3 ms·

> "In fact, wood is a fireproof material despite the commonly held belief that it isn’t." What? I hold this belief that isn't. I understood the point about kee

by soneca 8y ago

> "In fact, wood is a fireproof material despite the commonly held belief that it isn’t." What? I hold this belief that isn't. I understood the point about keeping its structure well while burning, but it doesn't make it "fireproof"!

horsawlarway 8y ago
Eh, I think this is a jargon issue. Wood obviously isn't fireproof. But we have regulations that say that in buildings "fireproof" just means it will last some amount of time before burning or degrading/collapsing. Ex: if you're in an office with a wooden door in the US, go check the side of the door where the hinges are. Most will have a small metal plate indicating that they're rated for some amount of time for fires. It will look like this: https://www.google.com/search?biw=1903&bih=898&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=mK5uXLXRCY7L_QatwqGYCQ&q=fire+rating+wooden+door&oq=fire+rating+wooden+door&gs_l=img.3...4635.7248..7339...0.0..0.148.1110.22j1......1....1..gws-wiz-img.......35i39j0i67j0j0i5i30j0i8i30j0i24.GFk68BwmuGY#imgrc=wpilUzwYcKwqfM https://www.google.com/search?biw=1903&bih=898&tbm=isch&sa=1...:
z3t4 8y ago
And old fireman said that Steel will burn like crazy. Tree probably burns slower. Concrete also "burns" and will change characteristics (become weaker) when exposed to high temperatures. I wouln't like to be in a burning building, but a wooden building would probably be least dangerous !?
- Isamu 8y ago
  Somebody was just telling me that oxyacetylene torches cut steel by burning it - not melting. That's why they won't cut stainless steel, they can't burn it (oxidize it). Plasma, cutters, on the other hand, cut by melting.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    Oxy/fuel cutting is more like rapid oxidation than burning. The reaction is not self sustaining without fucktons of oxygen (you can burn basically anything if there's enough oxygen present). The oxygen stream helps blow away partially oxidized steel. It only works with steel because of the specific combination of metals other than iron in steel. It won't work on cast iron or stainless (though you can certainly melt them). Plasma cutting liquefies the metal with electrical current then blows away the molten metal with air. Take an oxy/fuel torch to a piece of wood and you will quickly have a self sustaining reaction even once the extra oxygen supply (torch) is removed.
crote 8y ago
This is what a forest looks like after a fire: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Forest_fire_aftermath.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Forest_fire_aftermat... . Note that the trees are all still there. Wood is surprisingly difficult to burn, and if it does, it will do so very predictably, slowly, with relatively low temperatures, while maintaining structural integrity. This video makes the difference very clear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-J86Ka9MkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-J86Ka9MkQ . It's not that wood can't burn, it's that it won't burn significantly.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  How do the wooden buildings fare in towns consumed by forest fires? What about the steel, concrete and masonry buildings? I wager that if we built forest like structures out of steel and concrete they'd be far more fire resistant than natural, wooden, forests even if the amount of fuel at ground and canopy level was kept constant. This whole wooden building thing is great for a variety of reasons. That doesn't mean it's not inferior to steel/concrete when it comes to resisting a major fire. Just because it's inferior doesn't mean it can't still be "good enough". Trying to claim that a wooden structure has superior fire resistance to a steel/concrete/masonry structure is an exercise in mental gymnastics.
  - martythemaniak 8y ago
    Well, the typical wooden buildings you're probably thinking about (ie, suburban housing) would be terrible and burn completely. If you take a look at their construction, they use relatively thin pieces of wood both for structure and walls. CLT or Mass Timber buildings are very different, there's basically a crapload of wood and it is very dense, so dense it can't burn well because oxygen can't get to it very well. It is essentially the difference between trying to burn kindling vs a single large log.
  - soperj 8y ago
    >I wager that if we built forest like structures out of steel and concrete they'd be far more fire resistant than natural, wooden, forests even if the amount of fuel at ground and canopy level was kept constant. Depends on the type of wood. There are some trees like Aspen that are natural fire barriers because they don't burn well. Unfortunately they're not worth much, so in places like BC that have a big logging industry they spray them with Round Up after the major forest fires. It's one of the real reasons that fires here have become so massive lately.

by soneca 8y ago

horsawlarway 8y ago

Eh, I think this is a jargon issue. Wood obviously isn't fireproof. But we have regulations that say that in buildings "fireproof" just means it will last some amount of time before burning or degrading/collapsing. Ex: if you're in an office with a wooden door in the US, go check the side of the door where the hinges are. Most will have a small metal plate indicating that they're rated for some amount of time for fires. It will look like this: https://www.google.com/search?biw=1903&bih=898&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=mK5uXLXRCY7L_QatwqGYCQ&q=fire+rating+wooden+door&oq=fire+rating+wooden+door&gs_l=img.3...4635.7248..7339...0.0..0.148.1110.22j1......1....1..gws-wiz-img.......35i39j0i67j0j0i5i30j0i8i30j0i24.GFk68BwmuGY#imgrc=wpilUzwYcKwqfM https://www.google.com/search?biw=1903&bih=898&tbm=isch&sa=1...:

z3t4 8y ago

And old fireman said that Steel will burn like crazy. Tree probably burns slower. Concrete also "burns" and will change characteristics (become weaker) when exposed to high temperatures. I wouln't like to be in a burning building, but a wooden building would probably be least dangerous !?

Isamu 8y ago
Somebody was just telling me that oxyacetylene torches cut steel by burning it - not melting. That's why they won't cut stainless steel, they can't burn it (oxidize it). Plasma, cutters, on the other hand, cut by melting.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  Oxy/fuel cutting is more like rapid oxidation than burning. The reaction is not self sustaining without fucktons of oxygen (you can burn basically anything if there's enough oxygen present). The oxygen stream helps blow away partially oxidized steel. It only works with steel because of the specific combination of metals other than iron in steel. It won't work on cast iron or stainless (though you can certainly melt them). Plasma cutting liquefies the metal with electrical current then blows away the molten metal with air. Take an oxy/fuel torch to a piece of wood and you will quickly have a self sustaining reaction even once the extra oxygen supply (torch) is removed.

crote 8y ago

This is what a forest looks like after a fire: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Forest_fire_aftermath.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Forest_fire_aftermat... . Note that the trees are all still there. Wood is surprisingly difficult to burn, and if it does, it will do so very predictably, slowly, with relatively low temperatures, while maintaining structural integrity. This video makes the difference very clear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-J86Ka9MkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-J86Ka9MkQ . It's not that wood can't burn, it's that it won't burn significantly.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
How do the wooden buildings fare in towns consumed by forest fires? What about the steel, concrete and masonry buildings? I wager that if we built forest like structures out of steel and concrete they'd be far more fire resistant than natural, wooden, forests even if the amount of fuel at ground and canopy level was kept constant. This whole wooden building thing is great for a variety of reasons. That doesn't mean it's not inferior to steel/concrete when it comes to resisting a major fire. Just because it's inferior doesn't mean it can't still be "good enough". Trying to claim that a wooden structure has superior fire resistance to a steel/concrete/masonry structure is an exercise in mental gymnastics.
- martythemaniak 8y ago
  Well, the typical wooden buildings you're probably thinking about (ie, suburban housing) would be terrible and burn completely. If you take a look at their construction, they use relatively thin pieces of wood both for structure and walls. CLT or Mass Timber buildings are very different, there's basically a crapload of wood and it is very dense, so dense it can't burn well because oxygen can't get to it very well. It is essentially the difference between trying to burn kindling vs a single large log.
- soperj 8y ago
  >I wager that if we built forest like structures out of steel and concrete they'd be far more fire resistant than natural, wooden, forests even if the amount of fuel at ground and canopy level was kept constant. Depends on the type of wood. There are some trees like Aspen that are natural fire barriers because they don't burn well. Unfortunately they're not worth much, so in places like BC that have a big logging industry they spray them with Round Up after the major forest fires. It's one of the real reasons that fires here have become so massive lately.