6 ms·

Wood is a very cool material! But I would be nervous living in a tall building made out of it, because of its flammability. Maybe if all the wood buildings also

Wood is a very cool material! But I would be nervous living in a tall building made out of it, because of its flammability. Maybe if all the wood buildings also have sprinkler systems, that would offset the risks. Our building is a concrete building about fourteen stories tall. The information we received as part of the lease tells us that it's known as a non-flammable building, and supposedly the safest thing to do if there is a fire on another floor is to shelter in place. I doubt the same would be true in any wood building. Oh, and apparently the article also speaks to this: > It’s also this heft that helps make CLT fire-resistant: the outside layers char slowly, protecting the wood inside from burning. (More on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUGNoTP0Nlc1O-EWf3d1m3QQ&time_continue=36&v=hRIPQ_q2iyY https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUGNoTP0Nlc1O-EWf3d1m3QQ&...)

sliverstorm 9y ago
Not a fire scientist, but solid blocks of dense dry hardwood are actually comparatively quite resistant to ignition. They are not completely fireproof, but superior to many other modern building materials and furnishings. supposedly the safest thing to do if there is a fire on another floor is to shelter in place Of course, that's what they said about Grenfell.
- notl4wy3r 9y ago
  Fortunately, my building still has the original brick cladding.
  - wahern 9y ago
    Does it have sprinklers? Lack of sprinklers is what doomed the Marco Polo condominium victims despite all the mitigations. "We've got three commercial fire hoses on every floor," he said. "We've got three CO2 bottles, big ones, on every floor. When we did the building originally, we thought we have enough equipment at the time, so the fire will never transfer to another unit. We have 45-minute fire doors, so if we have a fire, we can keep it to one unit." ... "Solid, concrete and pre-stressed -- it’s the best.” said Schmidt. It was designed to accommodate natural, tradewind ventilation, but he thinks those winds also helped to feed the fire. -- http://www.kitv.com/story/35948583/long-time-marco-polo-resident-shares-building-history-concerns http://www.kitv.com/story/35948583/long-time-marco-polo-resi...
- blattimwind 9y ago
  A piece of beech firewood lasts about 2-4 hours in a wood stove, which is pretty impressive methinks. (However, construction timber isn't hardwood and never beech).
peterwwillis 9y ago
Large solid timber beams actually burn incredibly slowly: partly because they're so dense, and because wood is a good insulator. For a similar thickness beam, wood takes much longer to fail than steel when superheated. At 1100F, steel starts turning into spaghetti. But on wood, the layer of carbon created by the char becomes an insulating barrier that reduces heat on the non-charred side by up to 90%. A bigger concern to me is the wood rotting from exposure to water or chemicals. Although reinforced concrete also "rots", but in different ways. Wood at least tends to sag before failing from rotting, unlike concrete. I'm kind of surprised they don't utilize things like steel torsion boxes for the foundations instead of concrete, but perhaps there's cost considerations. They could do a lot of fancy things to extend the size of wooden buildings using steel if they don't mind losing those fire retardant properties. Also, it should be mentioned that wood-based buildings can re-ignite after an initial fire, which doesn't happen with steel or concrete. While you may escape the fire and the fire gets put out, the structure may still not be safe. We may need new fire codes if these buildings become commonplace.
- chrishacken 9y ago
  "A bigger concern to me is the wood rotting from exposure to water or chemicals. Although reinforced concrete also "rots", but in different ways. Wood at least tends to sag before failing from rotting, unlike concrete." This. We just moved our office into a 100+ year old wood building. We're doing the renovating ourselves. Most of the wood in the building is rotting or uneven. I've spent a week so far leveling the floors. Every old (70+ years old) building I've ever been in is like this; some worse than others. We have our datacenter in a stone/concrete building that was built in 1912. While it has also deteriorated, it's not nearly as bad as the wooden buildings. The floors have cracks in them, but they're still level for the most part, or easily repairable. The building will easily be standing for another 200+ years. I can't say the same for the wood building.
  - peterwwillis 9y ago
