Handbook Bushfire Verification Method

Handbook
Bushfire Verification Method
abcb.gov.au
Handbook: Bushfire Verification Method
Copyright
© Commonwealth of Australia and States and Territories of Australia 2019, published
by the Australian Building Codes Board.
The material in this publication is Enquiries about this publication can be

licensed under a Creative Commons sent to:
Attribution-4.0 International licence, with
the exception of Australian Building Codes Board
GPO Box 2013
• Any third party material CANBERRA ACT 2601
• Any trade marks, and Phone: 1300 134 631
• Any images or photographs. Email: ncc@abcb.gov.au
More information on this CC BY licence is Web: abcb.gov.au
set out at the Creative Commons website
(creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0).
Attribution
Use of all or part of this publication must include the following attribution:
© Commonwealth of Australia and States and Territories 2019, published by the
Australian Building Codes Board.
Disclaimer
By accessing or using this publication, you agree to the following:
While care has been taken in the preparation of this publication, it may not be complete
or up-to-date. You can ensure that you are using a complete and up-to-date version by
checking the Australian Building Codes Board website (abcb.gov.au).
The Australian Building Codes Board, the Commonwealth of Australia and States and
Territories of Australia do not accept any liability, including liability for negligence, for
any loss (howsoever caused), damage, injury, expense or cost incurred by any person as a
result of accessing, using or relying upon this publication, to the maximum extent
permitted by law. No representation or warranty is made or given as to the currency,
accuracy, reliability, merchantability, fitness for any purpose or completeness of this
publication or any information which may appear on any linked websites, or in other linked
information sources, and all such representations and warranties are excluded to the
extent permitted by law.
This publication is not legal or professional advice. Persons rely upon this publication
entirely at their own risk and must take responsibility for assessing the relevance and
accuracy of the information in relation to their particular circumstances.
Version history
Original This version
Publish date: March 2019 Publish date: Jul 2019
Print version: 1.0 Print version: 1.1
Details of amendments: AS3959-2007
reference updated to AS3959-2018
abcb.gov.au Page i
Preface
The Inter-Government Agreement (IGA) that governs the Australian Building Codes
Board (ABCB) places a strong emphasis on reducing reliance on regulation,
including consideration of non-regulatory alternatives such as non-mandatory
handbooks and protocols.
This Handbook is one of a series produced by the ABCB developed in response to

comments and concerns expressed by government, industry and the community that
relate to the built environment. The topics of Handbooks expand on areas of existing
regulation or relate to topics which have, for a variety of reasons, been deemed
inappropriate for regulation. They provide non-mandatory advice and guidance.
This Handbook assists in understanding the Bushfire Verification Method in NCC

Volumes One and Two. It addresses issues in generic terms, and is not a document
that sets out regulatory requirements or detailed technical specifications. It is
expected that this Handbook will be used to guide solutions relevant to specific
situations in accordance with the generic principles and criteria contained herein.
abcb.gov.au Page ii
Contents
1 Background........................................................................... 1
1.1 Scope .................................................................................. 1
1.2 Design and approval of Performance Solutions ................................. 1
1.3 Using this document ................................................................. 2
1.4 Data limitations ...................................................................... 3
1.5 Other ABCB documents ............................................................. 3
2 Introduction to GV5 and V2.7.2 – Verification Methods for building in bushfire

prone areas ................................................................................... 3
2.1 Verification Method GV5............................................................ 3
2.2 Verification Method V2.7.2 ........................................................ 6
2.3 Ignition and fire initiation .......................................................... 8
2.4 Application of GV5................................................................... 8
2.5 Application of V2.7.2 ............................................................... 9
2.6 GV5 and V2.7.2 Procedures ........................................................ 9
3 Determination of importance level of building ............................... 11
4 Selection and analysis type ....................................................... 12

4.1 Introduction .......................................................................... 12
4.2 Fire losses by State and Territory ................................................. 13
4.3 Proportion of losses from single fires ............................................ 15
4.4 Bushfire risk management and the role of bushfire resistant construction 15
5 Determination of Annual Probability of Exceedance (APE) ................ 24
6 Determination of design actions ................................................. 24

6.1 Chapter organisation ................................................................ 24
6.2 Overview of bushfire design actions .............................................. 25
6.3 Parameters for consideration ...................................................... 25
6.4 Bushfire models for determination of design actions .......................... 26
6.5 Secondary fires ....................................................................... 29
6.6 Intervention by fire brigades and occupants .................................... 30
6.7 Impact of wind ....................................................................... 31
6.8 Complex analysis .................................................................... 32
6.9 Simple method ....................................................................... 34
6.10 Specification of bushfire design actions ......................................... 35
abcb.gov.au Page iii

Introduction .......................................................................... 35
Ember (fire brand) attack .......................................................... 38
Radiant heat attack ................................................................. 39
Direct flame exposure .............................................................. 42
Debris .................................................................................. 44
Other secondary fires ............................................................... 45
7 Determination of response to bushfire attack ................................ 45

7.1 Overview – Determination of the response of elements of construction to bushfire
attack 45
7.2 Standard test methods .............................................................. 48
7.3 Bushfire loss data and incidents................................................... 50
7.4 Calculation / modelling ............................................................ 51
7.5 Fire experiments ..................................................................... 51
7.6 Estimating probability of fire initiation within building when exposed to design
actions ......................................................................................... 52
8 Administration of building works, compliance and maintenance ........ 60

8.1 Introduction .......................................................................... 60
8.2 Bushfire safety plan ................................................................. 64
9 References ........................................................................... 64
Appendices ................................................................................... 67
Appendix A Compliance with the NCC ..................................... 68

A.1 Responsibilities for regulation of building and plumbing in Australia ....... 68
A.2 Demonstrating compliance with the NCC ........................................ 69
Appendix B Acronyms ......................................................... 70
Appendix C Defined terms.................................................... 71

C.1 NCC defined terms .................................................................. 71
C.2 Other terms ........................................................................... 71
REMINDER
This Handbook is not mandatory or regulatory in nature and compliance with it will
not necessarily discharge a user's legal obligations. The Handbook should only be
read and used subject to, and in conjunction with, the general disclaimer at page i.
abcb.gov.au Page iv
The Handbook also needs to be read in conjunction with the relevant legislation of
the appropriate State or Territory. It is written in generic terms and it is not intended
that the content of the Handbook counteract or conflict with the legislative
requirements, any references in legal documents, any handbooks issued by the
Administration or any directives by the Appropriate Authority.
abcb.gov.au Page v
Background
The NCC is a performance-based code containing all Performance Requirements for
the construction of buildings. To comply with the NCC, a solution must achieve
compliance with the Governing Requirements and the Performance Requirements.
The Governing Requirements contain requirements about how the Performance
Requirements must be met. A building, plumbing or drainage solution will comply with
the NCC if it satisfies the Performance Requirements, which are the mandatory
requirements of the NCC.
Scope
This Handbook has been developed to provide guidance to practitioners seeking to

demonstrate compliance for construction in bushfire prone areas using the
Verification Methods GV5 and V2.7.2. It will be of interest to all parties who are
involved in selecting or assessing elements of buildings that must comply with the
NCC Performance Requirements relevant to construction in bushfire prone areas.
It should be noted that GV5 and V2.7.2 Verification Methods are optional assessment
methods that can be used to demonstrate compliance with the NCC Performance
Requirements relevant to construction in bushfire prone areas. The use of Deemed-
to-Satisfy (DTS) methods (e.g. Australian Standard AS 3959 (Standards Australia
201821) and other assessment methods to determine compliance with the
Performance Requirements for construction in bushfire prone areas are also
permitted in the NCC (ABCB 20194, 5).
Further reading on this topic can be found with the references in Section 9 of this
document.
Design and approval of Performance Solutions
The design and approval processes for Performance Solutions for construction in
bushfire prone areas is expected to be similar to that adopted for demonstrating
compliance of other NCC Performance Solutions. Since the design approval process
for Performance Solutions varies between the responsible State and Territory
governments it is likely to also be the case with construction in bushfire prone areas
and requirements should be checked for the relevant jurisdiction.
abcb.gov.au Page 1
Verification Methods GV5 and V2.7.2 provide quantification of the Performance

Requirements for construction in bushfire prone areas. They represent the next
logical step in the development of the NCC to fully realise the benefits of
performance-based design and facilitate the further development of the NCC to
manage bushfire risks in a safe and efficient manner.
Notwithstanding the quantified input and acceptance criteria, other qualitative

aspects of Performance Solutions for construction in bushfire prone areas, which are
discussed in this document, require assessment and analysis throughout the design
and approval process. The advice of an appropriately qualified person should be
sought to undertake this assessment and analysis where required, and may be aided
by the early and significant involvement from regulatory authorities, peer reviewer(s)
and / or a technical panel as appropriate to the State or Territory jurisdictions.
Using this document
General information about complying with the NCC and responsibilities for building
and plumbing regulation are provided in Appendix A of this document. Acronyms
used in this document are provided in Appendix B.
Italicised terms are defined terms used in this document. They may align with a
defined term in the NCC or be defined for the purpose of this document. See
Appendix C for further information.
Referenced documents are located in Section 9. Where a document is referenced, it

is identified by a number in superscript (e.g. in the NCC (ABCB 20194, 5)).
Different styles are used in this document. Examples of these styles are provided
below:
NCC extracts
Examples
Alerts
abcb.gov.au Page 2
Reminders
Data limitations
In some cases, the supporting data necessary to undertake the complex type
analysis may not be available. Through time it is envisaged that data sheets
addressing these limitations will be developed in collaboration with fire agencies and
industry, and be made publicly available.
Other ABCB documents
Class 10c buildings (Private Bushfire Shelters) are required to comply with
Performance Requirement P2.7.5 which lies outside the scope of Verification
Methods GV5 and V2.7.2.
Although some content from this document may be relevant, specific guidance with
respect to Class 10c buildings is provided in the document “Performance Standard:
The Design and Construction of Private Bushfire Shelters” (ABCB 20141).
Introduction to GV5 and V2.7.2 – Verification Methods for

building in bushfire prone areas
Verification Method GV5
Verification Method GV5 is reproduced below:
GV5 Buildings in bushfire prone areas
(a) Compliance with Performance Requirement GP5.1 is verified if the

ignition probability for a building exposed to a design bushfire does not
exceed 10%.
(b) Bushfire design actions must be determined in consideration of the annual
probability of a design bushfire derived from—
(i) assigning the building or structure with an importance level in
accordance with GV5(c); and
abcb.gov.au Page 3
(ii) determining the corresponding annual probability of exceedance in

accordance with Table GV5.1.
(c) A building or structure’s importance level must be identified as one of the
following:
(i) Importance level 1 — where the building or structure presents a low
degree of hazard to life and other property in the case of failure.
(ii) Importance level 2 — where the building or structure is not of
importance level 1, 3 or 4 and is a Class 2 building accommodating
12 people or less.
(iii) Importance level 3 — where the building is designed to contain a
large number of people and is a—
(A) Class 2 building accommodating more than 12 people; or
(B) Class 3 boarding house, guest house, hostel, lodging house or
backpackers accommodation; or
(C) Class 3 residential part of a hotel or motel; or
(D) Class 3 residential part of a school.
(iv) Importance level 4 — where the building or structure is—
(A) essential to emergency management or post-disaster recovery;
or
(B) associated with hazardous facilities; or
(C) subject to a necessary ‘defend in place’ strategy and is a—
(aa) Class 3 accommodation building for the aged, children or

