REPORT NUMBER: AU12104022-3

ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE: August 31, 2013

REVISION ISSUE DATE: November 4, 2013

EVALUATION CENTER

Intertek Testing Services Ltd., Shanghai Jinqiao Branch

Building T52-8, No. 1201 Gui Qiao Road,
Jinqiao Development Area, Pudong District
TEST REPORT

Shanghai 201206

RENDERED TO

NewTechWood Ltd
19111 Walden Forest Dr. Suite B Humble, Tx 77346, USA

PRODUCT EVALUATED
UltraShieldTM Wood Plastic Composite Deck Boards (Model UH02)

EVALUATION PROPERTY
Structural, Durability Properties

Report of testing UltraShieldTM Wood Plastic Composite Deck Boards (Model

UH02) for compliance with the applicable requirements of the following
criteria:
ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria for Deck Board Span Ratings and Guardrail
Systems (Guards and Handrails) AC174 Approved January 2012 for
compliance with the 2012 and 2009 International Building Code (IBC) and the
2012 and 2009 International Residential Code (IRC).

"This report is for the exclusive use of Intertek's Client and is provided pursuant to the agreement between Intertek and its
Client. Intertek's responsibility and liability are limited to the terms and conditions of the agreement. Intertek assumes no
liability to any party, other than to the Client in accordance with the agreement, for any loss, expense or damage
occasioned by the use of this report. Only the Client is authorized to permit copying or distribution of this report and then
only in its entirety. Any use of the Intertek name or one of its marks for the sale or advertisement of the tested material,
product or service must first be approved in writing by Intertek. The observations and test results in this report are relevant
only to the sample tested. This report by itself does not imply that the material, product, or service is or has ever been
under an Intertek certification program."

This report may only be revised within the retention period unless the standard or applicable requirements have changed. 1
Report Template Revision Date: 22 Jan 2011
NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 2 of 27

1 Table of Contents

1 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... 2

2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3
3 Test Samples ..................................................................................................................... 3
3.1. Sample Selection ...................................................................................................... 3
3.2. Sample and Assembly Description ............................................................................ 3
4 Testing and Evaluation Methods ........................................................................................ 5
4.1. Deck Board Flexural Tests ........................................................................................ 5
4.2. Temperature and Moisture Effects ............................................................................ 5
4.2.1. Temperature Effect ............................................................................................. 5
4.2.2. Moisture Effect ................................................................................................... 5
4.3. Ultraviolet (UV) Resistance Test ............................................................................... 5
4.4. Freeze-Thaw Resistance Test................................................................................... 6
4.5. Duration of Load........................................................................................................ 6
4.6. Stair Treads Performance Requirements .................................................................. 6
4.6.1. Flexural Performance ......................................................................................... 6
4.6.2. Concentrated Load ............................................................................................. 6
4.6.3. Creep-Recovery Test ......................................................................................... 6
4.6.4. Mechanical Fastener Holding ............................................................................. 7
5 Testing and Evaluation Results .......................................................................................... 8
5.1. Results and Observations ......................................................................................... 8
6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................10
7 Appendix A: Test Data ......................................................................................................11
8 Appendix B: Sample Photographs .....................................................................................22
9 Revision Page ...................................................................................................................27
NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 3 of 27

2 Introduction
Intertek has conducted testing for NewTechWood Ltd, on UltraShieldTM Wood Plastic Composite
Deck Boards (Model UH02) to evaluate physical properties. The testing was based on the test
plan proposed in the SOW File No.:12-11-06, dated February 6, 2013 issued by ICC-ES. This
evaluation began on November 21, 2012 and was completed on July 15, 2013.

3 Test Samples
3.1. SAMPLE SELECTION
Samples were randomly selected on November 21, 2012 by Intertek representative Linchy Ling,
at HUIDONG MEIXIN PLASTIC LUMBER PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING CO., LTD
manufacturing facility located at NGA Industrial Park, Daling, Huidong, Guangdong Province,
PRC. Samples were received at the Evaluation Center on December 18, 2012.

The subject test specimen is a traceable sample selected from the manufacturer's facility.
Intertek selected the specimen and has verified the composition, manufacturing techniques and
quality assurance procedures.