    You really don't know that about concrete buildings without inspection, and possibly core sampling of the concrete. You don't know what the true grade of the concrete is or whether it's thick enough depending on loading. And you need to look for signs of common failure modes such as carbonation, chloride penetration, freeze/thaw cycles, alkali-aggregate reactions, etc. Most concrete failures can penetrate the entire slab before showing outward signs. And concrete slabs have 'exploded' from as little as 200C of heat due to trapped water vapor. This assumes it's earthquake-code concrete construction. A mostly-stone building will be perfectly fine, though :)
tryingagainbro 9y ago
Same here. I am going to offset the carbon thing in other ways, wooden buildings are just too dangerous. A 3 year with "mommy look how cool this is" can burn the house down in 3-4 minutes. Who has the FD right outside the house and ready to go 24/7?. A concrete house on the other hand might need the plaster taken down and you're ready to re-plaster and move in. Or just clean and paint. Plus no squeaky stairs, ever :)
- detaro 9y ago
  If that were true, wooden buildings would be more expensive to insure against fire damage than non-wooden ones. Turns out, a (properly designed and built) predominantly wooden building can get the same or (even better, depending on what it is compared against) ratings. EDIT: adjusted wording to clarify re "wood framed"
  - tryingagainbro 9y ago
    they cost the same? https://www.google.com/search?q=fire+insurance+wooden+vs+concrete https://www.google.com/search?q=fire+insurance+wooden+vs+con...
    - detaro 9y ago
      That's at least figures family friends got for their buildings, not sure about the details. One thing I notice is that the top search results are about "wooden framed" - the house in question was predominantly wooden and thus more massive wood construction than just wood framing is. If I think about it, I suspect this might not apply to larger buildings like those discussed in the article, (unless fixing partially damaged structures is easier? Don't know how the internal details work)
- roel_v 9y ago
  This article isn't talking about what American's (and Australians, and Canadians, and Brits) consider 'wood buildings'. Apples and oranges.
Spooky23 9y ago
It all depends. Personally I don’t believe any claim like that unless the building is like new and above the local fire departments ladder reach. I’ve been personally acquainted with about 10 building emergencies, including minor fires, and in 7/10 cases the facilities management made material errors in response and education that would kill many people in a more serious emergency. You should have zero trust in anything they say. Seemingly innocuous changes to the building can dramatically reduce your chances of survival in a high rise fire. Bug out is always the best strategy, assuming there is adequate egress. If there isn’t adequate egress, don’t live there.
wongarsu 9y ago
Solid wood burns very slowly, your choice of carpet and furniture will make a much bigger impact to making it out than the difference between wood and concrete beams. Of course a wood building is more likely to be a total loss after a fire, so in terms of property damage it's a major consideration. In terms of loss of live, I doubt it makes a major difference as long as all wood has sufficient thickness.
- koliber 9y ago
  I have lived in the US and in Europe. In the US, house fires are an almost everyday occurrence. In Europe, they happen much more rarely. I would imagine that the interior decor is fairly on par in both places, and contributes similarly to the initial risk of fire. It makes sense that major fires occur more often in the US than Europe, if you think about it. In the US, under the carpet or other flooring material you have wooden floorboards, with air spaces below them. This burns rather well. The structural elements are also made off wood. Once either of these catch on fire, poof. In Europe, the immediate surface of the floor may be made of wood or another flammable material, but it is attached directly to the concrete substrate. This is much more difficult to burn. The article did mention that this is pressed laminate wood which is treated not to burn, but rather char slowly. I hope that this type of construction is going to stand up to fire better than the current American wooden construction methods.
  - KaiserPro 9y ago
    The vast majority of UK housing stock is also suspended wood flooring. However there are vast differences in fire and electrical safety standards. There has been a concerted effort since the 80s to remove flammable sofas, carpets & mattresses. By luck rockwool was the insulation of choice for many years, unlike the states which either used spray foam or some other PE substance. The standard of electrical safety in the US is comparable to 1960s Britain. (In the UK every plug & every socket _must_ have a fuse. effectively any electrical works demands that RCDs must be installed, which dramatically cut the risk of electrical fires. )
  - rsynnott 9y ago
