and David in overseas media has led us to realize that this is a global challenge.


Application of Quick-Install Wall Panels in Public Building Renovation

In the previous article, we discussed material selection for quick‑install wall panels. The key is to stay true to your needs—not necessarily opting for the absolute best materials, but choosing what suits you most. Of course, if you’re rolling in cash and want it all, no one will object. In this piece, let’s talk about installing these panels. Today, renovating public buildings typically begins with removing the existing finishes, which are often ceramic tiles or painted walls. Over time, the surfaces accumulate layers of wear and tear, and seeing them can become increasingly frustrating. Renovation isn’t just about cosmetic makeovers; more often than not, it aims to refresh the mood of those who spend time inside.


Application of Quick-Install Wall Panels in Public Building Renovation (Material Selection)

Many public buildings are quite old and no longer meet current requirements, facing the need for renovation or remodeling. The construction materials used under the historical conditions of their time—such as ceramic tiles applied to walls as cladding panels or plasterboard suspended ceilings in common areas—now reveal drawbacks when viewed through a modern lens: wet‑process methods are time‑consuming and costly, and routine maintenance of overhead services is inconvenient. As a result, many owners prefer to renovate using prefabricated wall panels and ceilings, which allow ongoing operations during the upgrade by renovating one area at a time without disrupting daily business. This section introduces the application of quick‑install wall panels in building renovations.


The Supporting Role in Wallboard Systems: Metal Trim Strips—Essential Yet Often Overlooked

Let’s start with the conclusion: when choosing decorative wall panels, our attention often focuses on the panel itself—whether it features wood grain, stone texture, or fabric patterns; whether the color palette leans toward light tones or darker shades; and how different colors can be coordinated. Meanwhile, metal trims used to cover joint gaps or corner transitions are easily overlooked, resulting in a final outcome that falls short of expectations. Why does this happen? Consider this scenario: in large‑area spaces like public corridors where wall panels are installed, if exposed trim strips are used, our gaze tends to be drawn to those strips, visibly fragmenting the wall’s overall cohesion. In essence, we end up noticing only the trim and overlooking the panels themselves.