3.2. SAMPLE AND ASSEMBLY DESCRIPTION

The samples were identified as UltraShieldTM Wood Plastic Composite Deck Boards (Model
UH02). Photographs of samples were presented in Appendix C. The nominal sizes were
summarized in Table below.

Table Nominal Dimensions

Model Size(Width × Thickness) (mm) Color

Teak
Light Grey
Walnut
UH02 138×22.5 Antique
Redwood
Maple
Ipe

There are seven colors of the type. The core materials are the same. The shield is constructed
of the same formula for each deck board and the colors are applied after the production of the
deck boards. Select Teak samples randomly to do the tests.
NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 4 of 27

Fig. 1 Section of UH02

Fig. 2 Color of Product

NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 5 of 27

4 Testing and Evaluation Methods

4.1. DECK BOARD FLEXURAL TESTS

The test was conducted in accordance with ICC-ES AC 174 “Acceptance Criteria for Deck
Board Span Ratings and Guardrail Systems (Guards and Handrails), approved January 2012”,
section 3.4.
The test method was in accordance with Section 4.4 of ASTM D7032. Sample size was 28
specimens.
Flexural strength was calculated from the maximum load achieved (It was occurred before the
load at 3 % strain) Flexural stiffness was calculated from a linear least squares fit of the stress-
strain curve over the range of 10 to 40 % of ultimate stress.
The unadjusted allowable load for the test span selected was calculated from the lesser of the
following: (1) the average ultimate flexural strength divided by a factor of safety of 2.5, and (2)
the average flexural strength that resulted in a deflection of 1/180th of the test span.

4.2. TEMPERATURE AND MOISTURE EFFECTS

The test was conducted in accordance with ICC-ES AC 174 “Acceptance Criteria for Deck
Board Span Ratings and Guardrail Systems (Guards and Handrails), approved January 2012”,
section 3.6.

4.2.1. Temperature Effect

The test method was in accordance with Section 4.5 of ASTM D7032. The lower and upper
temperatures were -20±4°F (-29±2°C) and 125±4°F(52±2°C). Flexural tests were conducted
to failure at the desired span. 10 specimens were tested at each temperature. The average
changes in properties between the control specimens and those tested at low and high
temperatures were calculated as a percentage and reported.

4.2.2. Moisture Effect

The test method was in accordance with Section 4.5 of ASTM D7032. Flexural tests were
conducted to failure at the desired span. 10 specimens were tested after submerged in water.
The average changes in properties between the control specimens and those tested after
submerged in water were calculated as a percentage and reported.

4.3. ULTRAVIOLET (UV) RESISTANCE TEST

The test was conducted in accordance with ICC-ES AC 174 “Acceptance Criteria for Deck
Board Span Ratings and Guardrail Systems (Guards and Handrails), approved January 2012”,
section 3.7.
The test method was in accordance with Section 4.6 of ASTM D7032. Five full-thickness
specimens were exposed to 2000 h accelerated weathering in accordance with ASTM G154,
Cycle 1. Flexural tests were conducted after UV exposure. The average changes in properties
between the control specimens and those tested after UV exposure were calculated as a
percentage and reported.
NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 6 of 27

4.4. FREEZE-THAW RESISTANCE TEST

The test was conducted in accordance with ICC-ES AC 174 “Acceptance Criteria for Deck
Board Span Ratings and Guardrail Systems (Guards and Handrails), approved January 2012”,
section 3.8.
The test method was in accordance with Section 4.7 of ASTM D7032. Five specimens were
subjected to the following exposure cycle. Test specimens were submerged underwater for a
period of 24 h. The specimens then were placed in a freezer at -20±4°F (-29±2°C) for 24 h.
After being subjected to freezing, the specimens were returned to room temperature for a period
of 24 h. After three cycles of submersion, freezing, and thawing, flexural tests were conducted.
The average changes in properties between the exposed and unexposed specimens were
calculated as a percentage and reported.