    Note that fire safety and electrical standards are also very different in the US. My impression has always been that you _can_ make a wood-framed house, at least, as fire safe as a brick or concrete one, but it's considerably easier for fire safety to be screwed up via improper construction or modifications.
FRex 9y ago
Many if not most of 'fire' victims actually die due to burns to respiratory system due to hot smoke inhalation, suffocate via carbon dioxide displacing oxygen, get poisoned by carbon monoxide or cyanide compounds, etc. Dying of burns is so hard that even some people who self immolate 'only' die days after or suffer life long impairment. It doesn't matter if the building doesn't burn because all the furniture in people flats will produce 'enough' heat and smoke in minutes, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KSl9s6GjgY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KSl9s6GjgY
- Swizec 9y ago
  Bloody hell that is terrifying! Short of having a barren apartment, is there anything you can do to guard against this?
  - azernik 9y ago
    A wet cloth over the mouth/nose will catch a lot of the particulates and water-soluble vapors, though it won't help a lot with the heat.
  - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
    Making sure your sprinklers are in working order seems like a good start. Also, based on the video I'd say "don't keep dry Christmas trees around." I dunno how they ignited that tree, but it went from fine to ceiling-high inferno in four seconds flat. I don't think typical furniture will catch nearly that fast in typical home-fire circumstances (overheated electrical devices, dropped cigarettes, etc). I wonder if keeping the tree in a watering stand and topping it up regularly helps.
    - wahern 9y ago
      Looks like it: https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/videos/76417 https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/videos/76417 Though, not sure what "Needle moisture content > 100%" means. That it's transpiring?
      - 9y ago
SCAQTony 9y ago
After that terrible fire in England I would recommend getting a 150-meter climbing rope, a harness and an aluminum "figure-eight" and learn how to repel as a means of escape in case the smoke became far too overwhelming. But that's just me. I live in a house.
- EGreg 9y ago
  I had an invention that could help many people escape from a building: Magnetic strips on the side of the building, and backpacks with metal. You put on the backpack and shimmy down. Just in case, you also strap yourself onto the slide by its sides, so as not to disconnect from it and fall off. This is better than a rope because it can hold many people simultaneously. Do the magnets wear out over time though?
  - make3 9y ago
    or if you've lost too much weight or there is crap on the magnet and less friction, and suddenly your stuck in the air pasted to a burning building xD
  - vlehto 9y ago
    Magnets are probably way too expensive. Especially as you could get same functionality with regular fire ladder.
    - EGreg 9y ago
      How would you shimmy down the ladder? But yes I suppose technically you can have rollers in vertical struts and have them roll down inside the rails, carrying the person.
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  Not that I'm telling anyone to rappel down a building, but there are at least four ways to rappel or lower yourself with just a rope and no gear (I highly recommend getting a professional to teach you first). But even so, most new apartments on high floors have aluminum ladders to deploy out a window.
roel_v 9y ago
This article doesn't mention it, but often when wood is used in 'modern' ways, it's laminated wood, and treated with fire-retardant materials. A contractor proposed a 'wooden' beam to me in one of my buildings a few years ago, in a place where traditionally it would have been steel, and the beam they ended up putting in looked like it was about equal amounts of wood and resin (that's an exaggeration of course - just saying, you could still recognize it as wood, but it's nothing like 'chop the sides off this log to square it and toss it in'; today's construction wood (in big(er) projects) in Europe isn't anything like 'building with wood' in the rest of the world). Plus, a building that is framed with high-density wood beams is different (in terms of fire propagation properties) from an Anglo-Saxon style building of cheap (i.e., low density) timber 2x4's with sheet rock cladding.
fsloth 9y ago
Dude, CLT (cross laminated timber) is so dense it hardly chars. It's not the structure, it's what you hurbish it with that will cause the problems and this is a fact regardless of the material used for the structure (e.g. Grenfell towers disaster)
- goldenkey 9y ago
  Aye that cladding is so important. Really terrible that the older building would have been less flammable before shoddy renovations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire

sliverstorm 9y ago

Not a fire scientist, but solid blocks of dense dry hardwood are actually comparatively quite resistant to ignition. They are not completely fireproof, but superior to many other modern building materials and furnishings. supposedly the safest thing to do if there is a fire on another floor is to shelter in place Of course, that's what they said about Grenfell.

notl4wy3r 9y ago
Fortunately, my building still has the original brick cladding.
- wahern 9y ago
  Does it have sprinklers? Lack of sprinklers is what doomed the Marco Polo condominium victims despite all the mitigations. "We've got three commercial fire hoses on every floor," he said. "We've got three CO2 bottles, big ones, on every floor. When we did the building originally, we thought we have enough equipment at the time, so the fire will never transfer to another unit. We have 45-minute fire doors, so if we have a fire, we can keep it to one unit." ... "Solid, concrete and pre-stressed -- it’s the best.” said Schmidt. It was designed to accommodate natural, tradewind ventilation, but he thinks those winds also helped to feed the fire. -- http://www.kitv.com/story/35948583/long-time-marco-polo-resident-shares-building-history-concerns http://www.kitv.com/story/35948583/long-time-marco-polo-resi...
blattimwind 9y ago
A piece of beech firewood lasts about 2-4 hours in a wood stove, which is pretty impressive methinks. (However, construction timber isn't hardwood and never beech).

peterwwillis 9y ago

Large solid timber beams actually burn incredibly slowly: partly because they're so dense, and because wood is a good insulator. For a similar thickness beam, wood takes much longer to fail than steel when superheated. At 1100F, steel starts turning into spaghetti. But on wood, the layer of carbon created by the char becomes an insulating barrier that reduces heat on the non-charred side by up to 90%. A bigger concern to me is the wood rotting from exposure to water or chemicals. Although reinforced concrete also "rots", but in different ways. Wood at least tends to sag before failing from rotting, unlike concrete. I'm kind of surprised they don't utilize things like steel torsion boxes for the foundations instead of concrete, but perhaps there's cost considerations. They could do a lot of fancy things to extend the size of wooden buildings using steel if they don't mind losing those fire retardant properties. Also, it should be mentioned that wood-based buildings can re-ignite after an initial fire, which doesn't happen with steel or concrete. While you may escape the fire and the fire gets put out, the structure may still not be safe. We may need new fire codes if these buildings become commonplace.

chrishacken 9y ago
"A bigger concern to me is the wood rotting from exposure to water or chemicals. Although reinforced concrete also "rots", but in different ways. Wood at least tends to sag before failing from rotting, unlike concrete." This. We just moved our office into a 100+ year old wood building. We're doing the renovating ourselves. Most of the wood in the building is rotting or uneven. I've spent a week so far leveling the floors. Every old (70+ years old) building I've ever been in is like this; some worse than others. We have our datacenter in a stone/concrete building that was built in 1912. While it has also deteriorated, it's not nearly as bad as the wooden buildings. The floors have cracks in them, but they're still level for the most part, or easily repairable. The building will easily be standing for another 200+ years. I can't say the same for the wood building.
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  You really don't know that about concrete buildings without inspection, and possibly core sampling of the concrete. You don't know what the true grade of the concrete is or whether it's thick enough depending on loading. And you need to look for signs of common failure modes such as carbonation, chloride penetration, freeze/thaw cycles, alkali-aggregate reactions, etc. Most concrete failures can penetrate the entire slab before showing outward signs. And concrete slabs have 'exploded' from as little as 200C of heat due to trapped water vapor. This assumes it's earthquake-code concrete construction. A mostly-stone building will be perfectly fine, though :)

