Fibre Reinforced Facade Encyclopedia: Testing and standards
A Performance Solution is a design that complies with the National Construction Code by demonstrating that it meets the relevant Performance Requirements directly, rather than by following the prescriptive Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions. It is a full compliance route recognised by the Code, not a concession or an exemption. On a facade it is the route taken when the cladding is not non-combustible, and its central evidence in Australia is a full-scale AS 5113 test of the external wall system together with a fire engineer’s assessment of the specific building.
The Deemed-to-Satisfy route asks whether the design matches the rule. The performance route asks whether the design achieves the outcome the rule exists to produce. Both are compliance. The second is slower, costs more, and produces a result that belongs to one building.
At a glance
| Property | Typical value | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Defined in | NCC 2022 Volume One Part A2 (check the edition adopted in your jurisdiction) | Formerly A0.5 and A0.10 |
| Assessment methods | Evidence of suitability; Verification Methods; expert judgement; comparison with the Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions | Any one or a combination |
| Facade verification method | C1V3, requiring an AS 5113 EW classification plus stated conditions | CV3 in NCC 2019 and earlier |
| Performance Requirement engaged | Spread of fire via the external wall, and often others | |
| Prepared by | A fire safety engineer, with input from the facade and services consultants | Registration requirements vary by state |
| Agreed before analysis | A fire engineering brief or performance based design brief | Circulated to the stakeholders who must accept the result |
| Accepted by | The building surveyor or certifier | Sometimes after fire brigade referral and independent peer review |
| Transferability | None; the solution belongs to the building assessed | Not a product approval |
| Ongoing obligations | Conditions recorded and maintained for the life of the building | Sprinklers, barriers, maintenance, limits on alteration |
The four assessment methods
The Code does not leave the method open. Part A2 lists the Assessment Methods that may be used, alone or together, to show a Performance Solution meets a Performance Requirement.
- Evidence of suitability under Part A5: a test report, a certificate of conformity, a CodeMark certificate, a certificate from a professional engineer or an accredited assessment showing the material or system will do what is claimed
- A Verification Method: either one published in the Code, such as C1V3 for spread of fire via external walls, or another verification method the appropriate authority accepts
- Expert judgement: the documented opinion of a suitably qualified person, based on experience, testing and analysis
- Comparison with the Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions: showing the design performs at least as well as a design that follows the prescriptive route
Most facade solutions combine several: test evidence, a verification method assessment, comparison against the prescriptive wall, and judgement on the points the tests do not reach.
Why C1V3 with AS 5113 is the facade route
Verification Method C1V3 exists because the question a facade raises cannot be answered by a material test. Fire spreads up an external wall through the interaction of cladding, cavity, insulation, membrane, barriers and openings, and the only reliable way to observe that is to build a section of the actual wall and burn it.
C1V3 therefore requires a full-scale test of the external wall system to AS 5113, achieving the EW classification, on a system built as the building’s wall will be built. It then attaches further conditions, including an automatic sprinkler system of the type the Code names and requirements relating to cavity barriers. Meeting the verification method is deemed to meet the Performance Requirement it addresses, which is what makes it the most predictable of the four assessment methods and the reason it is the default facade route.
The test result is necessary and not sufficient. AS 5113 classifies the system that was tested, with its cavity depth, substrate, insulation, panel thickness and barrier arrangement. Where the design differs, the difference is assessed, and where it is large enough, retested.
Who prepares it and who accepts it
The solution is prepared by a fire safety engineer, normally working from a fire engineering brief agreed at the outset with the client, the certifier and often the fire brigade and a peer reviewer. The facade contractor supplies the tested configuration, the product evidence and the details; the services consultant supplies the sprinkler and detection design. The registration position for the engineer differs between states and territories, and in some jurisdictions the practitioner must also make a formal design declaration.
The person who decides is the building surveyor or certifier, as the appropriate authority. They can accept the solution, accept it with conditions, require a peer review, or refuse it. Refusal is not unusual and is not a failure of process: a certifier who is not persuaded, or who is unwilling to carry the professional risk, is entitled to decline, and the design then either changes or goes to another assessment. In several jurisdictions certain performance solutions must also be referred to the fire authority for comment before they can be accepted.