4.5. DURATION OF LOAD

The test was conducted in accordance with ICC-ES AC 174 “Acceptance Criteria for Deck
Board Span Ratings and Guardrail Systems (Guards and Handrails), approved January 2012”,
section 3.11.
The test method was in accordance with Section 5.10.2 of ASTM D7031. Fifteen specimens
were loaded to a two times the expected span load. The load was maintained for 90 days with
deflection measurements taken at regular intervals to adequately describe the creep curve. For
the first eight hours, measurements were taken hourly, for the following 24 h, measurements
were at eight-hour intervals, followed by daily measurements for the next seven days, weekly
measurements for the remainder of the 90-days period.

4.6. STAIR TREADS PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

The test was conducted in accordance with ICC-ES AC 174 “Acceptance Criteria for Deck
Board Span Ratings and Guardrail Systems (Guards and Handrails), approved January 2012”,
section 4.1.

4.6.1. Flexural Performance

The test method was in accordance with Section 5.2 of ASTM D7032. Flexural test to failure at
the span desired was conducted in accordance with Section 4.4 of ASTM D7032. Sample size
was 28. The desired span was 254mm.

4.6.2. Concentrated Load

The test method was in accordance with Section 5.3.2 of ASTM D7032. The boards were
loaded at a 4 ± 0.08 in.2 (2580 ± 50 mm2) area at midspan, adjacent to the edge of the deck
board. The surface area of contact for the concentrated load point was square. The average
stair tread maximum deflection should be less than 3.2 mm at 300 lbf, plus adjustments for end
use. And the boards should also sustain a minimum concentrated load of 750 lbf (3338N).

4.6.3. Creep-Recovery Test

The test method was in accordance with Section 5.4 of ASTM D7032. Three specimens were
loaded in flexure to twice the design load. The load was applied for 24 h and the specimens
were then allowed to recover with no superimposed load for 24 h. Deflection at mid-span was
measured four times: 1) prior to the application of load; 2) at 24 h with load on; 3) immediately
after the load was removed, and 4) after 24-h recovery period. Total deflection was the
NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 7 of 27

deflection between time zero and the end of the first 24-h loading period. The recovered
deflection was the deflection at the end of the 24-h recovery period minus the total deflection.
The percent recovery for each test specimen were the recovered deflection divided by the total
deflection times 100. The average percent recovery should be 75% or greater and reported.

4.6.4. Mechanical Fastener Holding

The test was in accordance with Section 5.5 of ASTM D7032. Ten specimens were conducted
according to test Method ASTM D1761 with screws. Screws used for basic withdrawal tests
were standard 1-in. (25 mm) No. 10-gage flathead low-carbon-steel wood screws. Maximum
load was recorded.
NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 8 of 27

5 Testing and Evaluation Results

5.1. RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS
The test results are summarized in Tables below. The detail data refers to Appendix A.
Table 1 Deck Board Flexural Tests
Average
Flexural Flexural
load at Difference Adjustment factor
Condition strength1 Stiffness2
rupture
N MPa MPa Strength Stiffness Strength Stiffness
Controlled 4946 23.2 3300 / / 1.00 1.00
High Temperature 3759 19.5 2732 -16.0% -17.2% 0.84 0.83
Low Temperature 6312 29.8 4315 28.5% 30.7% 1.00 1.00
Moisture 5532 28.9 3989 24.7% 20.8% 1.00 1.00
UV Resistance3 2851 23.1 2923 -0.5% -11.4% 1.00 0.98
Freeze-thaw 4717 22.7 2912 -2.3% -11.8% 1.00 0.98
Overall End-Use adjustment factor 0.79
Adjustment factor for duration of load 0.96
Table 2 Deck Board Flexural Performance
Test Span: 350 mm Sample width: 138 mm
Average ultimate flexural load 4946 N
Ultimate strength load Divided by safety factor 2.5 1979 N
Flexural load at 1/180 L deflection 1171 N
Unadjusted allowable Load5 1171 N
Adjusted allowable Load 931 N
4
Uniform unadjusted allowable Load 32.3 kN/m2
4
Uniform adjusted allowable Load 25.7 kN/m2