people with disabilities; or
(bb) Class 3 residential part of a health-care building which
accommodates members of staff; or
(cc) Class 3 residential part of a detention centre; or
(dd) Class 9a or 9c building; or
(ee) building that operates in the event of a bushfire
emergency, such as a public bushfire shelter or a bushfire
emergency control centre.
abcb.gov.au Page 4
Table GV5.1 Annual Probability of Exceedance (APE) for design bushfire actions
Importance level Complex analysis APE for Simple analysis APE for
bushfire exposure weather conditions (design
bushfire)
1 No requirement No requirement
2 1:500 1:50
3 1:1000 1:100
4 1:2000 1:200
Note to Table GV5.1: Complex analysis must consider the probability of ignition, fire spread to the
urban interface and penetration of the urban interface coincident with fire weather conditions.
(d) The ignition probability for a building must be assessed by application of
the following:
(i) An event tree analysis of relevant bushfire scenarios.
(ii) Design bushfire conditions that include combinations of the following
actions appropriate to the distance between the building and the
bushfire hazard:
(A) Direct attack from airborne burning embers.
(B) Burning debris and accumulated embers adjacent to a building
element.
(C) Radiant heat from a bushfire front.
(D) Direct flame attack from a bushfire front.
(e) Applied fire actions must allow for reasonable variations in—
(i) fire weather; and
(ii) vegetation, including fuel load, burning behaviour of vegetation
(including the potential for crown fires); and
(iii) the distance of the building from vegetation; and
(iv) topography, including slopes and features that may shield; and
(v) ignition of adjacent buildings, building elements, plants, mulch and
other materials; and
(vi) effective size of fire front; and
(vii) duration of exposure; and
(viii) flame height; and
abcb.gov.au Page 5
(ix) flame tilt; and

(x) flame adhesion to sloping land; and
(xi) the height of the building and its elements.
(f) The assessment process must include consideration of—
(i) the probability of non-complying construction of critical aspects of an
approved design; and
(ii) the probability of critical aspects of an approved design being fully
functional during the life of the building; and
(iii) inclusion of safety factors; and
(iv) sensitivity analysis of critical aspects of a proposed design.
Verification Method V2.7.2
Verification Method V2.7.2 is reproduced below:
V2.7.2 Buildings in bushfire prone areas
(a) Compliance with P2.7.5 is verified if the ignition probability for a building
exposed to a design bushfire does not exceed 10%.
(b) Bushfire design actions must be determined in consideration of the annual
probability of a design bushfire derived from—
(i) assigning the building or structure with an importance level in
accordance with (c); and
(ii) determining the corresponding annual probability of exceedance in
accordance with Table V2.7.2.
(c) A building or structure’s importance level must be identified as one of the
following:
(i) Importance level 1 — where the building or structure presents a low
degree of hazard to life and other property in the case of failure.
(ii) Importance level 2 — where the building or structure is not of
importance level 1 or 4 and is a Class 1a or 1b building
accommodating 12 people or less.
(iii) Importance level 4 — where the building is a Class 10c building and
is subject to a necessary ‘defend in place’ strategy.
abcb.gov.au Page 6
Table V2.7.2 Annual Probability of Exceedance (APE) for design bushfire actions
Importance level Complex analysis APE for Simple analysis APE for
bushfire exposure weather conditions (design
bushfire)
2 1:500 1:50
3 N/A for Class 1 and 10 N/A for Class 1 and 10
buildings buildings
4 1:2000 1:200
Note to Table V2.7.2: Complex analysis must consider the probability of ignition, fire spread to the
urban interface and penetration of the urban interface coincident with fire weather conditions.
Explanatory information:
Volume Two does not apply to buildings that are importance level 3, therefore this importance level is
not included under (c).
(d) The ignition probability for a building must be assessed by application of
the following:
(i) An event tree analysis of relevant bushfire scenarios.
bushfire hazard:
element.
(e) Applied fire actions must allow for reasonable variations in—
(ii) vegetation, including fuel load, burning behaviour of vegetation
(including the potential for crown fires); and
abcb.gov.au Page 7

(f) The assessment process must include consideration of—
(iii) inclusion of safety factors; and
(iv) sensitivity analysis of critical aspects of a proposed design.
Ignition and fire initiation
Ignition for the purpose of GV5 and V2.7.2 is considered as fire initiation (within the
building) rather than ignition (of the building). This is to clarify that ignition of the
external facade of a building is permitted provided the fire does not spread to the
inside of the building, but burns out or self-extinguishes.
This is consistent with the NCC DTS requirements provided in AS 3959 Construction
of Buildings in Bushfire-Prone Areas (Standards Australia 201821) and the following
referenced test standards for evaluation of the performance of elements of
construction:
AS 1530.8.1-2007 Methods for fire tests on building materials, components and

structures - Tests on elements of construction for buildings exposed to simulated
bushfire attack - Radiant heat and small flaming sources (Standards Australia
200719).
AS 1530.8.2-2007 Methods for fire tests on building materials, components and
structures - Part 8.2: Tests on elements of construction for buildings exposed to
simulated bushfire attack—Large flaming sources (Standards Australia 200720).
Application of GV5
Verification Method GV5 can be used to demonstrate compliance with the following
Performance Requirement:
• NCC Volume One Performance Requirement GP5.1 (ABCB 20194)
abcb.gov.au Page 8
Application of V2.7.2
Verification Method V2.7.2 can be used to demonstrate compliance with the following
Performance Requirement:
• NCC Volume Two Performance Requirement P2.7.5 (ABCB 20195).

GV5 and V2.7.2 Procedures
The flowchart at Figure 2.1 shows the processes to be followed when using
Verification Methods GV5 or V2.7.2
abcb.gov.au Page 9
Figure 2.1 Verification Methods GV5 and V2.7.2 flowchart
START
Proposed bushfire safety
plan for building
Determine
importance level for Refer Chapter 3
building
Refer Chapter 4
Simple analysis Select analysis type Complex analysis
Determine APE for Determine APE for

Refer Chapter 5
B
bushfire weather bushfire exposure
Determine design Determine design

actions for APE of Refer Chapter 6 actions for APE of
A
bushfire weather bushfire exposure
Determine response of building to design

actions and probability of fire initiation
Go to
Refer Chapter 7 A or B
Is the probability of YES

Revise bushfire
initiation greater than
safety plan
10%?
NO
Finalise bushfire safety plan and submit

Refer Chapter 8 for approval
NO
Is the design
approved?
YES
END of initial design process
abcb.gov.au Page 10
The process for determining the importance level of a building or structure is

described in Chapter 3.
The process for the selection of the type of analysis is described in Chapter 4. There are
two types of analysis defined in GV5 and V2.7.2:
(i) A simple method that can be applied to a particular site based on the
vegetation and topography surrounding the building with the APE expressed in
terms of fire weather (weather conditions).
(ii) A complex method that considers the probability of a building being exposed
to bushfire attack with the APE expressed in terms of exposure to bushfire
attack. This requires consideration of the frequency of ignitions and probability
of fire spread from the surrounding areas. In some instances, adequate data
may be unavailable and / or for smaller buildings the resources required to
undertake the complex analysis may be unable to be justified.
Chapter 5 describes the process for determining the prescribed APE.
Chapter 6 describes options for the determination of design actions.
Chapter 7 describes options for the determination of the response of elements of

construction to bushfire attack and the probability of fire initiation.
Chapter 8 relates primarily to implementation and maintenance of provisions but includes

information relating to the development of a bushfire safety plan.
Determination of importance level of building

Buildings are assigned importance levels based on the following parameters:
• the role they play during a fire emergency and subsequent recovery period
• hazard to life and other property in the case of failure
• number of occupants
• practicality of and safety during evacuation
• proximity to buildings of higher importance levels:
• importance level 1 is the lowest importance and no protection is required.
• importance level 4 requires the highest levels of protection.
• assignment of importance levels to buildings are provided in GV5 and V2.7.2.
abcb.gov.au Page 11
Selection and analysis type

Introduction
The selection of the analysis type, either simple or complex, depends on the specific
building solution under consideration, available resources and data, and the benefits
likely to be attained versus additional cost of analysis if the complex analysis is
adopted rather than the simple analysis.
In some cases, the supporting data necessary to undertake the complex type
analysis may not be available. Through time it is envisaged that data sheets
addressing these limitations will be developed in collaboration with fire agencies and
industry and be made publicly available.
This chapter provides information to assist designers to select the most appropriate
analysis type for a specific project.
The complex analysis facilitates the consideration of a holistic approach to bushfire

safety by taking into account fire prevention strategies and management of bushfires
before they interact with the built environment. Thus the complex analysis requires
consideration of the frequency of ignition; fire spread to the urban interface and
penetration of the urban interface coincident with severe fire conditions; and the
impact of local topography and vegetation, when estimating design actions. Typically
for the complex analysis, all branches of the fire safety concepts tree described in
Section 4.4 should be considered.
The simple analysis only requires buildings to be designed based on the annual
probability of exceedance of fire weather (weather conditions) and local topography
and vegetation (i.e. the design assumes that the building is exposed to bushfire
attack coincident with the appropriate APE for weather conditions). Therefore, the
Prevent Ignition and most of the Manage Fire branches of the fire safety concepts
tree described in Section 4.4 are not applicable, reducing the level of analysis and
need for data significantly.
abcb.gov.au Page 12
Alert
In geographic areas where historic losses are low, the greatest advantage can be
expected from the complex type of analysis since it considers the probability of
exposure of the building to bushfire attack, whereas the simple method assumes
bushfire exposure occurs coincident with the APE for fire weather.
However, in some cases, the supporting data necessary to undertake the complex
type analysis may not be available and / or the additional cost of the complex
analysis may not be justified having regard to the size of project.
These issues need to be considered when selecting the type of analysis to be

undertaken.
Fire losses by State and Territory
Historic bushfire losses in terms of civilian fatalities and house equivalents by State
and Territory are shown in Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 respectively, clearly
demonstrating a heavy bias towards Victoria and to a lesser extent NSW. The house
loss equivalent includes an adjustment for changes in population / number of houses
over the sample period.
These distributions highlight the potential advantages in adopting the complex