The practical realities
The route carries costs and constraints that a prescriptive submission does not.
- The fee and programme for the fire engineering work, the peer review and any retesting
- Professional indemnity insurance for facade fire engineering has carried cladding exclusions since 2019, and a solution the engineer’s insurer will not stand behind is difficult to place
- Building insurers and lenders assess combustible facade material separately from the Code, and an accepted Performance Solution does not oblige an insurer to write the risk or a financier to lend against it
- Conditions attach to the building for its life, recorded in the fire safety schedule or equivalent, and they constrain what can be changed later
- Purchasers and owners corporations ask for the fire engineering report at sale, and a poorly documented solution is a due diligence problem years later
None of that makes the route illegitimate. Much of Australian construction depends on it, it allows forms and building types prescriptive rules cannot accommodate, and it must satisfy the same mandatory Performance Requirements a prescriptive design satisfies. It is not a formality either. It is a piece of engineering with a decision maker at the end of it who can say no.
What ShapeShift can bring to the file
ShapeShell-RT, the fibre reinforced polymer system, is combustible. It cannot pass AS 1530.1, EN ISO 1182 or ASTM E136, and it is never offered as non-combustible. What it holds is the evidence a Performance Solution is built from: an AS 5637 Group 1 classification from AWTA Product Testing, an EN 13501-1 classification of B-s2,d0 from Intertek Testing Services, and a full-scale BS 8414 and AS 5113 test at BRE Global that met all AS 5113 criteria.
Where a project does not want the performance route, ShapeShell-RC is Not Deemed Combustible under AS/NZS 1530.1, tested by Ignis Labs, and sits on the Deemed-to-Satisfy route. The choice is a project decision about weight, geometry, programme and appetite for a building specific compliance argument, and it is best made before the facade is designed.
Standards and references
- NCC 2022 Volume One Part A2 (compliance with the NCC, assessment methods) and Part A5 (evidence of suitability) (check the edition adopted in your jurisdiction)
- NCC 2022 Volume One C1V3 Verification Method for spread of fire via external walls; C2D10; Specification 5; Specification 7
- AS 5113 Classification of external walls of buildings based on reaction-to-fire performance
- ABCB Performance Solution Process Handbook; ABCB Fire Safety Verification Method
- International Fire Engineering Guidelines (IFEG), ABCB
- BS 8414 with BR 135, and NFPA 285, where overseas evidence supports the assessment
Related terms
Questions specifiers ask
What is a Performance Solution under the NCC?
A design that complies by demonstrating it meets the relevant Performance Requirements directly, using one or more of the assessment methods in Part A2, rather than by following the prescriptive Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions.
What are the assessment methods?
Evidence of suitability under Part A5, a Verification Method such as C1V3, expert judgement, and comparison with the Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions. They can be used singly or in combination.
Why is C1V3 the route for combustible cladding?
Because fire spread on a facade depends on the whole wall system rather than on the cladding alone. C1V3 requires a full-scale AS 5113 test of the system as it will be built, achieving the EW classification, together with sprinkler and cavity barrier conditions.
Can a certifier refuse a Performance Solution?
Yes. The building surveyor or certifier decides whether to accept it and can refuse, accept it with conditions or require an independent peer review. Some jurisdictions also require referral to the fire authority.
Does an accepted Performance Solution satisfy an insurer?
Not automatically. Insurers and lenders assess combustible facade material on their own terms, separately from the Code, and may price or decline the risk regardless of an accepted solution.
Is a Performance Solution a lower standard?
No. It must satisfy the same mandatory Performance Requirements as a prescriptive design. It is more work, it is specific to one building, and the outcome depends on evidence and on the decision maker rather than on a clause.
Taking the performance route with a moulded facade? ShapeShell-RT passed all AS 5113 criteria at BRE Global; ask for the tested configuration before the wall is detailed. See ShapeShell fire test data
Reviewed by Richard Halvorsen, General Manager, ShapeShift Technologies. Last updated September 2026.