Table 3 Duration of Load6

Property Result Requirement Verdict

Duration of Load No evidence of tertiary creep No evidence of tertiary creep

Pass
(90 days) and no failures and no failures

Table 4 Deck Board Span Ratings7

Model Maximum Span Allowable live load capacity

UH02 350 mm 4.9 kN/m2

Note:
1. The flexural strength was modulus of rupture (MOR).
2. The flexural stiffness was modulus of elasticity (MOE).
3. The flexural property after UV exposed and Freeze-thaw exposed decrease more than 10% of the
unexposed specimens. The load rating was reduced by the amount in excess of 10%.
4. Uniform load was calculated using same moment compared with third point load.
NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 9 of 27
2
M=Pu*b*L /8=Ft*L/6,
2
where Pu is uniform load, N/mm
b is specimen width, mm
L is span, mm
Ft is test load, N.
th
5. The unadjusted allowable load was the strength that resulted in a deflection of 1/180 of the test span.
2
6. The test span was 350mm required by the applicant. The design load was 4.9 kN/m (100 psf).
7. The maximum span is measured center-to-center of the supporting construction. Maximum allowable
capacity has been adjusted for durability.
Table 5 Stair Tread Performance

Property Result Requirement Verdict

MOR: 23.5×103 kN/m2

Flexural
MOE: 2942×103 kN/m2 N/A N/A
performance8
Flexural strength9: 4.57×103 kN/m2
10
Deflection under 1690N load : Deflection under 1690N
Concentrated
≤2.3mm load: ≤3.2 mm Pass
load
Sustained ≥3338N Sustained ≥3338N
Average Recovery: 88 % Average Recovery≥75 %
Creep Total Deflection: 1.90 mm Total Deflection≤3.2 mm
Pass
recovery11 Max. Unrecovered Deflection: 0.28 Max. Unrecovered
mm deflection≤1.6mm
Fastener
Mean value: 1.09 kN N/A N/A
Withdrawal12
Table 6 Stair Tread Span13

Model Maximum Span

UH02 254 mm

Note:
8. The test span was 254mm required by the applicant.
th
9. The flexural strength was the strength that resulted in a deflection of 1/180 of the test span.
10. The required load was 1335N plus adjustment factor 0.79.
11. The test span was 350mm required by the applicant.
12. The screws used for basic withdrawal tests were standard 1-in. (25 mm) No. 10-gage flathead low-
carbon-steel wood screws.
13. The maximum span is measured center-to-center of the supporting construction. The result was
based on the test span.
NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 10 of 27

6 Conclusion
The UltraShieldTM Wood Plastic Composite Deck Boards (Model UH02) identified and evaluated
in this report have been tested in accordance with ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria for Deck Board
Span Ratings and Guardrail Systems (Guards and Handrails) AC174 Approved January 2012
for compliance with the 2012 and 2009 International Building Code (IBC) and the 2012 and
2009 International Residential Code (IRC). The results were presented in Section 5 of this test
report.

The conclusions of this test report may be used as part of the requirements for Intertek product
certification. Authority to Mark must be issued for a product to become certified.

INTERTEK

Reported by:
Daniel Zhang
Senior Project Engineer, Building Products

Reviewed by:
Jodie Zhou
Technical Supervisor, Building Products
NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 11 of 27

7 Appendix A: Test Data

NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 12 of 27
NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 13 of 27
NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 14 of 27
NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 15 of 27
NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 16 of 27
NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 17 of 27
NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 18 of 27
NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 19 of 27
NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 20 of 27
NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 21 of 27
NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 22 of 27

8 Appendix B: Sample Photographs

Fig.1 Maple

Fig. 2 Antique

Fig. 3 Teak
NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 23 of 27

Fig. 4 Ipe

Fig.5 Walnut

Fig.6 Redwood
NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 24 of 27

Fig.7 Light Grey

NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 25 of 27

Fig.8 Flexural Test (ASTM D6109)

Fig.9 Creep Recovery and Duration of load

NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 26 of 27

Fig.10 Concentrated Load

NewTechWood Ltd Date: November 4, 2013
Report Number: AU12104022-3R1 Page 27 of 27

9 Revision Page

Revision No. Date Changes Author Reviewer

0 August 31, 2013 First Version Daniel Zhang Jodie Zhou

November 4, Change Table2 format,
1 Daniel Zhang Jodie Zhou
2013 add ‘uniform load’ item

END OF DOCUMENT