method to address the lower bushfire risks in many parts of Australia instead of the
simple method, which specifies APEs based on weather conditions.
abcb.gov.au Page 13
Figure 4.1 Total civilian fatality distribution derived from Blanchi (20127)
WA ACT NT
2% 1% 0%
Qld
3% SA
6%
TAS
9%
NSW
VIC
14%
65%
VIC NSW TAS SA Qld WA ACT NT
Figure 4.2 Total house loss equivalent derived from Blanchi (20127)
Other States
and Territories
24%
Victoria
57%
NSW
19%
Victoria NSW Other States and Territories
abcb.gov.au Page 14
Proportion of losses from single fires
Table 4.1 is a summary of major bushfire incidents from the life and house loss
database reported by Blanchi (20127). The database does not capture all bushfire
loss data but does provide a reasonable sample covering 733 civilian fatalities. Fires
such as Black Friday, Black Saturday and Ash Wednesday, whilst grouped as single
events, resulted from a number of separate fires that occurred at the same or similar
time within a region exposed to extreme weather conditions.
Table 4.1 Major fire loss consolidated events derived from Blanchi (20127)
Civilian House
Dates of Fire Description State
Fatalities Losses
14 February 1926 Black Sunday Gippsland VIC 31 550
10-13 January 1939 Black Friday VIC 66 650
14 January 1944 & Linton &
VIC 48 700
14 February 1944 Morwell
7 February 1967 Black Tuesday Hobart TAS 64 1257
8 January 1969 Lara VIC 20 230
16 February 1983 Ash Wednesday VIC VIC 46 2060
16 February 1983 Ash Wednesday SA SA 27 383
7 February 2009 Black Saturday VIC 172 2021
Total 474 7851
Note: A large proportion of losses in the Lara fire occurred within vehicles in a single
incident.
Some key observations from the table are that fatalities varied from 20 to 172 per
consolidated incident without adjustment for population over time.
The fires listed in Table 4.1 accounted for 65% of the fatalities recorded in the
database. The fatalities occurring in Victoria from seven of these events accounted
for approximately 52% of the losses.
Bushfire risk management and the role of bushfire resistant construction
The fire safety concepts tree defined in NFPA 550 (201213) is a simple qualitative
representation of fire safety concepts showing the relationships between fire
abcb.gov.au Page 15
prevention and various mitigation strategies. It has been adapted for application to
bushfires to provide a context for the NCC bushfire Performance Requirements and
Verification Methods GV5 and V2.7.2. It shows the interaction with other regulatory
and voluntary measures that also impact on the safety of people and buildings and
will help to determine the appropriate bushfire safety designs, the type of analysis for
a particular application and data requirements.
The concepts tree uses two types of logic gates as shown in Table 4.2 below.
Table 4.2 Types of logic gates
Symbol Name Explanation

The “or” gate indicates that any of the concepts directly
OR below it will cause or have as an outcome the concept
above it.
The “and” gate indicates that all of the concepts directly
AND below it will cause or have as an outcome the concept
above it.
The upper levels of the fire safety concepts tree are shown in Figure 4.3 together
with mitigation methods relevant to this discussion. Figure 4.4 to Figure 4.7 show the
lower branches of the tree and provide further detail.
A review of the lower branches shows interrelationships between many mitigation

strategies. No single measure can fully address the bushfire risk and the
effectiveness of many mitigation measures is significantly limited by practical
considerations (e.g. limited capacity to control or suppress large and severe
bushfires, managing other risks such as landslip, human involvement and conflicts
with other legislation and social values such as conservation).
The comments below the branches in Figure 4.3 highlight some of the most effective
mitigation measures and also show where bushfire resistant buildings and structures
fit into the tree (highlighted in the yellow box). In subsequent figures, mitigation
measures relating to buildings are also highlighted in yellow boxes.
A large proportion of bushfires are started as a result of human activities. Therefore

strategies that can prevent ignition in the first place will provide the best outcomes.
abcb.gov.au Page 16
However, there will always be a residual risk of natural fire starts (lightning) and it is
not possible to totally eradicate fire starts from human activities.
Early suppression of fires before they can take hold minimises damage, but it is
reliant upon an “and” gate with five inputs. In addition, the effectiveness of a
response is very time sensitive.
The complex method can take these matters into account when determining the
frequency of bushfire attack on a specific building or development.
Buildings / structures can contribute to defend in place strategies but are reliant upon
“and” gates, with a significant reliance on human activities as shown in Figure 4.7.
Figure 4.8 shows the “accomplish by administrative action branch” with notes
showing its application to the design and construction of buildings. It can be observed
that in order to achieve the intended outcome there are many administrative
processes that must be undertaken. These lie outside the scope of the NCC, which
provides technical standards relating to design only, however, administrative
processes will impact on the effectiveness of the design features providing resistance
to bushfire attack.
abcb.gov.au Page 17
Figure 4.3 Upper branches of fire safety concepts tree identifying mitigation measures relevant to analysis
abcb.gov.au Page 18
Figure 4.4 Ignition branch of the fire safety concepts tree applied to initial cause of a fire
Initial Ignition of Bushfire
Prevent Fire
Ignition
B
+
Can only impact on a small proportion of

Mitigation Measures partially successful
Control source-fuel fire starts.
Control heat energy Natural causes of ignition (lightning) uncontrolled
Effectiveness reduced due to conflicts with Control fuel
sources interactions
other community interests
+
Can only impact on a
Clear roadside reserves to reduce risk of +
small proportion of
fire starts due to transport / cigarettes etc
fire starts
(may conflict with conservation / planning)
Clear vegetation around power transmission
lines and equipment.
Control fuel
Eliminate heat Control rate of heat Eliminate fuel
ignitibility
sources energy release
+
Total Fire Bans / Education (accidental fires)
Crime prevention (Arson)
Fire Safe Design of equipment
Management of prescribed burns
Fire Safe Design Transport Control Heat Energy Control fuel
Control heat energy
Fire Safe Design and maintenance of Transfer Process transport Control fuel Control the
source transport
Power transmission systems properties environment
+ +
Fuel reduction / management
Land management
(may conflict with conservation /planning)
Provide Barrier Control Conduction Control Convection Control Radiation Provide Barrier` Provide Separation
Provide Separation`
Bury high voltage power lines
abcb.gov.au Page 19
Figure 4.5 Manage fire branch of fire safety concepts tree
Manage Fire
Control combustion Control fire by

Suppress Fire
process Construction
Control movement Control movement

Control the of fire towards the of fire at the urban
Control fuel
environment built environment interface
+ + + Go to B
Control physical Control chemical Provide separation Provide barrier

Control fuel
Limit fuel quantity
Control fuel
properties of components of the +
properties distribution
environment` environment
Provide Fire Break between built environment and
predominant vegetation. Provide Wind Breaks
Land Management / Back Burning
Avoid Ladder Vegetation
Asset Protection Zones Prescribed burns
Fire Breaks
Automatically Manually Suppress

suppress fire Fire
Apply sufficient Apply sufficient

Detect Fire` Detect Fire Communicate signal Decide Action Respond to site
Suppressant suppressant
Not practicable
Ground based Suppression - Fire Brigade Intervention
and / or individual / community suppresseion
Ariel Suppression
abcb.gov.au Page 20
Figure 4.6 Control movement of fire at urban interface sub-branch of control fire by construction
Control Movement of Fire at Urban Interface
Control movement Note: Clearing or managing vegetation may

of fire at the urban conflict with conservation / planning provisions
interface
B
+
Control heat energy Control source-fuel

Control fuel
sources interactions
+ +
Control fuel
Eliminate heat Control rate of heat Eliminate fuel
ignitibility
sources energy release
Avoid storage of
Manage vegetation adjacent to combustibles under or +
built environment to reduce the risk of spread and adjacent to structures or
acceleration through the built environment other combustibles
Control Heat Energy Control fuel Control fuel Control the

Control heat energy
Transfer Process transport properties environment
source transport
+ + Select "bushfire Limit and maintain

resistant" vegetation vegetation.(e.g Asset
Select low flamibility Protection Zone)
building materials
Avoid ladder vegetation
with potential to spread
Provide Barrier Control Conduction Control Convection Control Radiation Provide Barrier` Provide Separation fore to crown.
Provide Separation`
Pre-wetting of combustible
materials such as decks
Protect combustibles from heat energy sources by construction Clear vegetation around built environment
Clear vegetation Provide ember
e.g. protection of gas bottles to prevent accumulation of wind blown debris.
around built protection to buildings
Use metal distribution pipes for gas services
environment which may facilitate
above ground or run entirely underground
Landscaping fire spread
abcb.gov.au Page 21
Figure 4.7 Manage exposed branch
abcb.gov.au Page 22
Figure 4.8 Accomplish by administrative action branch applied to design and construction of buildings in bushfire prone areas
Accomplish by
administrative
action
Accomplish by Accomplish by
mandatory action voluntary action
+ +
Accomplish by
Accomplish by Accomplish by control of human
Accomplish by features of design
control of human action
features of design
action
Educate User Inspect Property Motivate User Educate User Inspect Property
Adopt legislation Educate User Inspect Property Enforce law Adopt legislation Educate User Inspect Property Enforce law Motivate User
NCC Compliant Buildings are designed on a number of assumptions / Owners need to be encouraged Inspection service If building is not upgraded to NCC compliance the following actions could
Building or Planning Regulations in each Requirements for checking could be offered to
conditions including: to upgrade existing buildings. If improve house survivability
state generally require compliance with designs and inspection during and advise and educate
vegetation management, costs to upgrade / comply are vegetation management,
the NCC with respect to design of new at end of construction specified in owners
maintenance of buildings and features too high it can act as a disincentive maintenance of buildings and features
buildings within bushfire prone areas. State / Territory Legislation
additional fire loads not being introduced and existing buildings / blocks additional fire loads not being introduced
These conditions can be adopted through legislation - e.g. via permit conditions may be allowed to deteriorate and
but owners need to be educated, audits undertaken and requirements enforced. present an increased hazard
Requirements for Registration Enforcement by means of audits
of practitioners incorporating Education of owners
and disciplinary measures
training / CPD in State / Territory with respect to bushfire
responsibility of State / Territory
Legislation risk and cost effective
government departments
measures
Design and Construction of new buildings or refurbishment of buildings to comply with NCC Technical Provisions Voluntary Upgrade of existing buildings to comply or partially comply with NCC Technical Provisions
abcb.gov.au Page 23
Determination of Annual Probability of Exceedance (APE)

The APE for design actions is prescribed in Table GV5.1 of GV5 and Table V2.7.2 of
V2.7.2. Table GV5.1 is reproduced below in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Annual probability of exceedance for design actions (NCC Volume One Table GV5.1)
Simple analysis APE for

Importance Complex analysis APE for
weather conditions (design
Level bushfire exposure
bushfire)
2 1:500 1:50
3 1:1000 1:100
4 1:2000 1:200
After determining the importance level of the building (Chapter 3) and selecting the
type of analysis (Chapter 4), the appropriate APE is selected.
Example: A Class 2 building housing more than 12 occupants
From Table 5.1, the building is classified as importance level 3.
If the simple analysis method has been selected, the APE based on weather
conditions would be 1:100.
If the complex analysis method has been selected, the APE for exposure to bushfire
attack for design purposes would be 1:1000.
Determination of design actions

Chapter organisation
Sections 6.1 to 6.7 provide general information that is applicable to both the simple
and complex types of analysis.
Section 6.8 provides specific guidance in relation to complex analysis and Section
6.9 provides specific guidance in relation to simple analysis.
abcb.gov.au Page 24
Whichever type of analysis is adopted, the approach to the specification of bushfire

design actions will be similar. General advice applicable to complex and simple
analysis is provided in Section 6.10.
Overview of bushfire design actions
Verification Methods GV5 and V2.7.2, specifically require consideration of the

following bushfire design actions for both the simple and complex approaches.
(d) …

bushfire hazard:
element.
This approach is consistent with the NCC DTS requirements provided in AS 3959,
Construction of Buildings in Bushfire-Prone Areas (Standards Australia 201821), and
the following referenced test standards for evaluation of the performance of elements
of construction:
• AS 1530.8.1-2007 Methods for fire tests on building materials, components and

bushfire attack - Radiant heat and small flaming sources (Standards Australia
200719).
simulated bushfire attack — Large flaming sources (Standards Australia 200720).
Parameters for consideration
When establishing bushfire design actions, GV5 and V2.7.2 require consideration of
reasonable variations in:
abcb.gov.au Page 25
(e) …

(ii) vegetation; including fuel load, burning behaviour of the vegetation
(including potential for crown fires); and
Defining “fire weather”
Fire weather is typically expressed through some combination of surface air

temperature, precipitation, relative humidity and wind speed. These meteorological
variables are commonly combined into a single index using empirical relationships
such as the McArthur Forest Fire Danger Index or the Grassland Fire Danger Index.
“Reasonable” variations in the design fire weather conditions are addressed through
the prescribed APE specified in GV5 and V2.7.2. For the simple method, the APE for
fire weather conditions are directly specified whereas for the complex method, fire
weather is one of a broader range of parameters considered when defining the APE
bushfire exposure.
Bushfire models for determination of design actions
The extent of exposure of a building element to bushfire attack is primarily dependent

upon the proximity to the fire front, fire severity / fuel characteristics, fire weather,
topography and shielding (by natural features or man-made barriers).
abcb.gov.au Page 26
Close to the fire front there is potential for direct flame attack on a building.
Topography and wind effects can tilt the plume towards a structure even if vegetation
in the immediate vicinity has been cleared.
Beyond the distance at which there is potential for direct flame impingement /
convective heating, a building element can be exposed to substantial radiant heat
unless the element is shielded by another part of the building or some form of barrier.
For elements that are not shielded, the peak radiant heat flux level generally reduces
as the distance from the fire front increases.
Embers / brands can be carried substantial distances via the convective plume but
the concentration of embers / brands, and hence associated hazard, decreases
(generally exponentially) as the distance from the fire front increases.
Bushfire models can be used to derive bushfire design actions with respect to
exposure to embers, radiant heat and flame contact from the fire front or
combinations taking into account the parameters listed above with supplementary
exposures applied to address secondary fires as appropriate (refer Section 6.5 for
further information on secondary fires).
Example: Bushfire model (e.g. AS 3959:2018 (Standards Australia 201821))
A typical example of the use of a bushfire model to determine bushfire design actions
is the method documented in AS 3959:2018 (Standards Australia 201821) in
conjunction with the AS 1530.8 test methods (Standards Australia 200719, 20), which
define the associated bushfire exposures. Further details of the AS 3959 model and
derivation of design fire exposures are provided by England et al (200610).
Chen and McAneney (20109) analysed building losses based on the distance from
adjacent bushland after major fires. Their findings are shown in Figure 6.1, which
plots the percentile of all destroyed buildings against distance from adjacent
bushland with and without the Duffy fires. The samples (destroyed buildings) were
from the following fires:
• Marysville Vic
abcb.gov.au Page 27
• Kinglake Vic
• Duffy and Como-Jannali ACT / NSW
• Otway Ranges Vic
• Hobart. Tas
The Duffy fires differed substantially from other major bushfires with building losses
extending further into the built environment.
Based on these distributions it can be observed that typically 40% of house losses
occur within 10m of the “bushland”, 60% within 30m, over 70% within 50m, 85%
within 100m and approximately 95% within 150m.
Therefore, it is considered reasonable to require consideration of vegetation up to

150m.
Note: the complex method does consider vegetation in the broader geographic
region to determine the probability of spread to the urban interface.
Consideration of the impact of vegetation on bushfire design actions
If a form of vegetation does not encroach within 150m of the building under
consideration, its contribution to the design actions need not be considered except
for some buildings of importance level 4 where protection from ember attack and
associated secondary fires may be considered beyond 150m of the vegetation if it is
impractical to evacuate the occupants.
abcb.gov.au Page 28
Figure 6.1 Cumulative distribution of all buildings destroyed in various major bushfires in
Australia in relation to distance from nearby bushland from Chen and McAneney (20109)
Secondary fires
Secondary fires can vary greatly in size and duration depending upon the
characteristics of the burning items involved in the secondary fire.
England et al (200610) identified the following secondary fires scenarios:
• Wind-blown debris collecting on predominantly horizontal surfaces adjacent to

building elements
• Adjacent structures (e.g. adjacent houses and outbuildings)
• Stored materials adjacent to buildings
• Inappropriate vegetation adjacent to buildings.
The following are examples of methods of addressing secondary fire scenarios.
Example: Burning debris and accumulated embers
Since wind velocities will vary, it is generally necessary to assume debris will collect
on all horizontal and close to horizontal surfaces, roof valleys and similar details.
abcb.gov.au Page 29
Where these details cannot be avoided, burning debris can be characterised by the
timber cribs specified in AS 1530.8.1 if more specific data is not available.
Note: Innovative design of buildings to minimise the accumulation of embers (e.g.

avoiding re-entrant details and horizontal surfaces and / or adopting aerodynamic
forms that tend to shed windblown debris and embers) could form part of a building
solution for evaluation using the Verification Method.
Example: Exposure to adjacent structures (fire spread between buildings)
Fire spread between buildings is required to be addressed under NCC Volume One
CP2 and NCC Volume Two P2.3.1 and has not, therefore, been included in GV5.
The impact of this design action may be addressed for Volume One using CV1 and
CV2, or an equivalent process. Fire spread between buildings during bushfire events
should be evaluated without consideration of fire brigade intervention (refer Section
6.6 for further information on fire brigade intervention).
The hazards caused by stored materials, mulch and inappropriate vegetation, are
commonly addressed by administrative means through placing controls on the
location of these hazards close to a building (this approach is consistent with
assumptions underpinning AS 3959:201821). Where controls are not specified, the
expected heat release rate from the stored materials, mulch or vegetation should be
determined and the response of the building to these design actions evaluated.
Simultaneous exposure to secondary fires
When determining bushfire design actions, it should be assumed that any secondary
fires occur simultaneously with the peak exposure directly from the fire front.
Intervention by fire brigades and occupants
During significant bushfires, there will be conflicting demands on fire brigade

resources and reliance should not be placed on fire brigade intervention to protect a
specific property.
abcb.gov.au Page 30
Prior to the 2009 Black Saturday fires, an early evacuation or stay and defend policy
was in place and data from major fires indicated that the presence of occupants
significantly increased the probability of house survival (refer Table 7.1). However, in
response to the subsequent Royal Commission findings there is now a greater
emphasis on early evacuation. Whilst this is expected to reduce fatalities by reducing
the numbers of people at risk, a negative consequence will be an increase in
property losses for buildings constructed to similar standards. It should therefore be
assumed that there will be no fire brigade or occupant intervention with respect to
protecting a specific property.
Fire brigade or occupant intervention
When determining design fire actions and / or the responses of elements of

construction no modification should be made to take into account fire brigade or
occupant suppression activities. (Note: This includes manually operated sprinkler
suppression systems since occupants are expected to have evacuated substantially
before the arrival of the fire front, although in some circumstances it may be
reasonable to consider the effects of pre-wetting combustible materials and
vegetation).
Impact of wind
Ramsay and McArthur (198714) noted that “severe bushfires are commonly
accompanied by high winds due to the prevailing weather conditions and localised
high winds can be induced by the fire, potentially “opening the buildings up” prior to
the passage of the fire front by dislodging roof tiles and breaking windows, increasing
susceptibility to ember / flying brand attack”.
The resistance of the structure / building envelope to high winds will normally be
addressed as part of the structural design of a modern building. However; it is still
necessary to consider the impact of wind on design actions (e.g. flame inclination,
pressure distributions applied to structures, ember concentrations and velocities) and
the behaviour of combustible elements.
abcb.gov.au Page 31
Weather conditions can vary rapidly, and local topography and other factors lead to
localised variations especially relating to wind velocities. Therefore, the impact of a
range of wind velocities shall be considered under the design actions, as far as
practicable. It is understood that there are practical limitations and methods of
addressing some of these limitations are discussed in Chapter 7.
Wind variability
Due to the variability of wind during a bushfire event it is necessary to consider the
impact of variable wind velocities when determining design actions, having regard for
practical limitations.
Complex analysis
Exposure of a structure to a bushfire event does not occur as a result of extreme

weather conditions alone, but rather as a result of a series of related events as
indicated in the simple event tree shown in Figure 6.2, which has been derived from
the fire safety concepts tree analysis and is consistent with the following requirement
from the Verification Method:
Note: Table GV5.1
Complex analysis must consider the probability of ignition, fire spread to the urban
interface and penetration of the urban interface coincident with fire weather
conditions.
abcb.gov.au Page 32
Figure 6.2 Determination of exposure to design actions - complex method
Mitigation Options
Fire Manage fire Manage fire at Manage fire

prevention outside urban urban interface within urban
areas
environment
Suppress / contain
Suppress / contain
Ignition
Fire spread towards

Separation /
urban interface
vegetation
management
Severe weather
Bushfire penetrates
urban interface
Bushfire Determine design

impacts action combination
building with prescribed APE
No ignition
The main advantage of the complex analysis method is that it enables a broader
range of parameters to be considered when deriving design actions, encouraging the
design of buildings solutions tailored to the specific risks at a particular location.
It also encourages, and takes account of, other mitigation methods such as fire
prevention and fire management across a geographic region that may fall under
different legislation. Opportunities to take advantage of this flexibility may be limited
for infill developments, but can be considered for new housing estates and large
facilities where fire breaks and fire prevention features such as below ground power
cables are used.
There are opportunities to combine the application of the complex analysis approach
with general planning and bushfire mapping activities. There is potential to improve
the consistency of approaches throughout a township or suburb, and determine
design bushfire exposures that more accurately reflect the bushfire risk as described
in the example below.
abcb.gov.au Page 33
Example: Integration of complex analysis with mapping bushfire exposures
Using the complex approach, the design fire weather conditions for a township could
be derived, or bushfire design actions specified with regards to the bushfire hazard
for individual allotments, or groups of allotments in the specific township or suburb.
Bushfire exposures could be expressed in terms of Bushfire Attack Levels (BAL) for
compatibility with the AS3959 approach. Such an approach could also negate the
need for subsequent individual assessments for an individual development and
provide consistency throughout a township or suburb.
The event tree shown in Figure 6.2 is consistent with a number of quantitative
bushfire risk assessment models under development (e.g. Atkinson et al (20106),
Cechet et al (20148)). Earlier work by Bradstock and Gill was referenced by Atkinson
et al (20106)), which proposed the relationship:
D=I.S.E.G.H.
Where:
D is the adverse risk to humans and property

I is the probability of ignition in the landscape
S is the probability of the fire reaching the urban Interface
E is the probability of the fire encroaching into the built environment
G is the probability of fire propagating within the built environment
H is the probability of fire propagating within buildings.
This relationship identifies similar events to the above event tree except that it goes
further and considers the probability of fire propagating within buildings. The
probability of fire propagating within buildings is also considered in GV5 and V2.7.2
(refer Chapter 7).
Simple method
The simple analysis method avoids the need to consider fire behaviour over a large
area by specifying an APE for the fire weather, and assuming that when these
conditions occur the fire will penetrate the urban interface as shown in Figure 6.3.
abcb.gov.au Page 34
The 90-percentile bushfire exposure combination is then used to determine the

bushfire design action combination.
This approach is consistent with the DTS approach specified in AS 3959:2018 but in
some circumstances, may tend to be overly conservative particularly where the
bushfire hazard is relatively low.
Figure 6.3 Determination of exposure to design actions - simple method
Manage fire within

urban environment
Seperation /
vegetation
management
Fire weather for Bushfire penetrates

prescribed APE urban interface
Bushfire impacts Determine 90%

building design action
combination
Specification of bushfire design actions
Introduction
The specification of design actions to some extent will be dependent upon the
proposed methods used to determine the response of elements or combinations of
elements to the design action.
Irrespective of the methods adopted bushfire exposures will generally need to be

rationalised to some extent to facilitate comparison and evaluation of the
performance of elements of construction.
abcb.gov.au Page 35
A typical rationalisation is shown in Figure 6.4. Since the Verification Method

assumes no involvement of fire brigade or occupants, the time related events
involving human interventions (such as suppression and evacuation) are not required
for determination of compliance with the Verification Method. This avoids the need to
adjust the bushfire actions to take into account suppression activities.
The following sub-sections provide further information relating to the specification of

bushfire design actions.
Where appropriate, reference has been made to published data from Project Vesta
(200812), which was an investigation into the behaviour and spread of high-intensity
bushfires in dry eucalypt forests. It was designed to quantify age-related changes in
fuel attributes and fire behaviour in dry eucalypt forests typical of southern Australia.
abcb.gov.au Page 36
Figure 6.4 Bushfire design actions
Bushfire attack Bushfire design

scenarios actions
Embers only
Ember Embers plus

attack debris
Embers plus
secondary source
Radiant heat &

embers only
Bushfire in proximity Radiant heat and Radiant heat &

to Building embers embers plus debris
Radiant heat &

embers plus
secondary source
Direct exposure to
flame attack from
front
Direct flame
Direct exposure to
flame attack from
front plus large and
sustained
secondary sources
abcb.gov.au Page 37
Ember (fire brand) attack

Typically, fire brand densities have been found to decrease exponentially downwind
of a fire break.
Project Vesta (200812) suggested the following general relationship for fires where
the convective column collapsed on reaching the fire break:
DFb=Do e-ad
Where,
DFb is the fire brand density / m2 at a given distance d

Do is the fire brand density / m2 immediately downwind of the fire break
a is a constant describing the rate of decrease of fire brand density with distance
d is the distance downstream of the fire break.
An example of the data obtained from Fire D 5-year-old fuel is shown in Figure 6.5.
Figure 6.5 Maximum fire brand density downwind of Fire D (Jarrah forest with 5-year-old fuel)
adapted from Gould et al (200812)
6
Firebrand density /m2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance Downwind of firebreak - m
Higher fire brand densities were obtained from fires using 22 year old fuel.
abcb.gov.au Page 38
The Project Vesta report (200812) also includes descriptions of the nature of the fire
brands formed and proposed relationships for fire brand distribution at right angles to
the prevailing wind direction.
Subject to availability of data, it is possible to estimate fire brand density based on

the distance from the fire front and from consideration of the fire brand
characteristics, which can then be used to estimate the probability of ignition of
secondary fires or embers penetrating openings.
A simple conservative approach, adopted by the NCC DTS Provisions in

AS 3939:2018 is to assume that buildings within 100m of the fire front are exposed to
significant ember attack rather than considering the ember (fire brand) exposure
density.
Radiant heat attack

Estimates of imposed radiant heat can be made based on measured radiation
exposures from field experiments. However, such data is limited and approximate
estimates are commonly based on assumed flame heights and estimated emitted
radiant heat flux levels. The exposure period at maximum heat flux is important and
is commonly taken as the flame residency period. This can be defined as the time
from initial temperature rise to the time of definitive drop as suggested by Rothermel
and Deeming (198016). A typical time temperature history from Project Vesta (200812)
is shown in Figure 6.6 with a flame residency period of approximately 20 seconds
and an observed flaming period approaching 1 minute. Since the emitted heat flux is
proportional to temperature to the power 4 the longer observed flaming period is less
critical.
abcb.gov.au Page 39
Figure 6.6 Flame residency time and the observed flaming period at 0.5m 75m from ignition line
(fire Mc 08/A) from Gould et al (200812)
abcb.gov.au Page 40
Project Vesta confirmed previous findings that showed by using the flame tip as the
datum for the thermocouple positions within the flame, a consistent relationship
between flame temperature and distance from the flame tip can be obtained over a
large range of flame lengths. It appears to be linear over much of the range of
experimental data as shown in Figure 6.7, which has been extracted from Gould et al
(200812).
This indicates that the measured temperatures at the estimated position of the tip of
the flame varied from approximately 200 to 400°C (473 to 673K) for the data from dry
eucalypt forests increasing to a peak temperature between 800 and 1050°C (1073 to
1323K) close to ground level.
Figure 6.7 Flame temperature plotted against distance below the flame tip based on data from
Project Vesta tests and data from grass fire tests in Kenya provided by the Canadian Forest
Service from Gouldet al (200812)
The NCC DTS approach within AS 3959 adopts a simplified method by calculating
the flame height and assuming a uniform emitted heat flux over the total flame height
(flame temperature of 1090K and emissivity of 0.95) over a default fire front width of
abcb.gov.au Page 41
100m with a flame residency period (maximum emitted heat flux) of 2 minutes
defined by AS 1530.8.1 together with the heating profiles shown in Figure 6.8.
The DTS approach also adopts a flame inclination that maximises heat transfer
between the fire front and building rather than considering the effect of wind and will
therefore over-estimate the imposed heat flux in most situations.
Irrespective of the approach adopted to derive the exposure to radiant heat, in many
instances it will be convenient to use the AS 1530.8.1 Bushfire attack levels for
evaluation of the performance of elements of construction.
Figure 6.8 Imposed heat flux from AS 1530.8.119 for various Bushfire Attack Levels (BAL)
Direct flame exposure

If the fire front is close to a building, direct exposure to flames / convective heating
may occur particularly on a sloping site and if strong winds are present tending to tilt
the flame towards the ground. The full exposure is likely to approximate the flame
residency period, but depending upon the proximity, heavy fuels may extend
exposure or major secondary fires may be ignited adjacent to the structure.
abcb.gov.au Page 42
A similar profile to Figure 6.8 can be generated with a rapid rise, sustained peak and
decay period using assumed flame temperatures as shown in Figure 6.9.
Figure 6.9 Direct flame exposure conditions based on assumed flame temperatures and
heating profile of AS 1530.8.1
The standard fire resistance test and hydrocarbon heating regimes from
AS 1530.4:2014 (Standards Australia 201418) are provided for comparison.
For the NCC DTS approach, AS 1530.8.2 is referenced, which uses the AS1530.4
standard heating regime with 30 minutes exposure. Whilst a closer simulation could
be achieved by adopting the hydrocarbon regime for a period of approximately
5 minutes plus a cooling period, the standard heating regime over a longer period
was adopted because furnace control during the first 5 minutes of a hydrocarbon test
would not be expected to be precise, leading to excessive variations in exposure
conditions from one test to another.
From Figure 6.9, it can be seen that the thermal shock is not as great with the
standard heating regime and a peak temperature of 841°C is attained after
30 minutes. Supplementary controls on vegetation immediately around a building
may reduce the flame temperature close to the point of contact and severity of
abcb.gov.au Page 43
exposure significantly and therefore in many circumstances the peak temperature will
not be critical. The extended duration of heating (30 minutes) can also account for
heavy fuels or secondary fires that may extend exposure.
Debris
On surfaces where debris can collect there is a significant risk that embers could
ignite accumulations of debris. A practical approach to quantify this exposure is to
establish a mass burning rate and if the performance of an element cannot be
predicted the exposure can be simulated by burning cribs. This approach is adopted
in AS 1530.8.1.
During the development of AS 1530.8.1, a series of tests were performed on typical

samples of burning debris to ascertain the mass burning rate with and without
imposed radiant heat. A typical example is shown in Figure 6.10.
Figure 6.10 Determination of mass burning rate for debris when exposed to radiant heat:
England et al (200811)
The mass loss rates were compared against similar tests undertaken with three sizes
of timber crib.
abcb.gov.au Page 44
For this application, timber cribs have the following advantages over gas burners:
• As the cribs are consumed, large concentrations of burning timber embers of

varying sizes are produced, which can lodge or fall through gaps simulating a
major ignition process for homes exposed to ember / burning debris attack.
• The crib itself provides a high localized heat flux of similar magnitude and
duration to that expected from a pile of burning debris or mulch adjacent to a
building façade or on a horizontal surface such as a deck simulating an ignition
process for buildings involving the collection of debris and mulch on or adjacent
to the element of construction.
Other secondary fires

Similar approaches can be adopted for other secondary sources to that described for
debris above. Data is available in technical publications for burning rates of many
items that may be involved in secondary fires, which can be used to define design
fires.
For fire spread between buildings, the criteria specified in CV1 and CV2 of NCC
Volume One can be used to define the required exposure.
Determination of response to bushfire attack

Overview – Determination of the response of elements of construction to
bushfire attack
Once the design actions have been derived, the next stage in the design process is
to determine the response of the elements of construction or combinations of
elements to enable the probability of fire initiation within the building when exposed to
design actions to be determined.
This should then be compared with the acceptance criteria that requires the
probability of fire initiation within the building not to exceed 10%.
Verification Methods GV5 and V2.7.2 require the assessment process to include
consideration of the following:
(f) …
abcb.gov.au Page 45

(iii) the inclusion of safety factors; and
(iv) sensitivity analysis of critical aspects of the proposed design.
The scope of the NCC is limited to the provision of national technical provisions with
the administration and maintenance of building works being the responsibility of the
States and Territories. Therefore, the NCC Verification Method specification of a
maximum 10% probability of fire initiation within the building has to be based on
compliant construction of critical aspects of the approved design and ongoing
maintenance of the critical aspects of the design such that the design performance is
maintained.
However, this does not absolve designers, suppliers and regulatory authorities of
responsibility for addressing safety throughout the building life cycle and hence the
inclusion of requirements within GV5 and V2.7.2 to highlight the need for
consideration.
Section 8 provides supplementary information relating to administration of building

works, compliance and maintenance.
Interpretation of acceptance criteria
The NCC Verification Method specification of a maximum 10% probability of fire

initiation within the building should be based on compliant construction of critical
aspects of the approved design and ongoing maintenance of the critical aspects of
the design such that the design performance is maintained.
BUT GV5 and V2.7.2 also require consideration of the probability of non-complying
construction of critical aspects of the approved design; and the probability of critical
aspects of an approved design being fully functional during the life of the building.
abcb.gov.au Page 46
The design must document how these matters have been addressed and estimated
probabilities for compliant construction and maintenance of critical features, which
should be considered by the relevant regulatory authority when reviewing the design.
Further guidance relating to the Administration of Building Works, Compliance and
Maintenance is provided in Chapter 8.
The response of elements of construction to bushfire attack can be evaluated using a

number of methods or combinations of methods including:
• exposure to standard fire test methods

• analysis of bushfire loss data (statistical methods)
• analyses based on material properties and engineering methods
• expert judgement
• fire experiments.
The selection of the most appropriate method(s) will depend upon the specific
circumstances, but for general applications, the specification of standard fire test
methods provides the most design flexibility and simplifies the assessment of
evidence of suitability.
The performance at the interfaces between elements of construction must be

considered and may represent the most vulnerable part of the building envelope.
Wind exposure of a building is transient and may vary rapidly through the course of a
bushfire. Wind exposure will be modified as the wind interacts with the building and
other features. Testing under steady state conditions may yield unrealistic results and
performance of many elements of construction may vary across a range of wind
velocities. For example, burning behaviour of some combustibles will be enhanced at
some velocities and retarded at others.
Ideally the behaviour of elements of construction should be evaluated over a broad

range of air velocities and bushfire exposures, but in most instances it is impractical
to determine the fire performance of building elements under a comprehensive range
of wind conditions.
abcb.gov.au Page 47
Designers should take account of the potential implications of likely variations in

exposure conditions including the impact of wind variations and material variations
when assessing the probability of failure. Uncertainties may be addressed through
the adoption of conservative assumptions when deriving the design exposure
conditions or in some cases explicit safety factors may be nominated.
Care needs to be taken with whichever approach is taken. For example, introducing
large safety factors may have no impact if large unprotected openings are present in
an element or if the bushfire exposure is substantially changed because vegetation is
not managed in accordance with the design requirements.
For risk based approaches, sensitivity analyses may be more helpful in identifying
features of a design that are more sensitive to changes in bushfire exposure or non-
compliances so that the design can take this into account.
Common methods of determining the response of elements to bushfire attack are

summarised in the following sections.
Standard test methods
Standards Australia published the following standards in 2007, which were

subsequently referenced by AS 3959:2018 and therefore form part of the framework
for the NCC DTS Solutions for construction in bushfire prone areas, but the methods
are equally suited to use in performance designs:

bushfire attack - Radiant heat and small flaming sources.
simulated bushfire attack—large flaming sources.
The following performance criteria were specified in the test methods.
When exposed to the design bushfire conditions the building element shall not permit
the following:
abcb.gov.au Page 48
(a) formation of an opening from the fire exposed face to the non-fire exposed face
of the element through which a 3 mm diameter probe can penetrate during the
test and monitoring period (this indirectly assesses the risk of embers passing
through openings)
(b) sustained flaming for more than 10 s on the non-fire side during the test and
monitoring period
(c) flaming on the fire exposed side 60 minutes after the start of the test
(d) radiant heat flux 365 mm from the non-fire side of the specimen in excess of
15 kW/m2 from glazed and un-insulated areas during the test
(e) mean and maximum temperature rises greater than 140 K and 180 K on the
non-fire side respectively during the test and monitoring period, except for
glazed / uninsulated areas for which the radiant heat flux limits are applicable
(f) radiant heat flux 250 mm from the fire exposed face of the specimen greater
than 3 kW/m2 between 20 minutes and 60 minutes after the commencement of
the Part 1 test or 60 minutes after commencement of the Part 2 test (this was
included to maintain egress paths from the building)
(g) mean and maximum temperatures of the internal faces of constructions
including cavities exceeding 250°C and 300°C respectively between 20 minutes
and 60 minutes after the commencement of the Part 1 test or 60 minutes after
commencement of the Part 2 test.
The principle of Part 1 is that a representative element of construction is subjected to

an imposed radiant heat flux in conjunction with small flaming sources. The radiant
heat flux is varied with time to simulate the passage of the flame front. During the
test, a pilot ignition source is applied to exposed combustibles and volatiles on the
exposed face, simulating ember attack. Burning cribs are also applied on surfaces
where there is potential for debris accumulation. The exposure conditions have been
previously discussed in Section 6.10.
The results are expressed in terms of Bushfire Attack Levels (BAL).
For example, a specimen tested in accordance with AS 1530.8.1 that satisfied the
following performance criteria at a peak heat flux of 40 kW/m2 with a Class A crib,
would be classified as BAL: A40. Part 2 applies to elements potentially exposed to
full flame engulfment from the fire front and utilises the standard heating regime of
AS 1530.4:2005 in lieu of the burning cribs and radiant heat. It can also be applied to
large secondary fires.
abcb.gov.au Page 49
For a specimen tested in accordance with AS 1530.8.2 that satisfied the appropriate
performance criteria, the element of construction would be classified as BAL: FZ.
Reference should be made to the AS1530.8 standards (Standards Australia (200719,

20
) and England et al (200811) for further information.
Whilst the test methods do not specifically address wind, the following observations
indicate how the test methods compensate for this to the degree necessary to
demonstrate compliance with the DTS Provisions:
• penetration of the façade by embers is addressed by limiting gap sizes

• conservative assumptions have been made deriving the test exposure
conditions (refer Section 6.10)
• self-extinguishment of the exposed façade is required after exposure to the
heating regimes.
Bushfire loss data and incidents
Whilst investigations and surveys after bushfires can include subjective

interpretations with respect to matters such as the behaviour of elements, extent of
human intervention and the compliance of the building at the time of the fire, they can
provide useful data particularly if the sample size is adequate to provide confidence
in the results.
A good example of the types of information available is shown in Table 7.1, which
was extracted from the results of Surveys in the Otway Ranges after the Ash
Wednesday fires presented by Ramsay et al (199615).
Table 7.1 Relative risks from Ramsay et al (199615)
Relative Risk of
Items Options
Destruction
Wall Cladding Timber 1.0
Wall Cladding Fibre cement 0.8
Wall Cladding Masonry 0.4
Roof Cladding Steel 0.7
Roof Cladding Tiles 0.4
Roof Cladding Corrugated iron 0.9
Roof Cladding Fibre cement 1.0
abcb.gov.au Page 50
Relative Risk of
Items Options
Destruction
Roof Slope Pitched >12º 0.8
Roof Slope Flat < 12º 1.0
Elevation Slab on Ground 0.2
Elevation High >2m 0.4
Elevation Low <2m 0.5
Elevation Stumps 1.0
Occupant Action Stayed 0.1
Occupant Action Left, returned within 30 minutes 0.4
Occupant Action Left and stayed away 0.6
Occupant Action Unoccupied - at the time of fire 1.0
Surrounding Veg. Grass 0.1
Surrounding Veg Shrubs 0.4
Surrounding Veg Trees 1.0
Calculation / modelling
In some instances, the performance of elements of construction can be predicted

based on engineering calculations or modelling using material properties for the
barrier systems where adequate information is available at elevated temperatures.
Care needs to be taken when adopting these methods with respect to joints and
interactions with other materials where differential expansion may cause gaps to
open.
For some elements of construction where the fire-resistant properties are well
documented. Calculation results may be able to be calibrated against test results for
a range of exposure conditions providing further confidence in calculations.
Methods available may vary from simple hand calculations to finite element models.
Fire experiments
Fire experiments can vary from bench scale tests to full scale field tests with burning
forest fuels and exposed elements of construction.
Small scale tests have the advantage of being cost effective allowing for testing of
the same specimens under a range of conditions. However, full-scale field tests can
abcb.gov.au Page 51
be very costly and may not be able to be undertaken in severe bushfire weather
conditions but do provide directly applicable results for the specific conditions of
exposure.
Intermediate scale experiments with simulated bushfire exposures lie between these
extremes and the AS 1530.8 standard test methods where standardised refinements
of earlier fire experiments were undertaken to evaluate materials under simulated
bushfire conditions.
Estimating probability of fire initiation within building when exposed to

design actions
Typically, the probability of fire initiating within a building when exposed to design
bushfire attack actions will be determined using quantitative risk assessment
techniques (such as event trees or fault trees) in conjunction with one or more of the
methods above. It is important to strike a balance by applying approaches that are
practical but retain sufficient technical rigour.
The following simple hypothetical example has been used to demonstrate a practical
approach. It should be noted that in many applications a broader range of design
actions may be applicable but similar approaches can be adopted. The values used
to estimate probabilities have been included for demonstration purposes only and
should not be used for any other purpose.
Example: Estimating the probability of fire Initiation when exposed to design

actions for a brick veneer house.
The building design is a brick veneer house built on a concrete slab with structural
timber framing and steel roofing. A simple roof profile with gradient greater than 25°
without roofing valleys was selected to reduce the risk of debris / leaf litter on the
roof, together with a specification of metal leaf guards detailed to reduce the risk of
ember penetration at the interface of the roof and wall. Windows and doors are
aluminium framed and glazed with toughened glass. A paved path 1.2 m wide was
provided around the perimeter of the house and a vegetation management plan
specified.
abcb.gov.au Page 52
The Verification Method requires the probability of compliant construction and

maintenance of the bushfire safety plan to be estimated separately (see Chapter 8).
Therefore, the estimate of the probability of fire initiation is based on assumed
compliant construction at the time of the fire.
The design actions are summarised in Figure 7.1 and reflect a building more than 50
m from the expected fire front.
A review of the form of construction, design details and materials proposed was
undertaken and the details were generally typical of BAL 29 construction as defined
in AS 3959.
A preliminary review of the building design was undertaken in conjunction with the
relevant approval authorities to identify potentially critical vulnerabilities and specific
modes of attack for vulnerable features.
The results of this exercise are summarised in Table 7.2.
Figure 7.1 Derived exposure and design actions
Radiant heat &

embers only
Debris based on assumption of

regular maintenance. Exposure
Radiant heat and Radiant heat & expected to be substantially less
embers embers plus debris than Crib A of AS 1530.8.1
where there is a risk of debris
collecting
Peak exposure estimated
to be 14KW/m²
maintained for 20s with
rapid growth and decay Bushfire Plan restricts storage
phases. Radiant heat & of combustibles and controls
Max ember density 10/m² embers plus on vegetation such that no
secondary source significant exposure from
secondary sources expected
Table 7.2 Preliminary vulnerability assessment
abcb.gov.au Page 53
Element / Details of Outcome

features construction
Slab On ground extending Risk of failure under expected bushfire

typically 150 mm actions very unlikely
above finished level of
outside ground level
Wall Brick veneer – 90 mm Risk of failure under expected bushfire

thick actions very unlikely
Roofing Steel cladding Thermally thin therefore risk of debris

ignition of combustible sarking / insulation
and structural frame requires consideration.
Also opening up of joints in service allowing
entry of embers
Large Windows and doors When closed, failure unlikely since standard
openings generally BAL 29 of construction proposed substantially more
construction and fitted resistant than exposure but there is a
with metal mesh residual risk if exposed to debris together
screens with risk of windows and doors being open.
Specification of fly screen is basic and
therefore risk of fly screen dislodgment by
wind and failure needs consideration
Roof Pipe / vents required to Effectiveness of details for ember resistance

penetrations be metal with open to be considered
ends protected by
metal mesh
Wall Where practical Effectiveness of ember resistance to be

penetrations services enter building considered if penetrations are exposed
through slab and water
heating unit internal.
HVAC Split systems used Penetration details for refrigerant and

Systems electrical lines to be considered
Interface General protection by Risk of penetration requires detailed

between roof gutter guards consideration
and walls
Construction Sealed with fire Risk of sustaining combustion needs

/Control joints resistant sealant assessing
Wall Interface Sealed with fire Risk of sustaining combustion needs

with doors resistant sealant assessing
and windows
abcb.gov.au Page 54
Based on the above preliminary analysis the following critical vulnerabilities were
identified as requiring further analysis:
• Steel roofing
• Window and door openings
• Ember protection of service penetrations and interfaces between roof and

walls and between roofing sheets
• Performance of combustible mastics.
The upper branches of a general fault tree for fire initiation are shown in Figure 7.2.
This can be applied to initiation within the building, but other fault tree layouts can
also be applied. Fault tree or other forms of analysis should be undertaken to
estimate the probability of initiation with the each of the critical vulnerabilities
exposed to the appropriate design actions and the probabilities summed to provide a
total risk of fire initiation within the building when exposed to the design actions.
Figure 7.2 Upper branches of a general fault tree for fire initiation
Fire intiation within

building
And
Sufficient heat / Target fuel

flame source Sufficient means accessible and
present of heat transfer vulnerable to fire
initiation
abcb.gov.au Page 55
Steel roofing
The roof profile / design and detailing has been selected to reduce the risk of
collection of significant quantities of burning debris. Vegetation management plans
remove the risk of overhanging trees and there are no other secondary fire
exposures. Therefore, the design actions for the roof are radiant heat and ember
attack.
The accessible target fuel is a sarking product with additional thermal insulation that
is in contact with the steel roofing. The means of heat transfer will be generally by
means of conduction and the heat / flame source is the radiant heat profile with a
potential for an ember penetrating an opening in the sheet providing an additional
ignition source.
Heat transfer analysis and consideration of the properties / test data of the materials
indicated that fire initiation would be unlikely with 20 s exposure to a peak heat flux of
14 kW/m2 with a large safety factor and the probability of fire initiation for compliant
construction was therefore considered to be very low (<<1%).
Window and Door Openings
The design of windows and location of sills was such that the exposure to collections
of burning debris was unlikely. For the roof, it was determined that the design action
would be radiant heat and exposure to embers. Since the exposure to radiant heat is
relatively low (14 kW/m2) and of a short duration 20 s with no exposure to burning
debris, based on test data and materials properties it was determined that if the
window was closed the probability of internal fire initiation would be very low. The
probability of fire initiation would therefore be dominated by the probability of a large
opening forming, permitting entry of embers and potential ignition. The designer, peer
reviewer and regulatory authorities agreed to the estimated probabilities shown in
Figure 7.3 for each window opening. This yields a probability per opening under the
design actions of
0.01 x 0.01 x 0.05 = 5 x 10-6.
abcb.gov.au Page 56
The building has 30 windows therefore probability of fire initiation due to spread
through any window assuming uniform exposure would be approximately
1.5 x 10-4 (0.015%)
Figure 7.3 Fault tree for fire initiation due to ember entry of window opening
Fire initiation within

building
And
Target fuel
Sufficient heat/
Sufficient means of accessible and
flame source
heat transfer vulnerable to fire
present
initiation
Design fire And Fire initiation

exposure from embers
Prob 1
Prob 0.05
Window Ember
open protection
/ broken dislodged
Prob 0.01 Prob 0.01
There is an additional risk of exposure to burning debris with respect to the door
openings because of the horizontal surface at the threshold allowing collection of
debris. It was determined, with the bushfire safety plan in place, debris collection at
the base of the two external doors provided would present an exposure to the door
less than the equivalent of an AS 1530.8.1 Type A crib. The door assembly design
had previously been successfully tested and achieved a BAL 29 rating with the Type
abcb.gov.au Page 57
A crib and therefore the probability of failure due to expected material variations is
expected to be low because of a large safety factor in relation to the magnitude and
duration of the incident radiation. However, a review of the variation in material
properties and modes of failure indicated that the performance of toughened glass
can be sensitive to edge defects and damage to glass edges during installation and
that there would be potential for the heat flux and flame exposure from burning debris
to initiate failure of the glazing if a defect was present. The fault tree in Figure 7.4
shows the estimated probabilities. This yields a probability of spread through a door
due to burning debris and subsequent fire initiation of approximately:
1 x 0.1 x 0.01 x 0.1 x 0.2 = 2 x 10-5.
Figure 7.4 Fault tree for Fire Initiation due to burning debris at door base
Fire initiation within

building
And
Target fuel
Sufficient heat/
Sufficient means of accessible and
flame source
heat transfer vulnerable to fire
present
initiation
And And
Fire initiation
from flame
and embers
Radiant Debris Prob 0.2

heat and ignited by
ember ember Defect Ember
exposure window protection
breaks dislodged
Prob 1 Prob 0.1 Prob 0.01 Prob 0.1
Assuming the same probability of fire initiation as windows due to embers and
radiation only of 5 x 10-6 yields a combined probability of fire initiation from all design
actions of 2.5 x 10-5.
abcb.gov.au Page 58
The building has 2 doors therefore probability of fire initiation due to spread through
any door assuming uniform exposure would be approximately 5 x 10-5 (0.005%).
Ember protection of service penetrations, interfaces between roof and walls

and between roofing sheets
The probability of compliance of these details with the design is assessed separately
(refer Chapter 8). Due to the low ember density it was determined by the designer in
conjunction with the peer reviewer and regulatory authority that the probability of fire
initiation through compliant details would be very small and no further analysis was
required.
Performance of combustible mastic
Experimental tests with the prescribed mastic for joint sealing had been undertaken
with the mastic exposed to a radiant heat source of 15 kW/m2 for two minutes with
small ignition sources applied and there was no ignition.
Additional testing with the seals exposed to a burning debris source coincident with
exposure to 15 kW/m2 radiant heat flux was undertaken that showed that the sealant
could be ignited but as the radiant heat was reduced the sealant self-extinguished
and remained in place and the results were consistent for 3 trials.
It was determined by the designer in conjunction with the peer reviewer and
regulatory authority that the probability of fire initiation through compliant sealant
details would be very small and no further analysis was required.
Consolidation of probability of fire initiation
Based on the above analysis the probability of fire initiation from the major
vulnerabilities of the facade was found to be 0.02% and since this is considerably
below the 10% prescribed value for fire initiation a more detailed analysis of other
vulnerabilities is not required.
The very low probability of fire initiation in the above example is expected because
the façade exposure was substantially below the performance limits of the materials
abcb.gov.au Page 59
and construction methods specified. Generally, substantially higher probabilities of

fire initiation can be expected.
Administration of building works, compliance and maintenance

Introduction
The general design process for GV5 and V2.7.2 is shown in Figure 2.1. Further
guidance can be obtained from the International Fire Engineering Guidelines (IFEG)
(20053) or Quantitative Risk Assessment Guidelines, which can be applied to the
design of buildings designed to resist bushfires in accordance with GV5 or V2.7.2.
The NCC scope is limited to technical provisions and the design of buildings, with
responsibility for the administration and maintenance of buildings being addressed
directly by State and Territory legislation. The need for the involvement of designers
and other key stakeholders with responsibility for bushfire safety through the full life-
cycle of a building is important to ensure the design objectives are achieved, similar
to the fire engineering design of buildings. Figure 8.1 shows the fire engineering
involvement at the various stages in the life-cycle of a building based on IFEG and is
also applicable to GV5 and V2.7.2.
GV5 and V2.7.2 specifically require consideration of the probability of non-complying

construction of critical aspects of the approved design; and the probability of critical
aspects of an approved design being fully functional during the life of the building,
further highlighting the importance of compliance.
The following general guidance has been provided in relation to administration of

building works, compliance and maintenance to assist in addressing the risk from
non-compliant construction and inadequate maintenance. However, it should be
noted that there are differences in approach between States and Territories that may
require additional or different approaches to be adopted.
In addition to standard design documentation, an implementation and maintenance

plan should be documented and included as a separate part of the bushfire safety
plan.
abcb.gov.au Page 60
Figure 8.1 Fire engineering involvement at the various stages in the life-cycle of a building from
IFEG (20053)
Feasibility
Preliminary
Processreport Process
study
Schematic
FEB design
Design
Design development
Design
Final Report Documentation
Certification - Regulatory
design Approval
Supplementary
analysis Construction
Certification -
Commissioning
installation
Negotiation Final approval
Alteration
Management and/or
Recommendations and use change of
use
Audit and review Maintenance Demolition
abcb.gov.au Page 61
The implementation and maintenance plan should include as a minimum:
• the estimated probability of non-complying construction of critical aspects of the

approved design and the estimated probability of critical aspects of an approved
design being fully functional during the life of the building
• the basis for the estimates of the above probabilities
• requirements for maintenance of vegetation, combustibles and other features
on the relevant allotment and land adjoining the allotment
• administrative measures necessary to achieve the stated probabilities, including
as appropriate:
• an inspection regime during construction
• inspections at completion of construction
• inspections through the life of the building which include assessment of
compliance of vegetation management and control of other fuels in
accordance with the design assumptions.
Potential sources of information for determining the probability of non-complying

construction and probability of critical aspects of an approved design being fully
functional through the life of a building include:
• results from previous compliance audits

• review of the administration measures applicable to the specific building and
generally to building and planning within the applicable State or Territory, Local
Council areas
• general inspection of extent of vegetation management and building compliance
within the local community.
The “accomplish by administrative action branch” of the fire safety concepts tree
(Figure 4.8) is a useful tool to identify key parameters for consideration which can be
incorporated in event trees for quantifying the probabilities. Typical examples are
provided in Figure 8.2 and Figure 8.3.
abcb.gov.au Page 62
Figure 8.2 Typical event tree for estimating probability of non-complying construction critical
to performance
Building constructed in
accordance with
design documentation
Correct
specification
to resist
actions
Correct Building not
design constructed in
actions accordance with
determined design documentation
Incorrect
Correct APE specification
determined to resist
actions
Incorrect
Importance design
level correct actions Non-critical
determined non-compliance
Incorrect
Building APE
project Non
determined complying
within BPA
construction
Importance Crtitical
level non-compliance
incorrect
Figure 8.3 Typical event tree for estimating probability of critical aspects of an approved
design being fully functional during the life of the building
Structure bushfire Critical

resistance aspects of
adequately design fully
maintained functional
No introduced Structure
combustibles near resistance not
buildings or compromised by
combustibles in areas introduced
required to be clear combustibles
of combustibles Structure bushfire
resistance
compromised by
Adequate inadequate
vegetation maintenance
maintenance
Introduced
combustibles do not
In use exceed design
performance resistance
Introduced
stored
combustibles
near building
Introduced
combustibles
Inadequate exceeds design
vegetation resistance
maintenance
Subjective judgements will be required in most instances and therefore close liaison
with all relevant authorities will be necessary in determining these probabilities and
inputs to event trees or fault trees used to derive the probabilities.
abcb.gov.au Page 63
Bushfire safety plan
The outcome of a design undertaken in accordance with GV5 or V2.7.2 should be

documented in a bushfire safety plan, which should contain all information necessary
to achieve the design objectives. It should also be updated throughout the
construction and commissioning, and throughout the life of the building if any
conditions change. Contents should include the following:
• details of individuals and organisations with responsibility for bushfire safety

design and approval
• details of the site assessment (and surrounding areas for the complex method)
• evidence of suitability demonstrating compliance with the NCC using GV5 or
V2.7.2
• evidence of suitability / compliance with the bushfire safety plan for critical
materials and systems used in the construction of the building
• approved construction drawings verified by the designer and approval authority
• an implementation and maintenance plan
• as built drawings verified by the builder, designer and approval authority upon
completion of the building
• instructions for subsequent owners and occupiers of the expected performance
of the building and maintenance requirements including controls of combustible
materials
• records of audits and inspections during construction and subsequently through
the life of the building.
The bushfire safety plan should be updated throughout the construction and
commissioning process and complete versions provided to the approval authority(s)
and the building owner.
A summary of the critical information from the bushfire safety plan explaining the fire
safety strategy and requirements for the maintenance of vegetation, combustible
materials and building fire safety features should be prepared and a copy provided in
the electrical supply enclosure or similar readily accessible but secure location for
building occupants.
References
abcb.gov.au Page 64
1. ABCB. Design and construction of private bushfire shelters Performance

