DeltaDualCore™ Panel Awning Systems 
 
Revision 1-12 
9 
 
Table 2-1. Summary of concerns raised by CertMark, Sotera responses and relevant sections 
actioned. 
 
CertMark Concern 
Sotera Response 
Section Actioned 
1. 
The SOTERA report does not 
appear to rely on any testing 
conducted to the DualCore 
panel. We appear not to have 
the overall panels tested to 
1530.3. I also cannot see 
whether SOTERA have 
conducted any assessments of 
the testing noted in the above 
table against the DualCore 
panel or have argued the reports 
are valid against the DualCore 
Panel, having said that, I don’t 
see this being acceptable to the 
UBC. 
All relevant fire test reports and 
certificates have now been summarised 
in Table 3-4 and discussed in Section 3.3 
which justifies that although no AS1530.3 
test has been undertaken specifically on 
the DeltaDualCore™ panel, it is 
reasonable to extrapolate the results of 
the existing AS1530.3 tests to apply to 
the DeltaDualCore™ panel. 
Table 3-4 and 
Section 3.3 
2.  
The report appears to confirm 
the DualCore panel is a Bonded 
Laminate, however the evidence 
to support this claim is not clear. 
Yes, rev 1-4 of the report confirms that 
the sandwich panels are bonded 
laminates but it does not claim that the 
bonded laminates comply with NCC 
3.7.1.1(g). Further clarification has been 
added to Section 1.3(d)(iv) and Section 
4.4.   
Section 1.3(d)(iv) 
and Section 4.4 
3. 
The report claims that sandwich 
panels produced with a non-
composite core consisting solely 
of EPS-FR is outside the scope 
of this FER, however Design 
Configuration 2 incorporates 
such panels which presents a 
contradiction. 
Section 3.2 has been revised to better 
describe the design configurations and 
system variations. 
Section 3.2 
4. 
SOTERA has not extrapolated 
tested thicknesses to products 
(75mm, 100mm, 150mm, 
175mm) 
Discussion has been included in Sections 
3.3.2, 4.7.1.1 and 4.8.2.4. The 
assessment is independent of panel 
thickness as it assesses likelihood of fire 
spread from and to the site boundary. 
Sections 3.3.2, 
4.7.1.1 and 
4.8.2.4 
5. 
A fundamental problem here is 
that SOTERA has provided a 
Performance Solution, however 
this is not what CMI require for 
the purpose of certification. We 
will require a Qualitative 
assessment of the new product 
based on testing conducted to 
the individual products – an 
Evidence of Suitability report or 
alternatively testing conducted 
to the new product. We also 
need to be clear on what we are 
actually certifying, essentially, 
As per the CodeMark protocol, the fire 
engineering assessment must identify the 
applicable NCC performance 
requirements and demonstrate how the 
proposed system achieves the 
performance requirements. This can be 
done using i) NCC verification method 
(quantitative), ii) alternative verification 
method (quantitative), iii) Comparison to 
DtS (quantitative or qualitative), and (iv) 
Expert Judgement (qualitative). When 
using any of these methods, the BCA 
refers to this as a performance solution 
and there is no requirement for the 
Section 3.2 

View this content as a flipbook by clicking here.