4 ms·

Safer? Than steel or brick?

• Numberwang 9y ago
  Yes.
• alkonaut 9y ago
  Yes. The reason is slow and predictable burn that doesn’t affect the structural integrity until it has burned for a very long time. Even without special fire proofing, glulam burns at less than 1mm/minute. The idea behind a fire safe high rise isn’t that it can’t burn but that when it burns it doesn’t collapse until people have left. That’s why the integrity is measured after 30min burn, 60min burn etc. As a wood beam burns the charring limits the oxygen supply of the fire, slowing the burn. Steel beams require fire proofing and high temperatures or compromised fire proofing makes them structurally unsound which can cause unpredictable catastrophic failure (this happened in both of the WTC towers).
  • mongol 9y ago
    Is really collapse the the main danger to consider when a fire happens? I would think that when a building collapses from fire, many people in the building would already be dead from smoke and heat. If a wooden building would stand longer but be smoke filled earlier, I am not sure it can be said to be safer.
    • alkonaut 9y ago
      In a highrise it can be, a collapse can block esacapes for people in unaffected floors above, or crush unaffected floors below.
    • evgen 9y ago
      Everything else around your structural elements are going to be putting out smoke that will kill occupants regardless of whether the structure is steel or wood in situations like this. You worry about collapse for cases when the fire on a lower level traps occupants above, and the more time you can buy to control the fire or evacuate the better.