b'Delta MW and EPS-FR Panel Awning and Patio Roof System 4.8.2.1Fire Scenario 1: Fire Within or Below the Class 10a Structure As can be seen from Figure 4-11, the radiative component of heat transfer to the site boundary (which includes design fire 1 in accordance with Section 4.7.1.1) is no worse for the performance solution case than for the DtS base case. However, due to the awning extending all the way to the site boundary, convective heat may spill directly to the site boundary which could increase the risk of fire spread to the neighbouring allotment.To assess the combination of convective and radiative heat transfer to the site boundary for the Delta MW and EPS-FR system (performance solution case) compared to the DtS base case, an FDS analysis is undertaken in Appendix B .As demonstrated by the results given in Appendix B , the Delta MW and EPS-FR roof system when installed to the requirements given in Section 4.4 does not present a greater hazard of fire spread to the site boundary than the DtS base case. Thus, the performance requirement is satisfied for this fire scenario. 4.8.2.2Fire Scenario 2: Fire Within the Class 1 House As shown in Figure 4-12, in both the DtS case and in the performance solution case, (o)The Class 10a structure attached directly to the Class 1 building is combustible. (p)The Class 10a structure is attached to an identical Class 1 building with identical fire load. (q)The Class 1 building is located an identical distance from the site boundary.Thus, the potential for fire spread from the Class 1 building to the Class 10a structure is identical for the DtS base case and performance solution case. Heat transfer from the Class 1 building to the site boundary is also identical for the DtS base case and performance solution case. Any difference in the risk of fire spread from the subject allotment to the neighbouring allotment is therefore contributable to the Class 10a structure itself. The assessment outlined in Appendix Btherefore applies and the results demonstrate that the Delta MW and EPS-FR system when installed to the requirements given in Section 4.4 does not present a greater hazard of fire spread to the site boundary than the DtS base case. Thus, the performance requirement is satisfied for this fire scenario. 4.8.2.3Fire Scenario 3: Fire Spread from the Site Boundary to the Class 10a StructureIn this case the site boundary forms the fire source feature as discussed in Section 4.7.1.3. The incident radiation on the nearest point of the combustible roof system (point F in Figure 4-14) is considered for both the DtS base case and performance solution case. As the performance solution case has a non-combustible component within 900 mm of the site boundary, this may to some degree shield point F from radiation emitted from the site boundary. However, radiation received at point F for the performance solution case is at least equivalent to or less severe than the DtS base case.However, heat conduction through the steel components forming part of the non-combustible portion of the roof system that is within 900 mm of the site boundary provides an additional mechanism for heat transfer to the combustible portion of the roof system. Convective heat can dissipate to sky and is not a dominant mechanism for heat transfer from the boundary to the Class 10a structure and is therefore ignored.Revision 1-433'