tryingagainbro 9y ago

Same here. I am going to offset the carbon thing in other ways, wooden buildings are just too dangerous. A 3 year with "mommy look how cool this is" can burn the house down in 3-4 minutes. Who has the FD right outside the house and ready to go 24/7?. A concrete house on the other hand might need the plaster taken down and you're ready to re-plaster and move in. Or just clean and paint. Plus no squeaky stairs, ever :)

detaro 9y ago
If that were true, wooden buildings would be more expensive to insure against fire damage than non-wooden ones. Turns out, a (properly designed and built) predominantly wooden building can get the same or (even better, depending on what it is compared against) ratings. EDIT: adjusted wording to clarify re "wood framed"
- tryingagainbro 9y ago
  they cost the same? https://www.google.com/search?q=fire+insurance+wooden+vs+concrete https://www.google.com/search?q=fire+insurance+wooden+vs+con...
  - detaro 9y ago
    That's at least figures family friends got for their buildings, not sure about the details. One thing I notice is that the top search results are about "wooden framed" - the house in question was predominantly wooden and thus more massive wood construction than just wood framing is. If I think about it, I suspect this might not apply to larger buildings like those discussed in the article, (unless fixing partially damaged structures is easier? Don't know how the internal details work)
roel_v 9y ago
This article isn't talking about what American's (and Australians, and Canadians, and Brits) consider 'wood buildings'. Apples and oranges.

Spooky23 9y ago

It all depends. Personally I don’t believe any claim like that unless the building is like new and above the local fire departments ladder reach. I’ve been personally acquainted with about 10 building emergencies, including minor fires, and in 7/10 cases the facilities management made material errors in response and education that would kill many people in a more serious emergency. You should have zero trust in anything they say. Seemingly innocuous changes to the building can dramatically reduce your chances of survival in a high rise fire. Bug out is always the best strategy, assuming there is adequate egress. If there isn’t adequate egress, don’t live there.

wongarsu 9y ago

Solid wood burns very slowly, your choice of carpet and furniture will make a much bigger impact to making it out than the difference between wood and concrete beams. Of course a wood building is more likely to be a total loss after a fire, so in terms of property damage it's a major consideration. In terms of loss of live, I doubt it makes a major difference as long as all wood has sufficient thickness.

koliber 9y ago
I have lived in the US and in Europe. In the US, house fires are an almost everyday occurrence. In Europe, they happen much more rarely. I would imagine that the interior decor is fairly on par in both places, and contributes similarly to the initial risk of fire. It makes sense that major fires occur more often in the US than Europe, if you think about it. In the US, under the carpet or other flooring material you have wooden floorboards, with air spaces below them. This burns rather well. The structural elements are also made off wood. Once either of these catch on fire, poof. In Europe, the immediate surface of the floor may be made of wood or another flammable material, but it is attached directly to the concrete substrate. This is much more difficult to burn. The article did mention that this is pressed laminate wood which is treated not to burn, but rather char slowly. I hope that this type of construction is going to stand up to fire better than the current American wooden construction methods.
- KaiserPro 9y ago
  The vast majority of UK housing stock is also suspended wood flooring. However there are vast differences in fire and electrical safety standards. There has been a concerted effort since the 80s to remove flammable sofas, carpets & mattresses. By luck rockwool was the insulation of choice for many years, unlike the states which either used spray foam or some other PE substance. The standard of electrical safety in the US is comparable to 1960s Britain. (In the UK every plug & every socket _must_ have a fuse. effectively any electrical works demands that RCDs must be installed, which dramatically cut the risk of electrical fires. )
- rsynnott 9y ago
  Note that fire safety and electrical standards are also very different in the US. My impression has always been that you _can_ make a wood-framed house, at least, as fire safe as a brick or concrete one, but it's considerably easier for fire safety to be screwed up via improper construction or modifications.

