4 ms·

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_

by 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.
- deepsun 8y ago
  There was an article on HN recently, that the most fire-catching part of most California buildings is their shingle roof, regardless of inner construction.

by crote 8y ago

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.
deepsun 8y ago
There was an article on HN recently, that the most fire-catching part of most California buildings is their shingle roof, regardless of inner construction.