Standard. Canberra: Australian Building Codes Board, 2014.
2. ABCB. How to comply with the NCC. Canberra: Australian Building Codes Board,
2017.
3. ABCB. International Fire Engineering Guidelines. Canberra: Australian Building
Codes Board, 2005.
4. ABCB. National Construction Code Volume One. Canberra: Australian Building
Codes Board, 2019.
5. ABCB. National Construction Code Volume Two. Canberra: Australian Building
Codes Board, 2019.
6. Atkinson D et al. Implementation of quantitative bushfire risk analysis in a GIS
environment. International Journal of Wildland Fire 2010;19(5):649-658.
7. Blanchi R et al. Life and house loss database description and analysis - report to
the Attorney-General's department, CSIRO EP-129645. CSIRO & Bushfire CRC,
2012.
8. Cechet R et al. Fire impact and risk evaluation decision support tool (FIREDST)
Final report. Australia: Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre, 2014.
9. Chen K and McAneney J. Bushfire penetration into urban areas in Australia: a
spatial analysis. Report for the Bushfire CRC, 2010.
10. England P, Chow V & Zillante G. Recent research and developments for the
performance based design of buildings in bushfire prone areas. The Future of
Fire Safety Engineering 2006; Engineers Australia Society of Fire Safety, Gold
Coast.
11. England P, Parke R and Zillante G. Evaluation methods for assessing the
resistance of elements of construction to bushfire attack, in special seminar
series fire-safety engineering - for building and bushfire. Sydney: Society of Fire
Safety, 2008.
12. Gould JS et al. Project Vesta: fire in dry eucalypt forest: fuel structure, fuel
dynamics and fire behaviour. CSIRO Publishing, 2008.
13. NFP Association. NFPA 550: Guide to the fire safety concepts tree. Quincy:
National Fire Protection Association, 2012.
abcb.gov.au Page 65
14. Ramsay GC, McArthur NA & Dowling VP. Preliminary results from an
examination of house survival in the 16 February 1983 bushfires in Australia. Fire
and Materials 1987;11(1):49-51.
15. Ramsay GC, McArthur NA & Dowling V. Building in a fire-prone environment:
Research on building survival in two major bushfires. Proceeding-Linnean
Society of New South Wales, 1996.
16. Rothermel RC & Deeming JE. Measuring and interpreting fire behavior for
correlation with fire effects. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research
Station, 1980.
17. Safe Work Australia. Safe design of structures - code of practice. Safe Work
Australia, 2012.
18. Standards Australia. AS 1530.4 Methods for fire tests on building materials,
components and structures Part 4: Fire-resistance tests for elements of
construction. Sydney: Standards Australia, 2014.
19. Standards Australia. AS 1530.8.1-2007 Methods for fire tests on building
materials, components and structures - Part 8.1 Tests on elements of
construction for buildings exposed to simulated bushfire attack - Radiant heat
and small flaming sources. Sydney: Standards Australia, 2007.
20. Standards Australia. AS 1530.8.2-2007 Methods for fire tests on building

materials, components and structures - Part 8.2 Tests on elements of
construction for buildings exposed to simulated bushfire attack—Large flaming
sources. Sydney: Standards Australia, 2007.
21. Standards Australia. AS 3959 Construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas.
Sydney: Standards Australia, 2018.
abcb.gov.au Page 66
APPENDICES
Appendix A Compliance with the NCC

Responsibilities for regulation of building and plumbing in Australia
Under the Australian Constitution, State and Territory governments are responsible
for regulation of building, plumbing and development / planning in their respective
State or Territory.
The NCC is an initiative of the Council of Australian Governments and is produced

and maintained by the ABCB on behalf of the Australian Government and each State
and Territory government. The NCC provides a uniform set of technical provisions for
the design and construction of buildings and other structures, and plumbing and
drainage systems throughout Australia. It allows for variations in climate and
geological or geographic conditions.
The NCC is given legal effect by building and plumbing regulatory legislation in each
State and Territory. This legislation consists of an Act of Parliament and subordinate
legislation (e.g. Building Regulations) which empowers the regulation of certain
aspects of buildings and structures, and contains the administrative provisions
necessary to give effect to the legislation.
Each State's and Territory's legislation adopts the NCC subject to the variation or
deletion of some of its provisions, or the addition of extra provisions. These
variations, deletions and additions are generally signposted within the relevant
section of the NCC, and located within appendices to the NCC. Notwithstanding this,
any provision of the NCC may be overridden by, or subject to, State or Territory
legislation. The NCC must therefore be read in conjunction with that legislation.
abcb.gov.au Page 68
Demonstrating compliance with the NCC
Compliance with the NCC is achieved by complying with the Governing

Requirements of the NCC and relevant Performance Requirements.
The Governing Requirements are a set of governing rules outlining how the NCC
must be used and the process that must be followed.
The Performance Requirements prescribe the minimum necessary requirements for

buildings, building elements, and plumbing and drainage systems. They must be met
to demonstrate compliance with the NCC.
Three options are available to demonstrate compliance with the Performance

Requirements:
• a Performance Solution,
• a DTS Solution, or
• a combination of a Performance Solution and a DTS Solution.
All compliance options must be assessed using one or a combination of the following
Assessment Methods, as appropriate:
• Evidence of Suitability
• Expert Judgement
• Verification Methods
• Comparison with DTS Provisions.
A figure showing hierarchy of the NCC and its compliance options is provided in
Figure A.1. It should be read in conjunction with the NCC.
To access the NCC or for further general information regarding demonstrating

compliance with the NCC visit the ABCB website (abcb.gov.au).
abcb.gov.au Page 69
Figure A.1 Demonstrating compliance with the NCC
Appendix B Acronyms
The following table, Table B.1 contains acronyms used in this document.
abcb.gov.au Page 70
Table B.1 Acronyms
Acronym Meaning
ABCB Australian Building Codes Board
APE Annual Probability of Exceedance
AS Australian Standard
AS/NZS Australian Standard / New Zealand Standard
BAL Bushfire Attack Levels
BCA Building Code of Australia
COAG Council of Australian Governments
DTS Deemed-to-Satisfy
Handbook Except in the Preface, means this Handbook
HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air-Conditioning
IFEG International Fire Engineering Guidelines
IGA Inter-government agreement
NCC National Construction Code
NSW New South Wales
QRA Quantitative Risk Assessment
VM Verification Method
Appendix C Defined terms

NCC defined terms
NCC definitions for the terms used in this handbook can be found in:
• Schedule 3, NCC 2019 Volumes One, Two and Three.
Other terms
Fire weather is typically expressed through some combination of surface air

temperature, precipitation, relative humidity and wind speed. These meteorological
abcb.gov.au Page 71
variables are commonly combined into a single index using empirical relationships
such as the McArthur Forest Fire Danger Index or the Grassland Fire Danger Index.
Hazard is a condition that has the potential to cause injury, damage or loss.
Risk is a measure of human injury (harm), environmental damage or economic

loss in terms of incident likelihood and the magnitude of injury, damage or loss.
Subject building(s) means the building or group of buildings that are the subject of
analysis to ascertain their compliance with the NCC.
Topography is the land configuration including its relief and the position of its natural
and man-made features.
abcb.gov.au Page 72

Handbook Bushfire Verification Method

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handbook Bushfire Verification Method

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handbook Bushfire Verification Method

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handbook

Bushfire Verification Method

The material in this publication is Enquiries about this publication can be

This Handbook is one of a series produced by the ABCB developed in response to

This Handbook assists in understanding the Bushfire Verification Method in NCC

2 Introduction to GV5 and V2.7.2 – Verification Methods for building in bushfire

3 Determination of importance level of building ............................... 11

4 Selection and analysis type ....................................................... 12

5 Determination of Annual Probability of Exceedance (APE) ................ 24

6 Determination of design actions ................................................. 24

abcb.gov.au Page iii

7 Determination of response to bushfire attack ................................ 45

8 Administration of building works, compliance and maintenance ........ 60

Appendix A Compliance with the NCC ..................................... 68

Appendix B Acronyms ......................................................... 70

Appendix C Defined terms.................................................... 71

This Handbook has been developed to provide guidance to practitioners seeking to

Design and approval of Performance Solutions

Verification Methods GV5 and V2.7.2 provide quantification of the Performance

Notwithstanding the quantified input and acceptance criteria, other qualitative

Using this document

Referenced documents are located in Section 9. Where a document is referenced, it

Other ABCB documents

Introduction to GV5 and V2.7.2 – Verification Methods for

Verification Method GV5 is reproduced below:

GV5 Buildings in bushfire prone areas

(a) Compliance with Performance Requirement GP5.1 is verified if the

(ii) determining the corresponding annual probability of exceedance in

(aa) Class 3 accommodation building for the aged, children or

(ix) flame tilt; and

Verification Method V2.7.2

Verification Method V2.7.2 is reproduced below:

V2.7.2 Buildings in bushfire prone areas

(vii) duration of exposure; and

Ignition and fire initiation

AS 1530.8.1-2007 Methods for fire tests on building materials, components and

• NCC Volume One Performance Requirement GP5.1 (ABCB 20194)

• NCC Volume Two Performance Requirement P2.7.5 (ABCB 20195).

Figure 2.1 Verification Methods GV5 and V2.7.2 flowchart

Simple analysis Select analysis type Complex analysis

Determine APE for Determine APE for

Determine design Determine design

bushfire weather bushfire exposure

Determine response of building to design

Is the probability of YES

Finalise bushfire safety plan and submit

END of initial design process

The process for determining the importance level of a building or structure is

Chapter 5 describes the process for determining the prescribed APE.

Chapter 6 describes options for the determination of design actions.

Chapter 7 describes options for the determination of the response of elements of

Chapter 8 relates primarily to implementation and maintenance of provisions but includes

Determination of importance level of building

Selection and analysis type

The complex analysis facilitates the consideration of a holistic approach to bushfire

These issues need to be considered when selecting the type of analysis to be

Fire losses by State and Territory

These distributions highlight the potential advantages in adopting the complex

VIC NSW TAS SA Qld WA ACT NT