FRex 9y ago

Many if not most of 'fire' victims actually die due to burns to respiratory system due to hot smoke inhalation, suffocate via carbon dioxide displacing oxygen, get poisoned by carbon monoxide or cyanide compounds, etc. Dying of burns is so hard that even some people who self immolate 'only' die days after or suffer life long impairment. It doesn't matter if the building doesn't burn because all the furniture in people flats will produce 'enough' heat and smoke in minutes, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KSl9s6GjgY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KSl9s6GjgY

Swizec 9y ago
Bloody hell that is terrifying! Short of having a barren apartment, is there anything you can do to guard against this?
- azernik 9y ago
  A wet cloth over the mouth/nose will catch a lot of the particulates and water-soluble vapors, though it won't help a lot with the heat.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  Making sure your sprinklers are in working order seems like a good start. Also, based on the video I'd say "don't keep dry Christmas trees around." I dunno how they ignited that tree, but it went from fine to ceiling-high inferno in four seconds flat. I don't think typical furniture will catch nearly that fast in typical home-fire circumstances (overheated electrical devices, dropped cigarettes, etc). I wonder if keeping the tree in a watering stand and topping it up regularly helps.
  - wahern 9y ago
    Looks like it: https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/videos/76417 https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/videos/76417 Though, not sure what "Needle moisture content > 100%" means. That it's transpiring?
    - 9y ago

SCAQTony 9y ago

After that terrible fire in England I would recommend getting a 150-meter climbing rope, a harness and an aluminum "figure-eight" and learn how to repel as a means of escape in case the smoke became far too overwhelming. But that's just me. I live in a house.

EGreg 9y ago
I had an invention that could help many people escape from a building: Magnetic strips on the side of the building, and backpacks with metal. You put on the backpack and shimmy down. Just in case, you also strap yourself onto the slide by its sides, so as not to disconnect from it and fall off. This is better than a rope because it can hold many people simultaneously. Do the magnets wear out over time though?
- make3 9y ago
  or if you've lost too much weight or there is crap on the magnet and less friction, and suddenly your stuck in the air pasted to a burning building xD
- vlehto 9y ago
  Magnets are probably way too expensive. Especially as you could get same functionality with regular fire ladder.
  - EGreg 9y ago
    How would you shimmy down the ladder? But yes I suppose technically you can have rollers in vertical struts and have them roll down inside the rails, carrying the person.
peterwwillis 9y ago
Not that I'm telling anyone to rappel down a building, but there are at least four ways to rappel or lower yourself with just a rope and no gear (I highly recommend getting a professional to teach you first). But even so, most new apartments on high floors have aluminum ladders to deploy out a window.

roel_v 9y ago

This article doesn't mention it, but often when wood is used in 'modern' ways, it's laminated wood, and treated with fire-retardant materials. A contractor proposed a 'wooden' beam to me in one of my buildings a few years ago, in a place where traditionally it would have been steel, and the beam they ended up putting in looked like it was about equal amounts of wood and resin (that's an exaggeration of course - just saying, you could still recognize it as wood, but it's nothing like 'chop the sides off this log to square it and toss it in'; today's construction wood (in big(er) projects) in Europe isn't anything like 'building with wood' in the rest of the world). Plus, a building that is framed with high-density wood beams is different (in terms of fire propagation properties) from an Anglo-Saxon style building of cheap (i.e., low density) timber 2x4's with sheet rock cladding.

fsloth 9y ago

Dude, CLT (cross laminated timber) is so dense it hardly chars. It's not the structure, it's what you hurbish it with that will cause the problems and this is a fact regardless of the material used for the structure (e.g. Grenfell towers disaster)

goldenkey 9y ago
Aye that cladding is so important. Really terrible that the older building would have been less flammable before shoddy renovations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire