4 ms·

I have questions on fire safety. I lost some close friends recently to a fire. I had never thought about it before.

ruined 4y ago
most buildings in america today are wood frame, this is likely no better or worse. it is more important to consider what you put in the building, have a good electrician do the wiring, and design your layout and exits to fire code compliance.
- 542458 4y ago
  All wood frame is not equivalent. Modern stick framing is designed to slow the spread of flame both with how the wood is used (see modern stick framing vs balloon framing) and the other materials chosen (drywall is fairly nonflammable, whereas this seems to use plywood walls). I’m not saying this is better or worse (it might be that all the insulation significantly slows the spread of flame?), but they haven’t really discussed the fire safety implications of their design that I can see.
  - kupfer 4y ago
    To quote their FAQs: >Is it firesafe? >WikiHouse is not really any different from most kinds of 1-3 storey buildings with timber roof, floors, or internal walls, in that the building needs to be designed with adequate means of escape, and the chassis needs to be reasonably protected from catching fire. This can usually be achieved either with a plasterboard internal lining, by using a non-toxic fire protection coating, or by installing a basic sprinkler system. >If you are building several adjacent houses, located close together in a row, you will usually need to use an external fire barrier material to prevent fire spreading from one building to the next.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Doesn't seem incompatible.
pera 4y ago
They probably would use fire retardant timber/plywood. There is a pretty cool office building in Barcelona (still under construction I believe?) entirely made of wood that uses this kind of treated wood: https://wittywood.es/en/ https://wittywood.es/en/
- Animatronio 4y ago
  By the looks of it they also rely on oversizing the columns and beams to achieve fire retardation.
  - shagie 4y ago
    This is known as mass timber. https://www.wsj.com/articles/wooden-skyscrapers-are-on-the-rise-11649693924 https://www.wsj.com/articles/wooden-skyscrapers-are-on-the-r... https://www.thinkwood.com/mass-timber https://www.thinkwood.com/mass-timber https://www.naturallywood.com/topics/mass-timber/ https://www.naturallywood.com/topics/mass-timber/ https://www.ijpr.org/housing/2022-09-04/oregons-mass-timber-industry-gets-boost-from-federal-government https://www.ijpr.org/housing/2022-09-04/oregons-mass-timber-... And regarding fire retardation - Cross Laminated Timber Fire Testing from the Forest Products Laboratory and US Forest Service - https://youtu.be/HuVTCOmRGd0 https://youtu.be/HuVTCOmRGd0
    - Animatronio 4y ago
      yes, you're absolutely right, I couldn't find the right term for it. unfortunately it works at the cost of 2x or 3x the raw materials it would normally take.
      - shagie 4y ago
        It represents a sequestration of carbon whereas the cement in a traditional cement framework building represents significant portion of the carbon footprint. As to the cost - https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/62676 https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/62676 > Based on commercial construction cost data from the RSMeans database, a mass timber building design is estimated to have 26 percent higher front-end costs than its concrete alternative. And from the paper: > The resulting TLCCs of the two buildings under these scenarios are shown in Table 6 and Figure 5. From the results of these scenarios, it was found that the TLCC for the mass timber building would have a cost advantage with its longer life span (100 yr) than the concrete alternative (75 yr) when other factors are the same (see Scenario S0 and S4), and the higher front-end cost (value) showed an even greater advantage of 7.0 percent difference (Scenario S4). When the life spans of the two buildings were the same, the end-of-life cost or value of the mass timber building was not able to be offset by the higher front-end costs (see Scenario S1 [12%], S2 [6.7%], and S3 [5.9%]). In this case study, the two buildings were designed to be functionally equivalent. Thus, we assumed the same operational utility and maintenance during the building-use stage. No impact from these parts were considered in the TLCC calculations on the cost- performance for the comparison of the two buildings. But if there are energy savings discovered in the new mass timber buildings, the LCC analysis would reveal more cost benefits (Liang et al. 2019). I can't find any sources that agree with your cost assessment... instead: https://www.bdcnetwork.com/5-myths-about-cross-laminated-timber https://www.bdcnetwork.com/5-myths-about-cross-laminated-tim... > When considering the total in-place value of a CLT system, it is cost competitive to other plate building materials. But you also need to consider all the value added benefits: > • More savings can be found in the reduced installation cost, usually 50% cheaper than installing other plate materials. > • With an earlier project completion date, you are open for business sometimes months ahead of schedule. > • The building structure will weigh less than half the weight of other construction types, so the foundation costs less money. > • Job site safety is dramatically increased due to the prefabricated CLT panels and usually the only power tools are pneumatic drills. > The intent of cross laminated timber is not to replace light-frame construction, but rather to offer a versatile, low-carbon, and cost-competitive wood-based solution that complements the existing light frame and heavy timber options while offering a suitable candidate for some applications that currently use concrete, masonry, and steel.
xor99 4y ago
Sorry to hear that! Valid point ofc, I would like to see if they have addressed that with the wooden build. BTW the plans can be made using non-wooden materials or limited wood but this may change the zero carbon status/ease of fabrication.

most buildings in america today are wood frame, this is likely no better or worse. it is more important to consider what you put in the building, have a good electrician do the wiring, and design your layout and exits to fire code compliance.

542458 4y ago
All wood frame is not equivalent. Modern stick framing is designed to slow the spread of flame both with how the wood is used (see modern stick framing vs balloon framing) and the other materials chosen (drywall is fairly nonflammable, whereas this seems to use plywood walls). I’m not saying this is better or worse (it might be that all the insulation significantly slows the spread of flame?), but they haven’t really discussed the fire safety implications of their design that I can see.
- kupfer 4y ago
  To quote their FAQs: >Is it firesafe? >WikiHouse is not really any different from most kinds of 1-3 storey buildings with timber roof, floors, or internal walls, in that the building needs to be designed with adequate means of escape, and the chassis needs to be reasonably protected from catching fire. This can usually be achieved either with a plasterboard internal lining, by using a non-toxic fire protection coating, or by installing a basic sprinkler system. >If you are building several adjacent houses, located close together in a row, you will usually need to use an external fire barrier material to prevent fire spreading from one building to the next.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Doesn't seem incompatible.

pera 4y ago

They probably would use fire retardant timber/plywood. There is a pretty cool office building in Barcelona (still under construction I believe?) entirely made of wood that uses this kind of treated wood: https://wittywood.es/en/ https://wittywood.es/en/

Animatronio 4y ago
By the looks of it they also rely on oversizing the columns and beams to achieve fire retardation.
- shagie 4y ago
  This is known as mass timber. https://www.wsj.com/articles/wooden-skyscrapers-are-on-the-rise-11649693924 https://www.wsj.com/articles/wooden-skyscrapers-are-on-the-r... https://www.thinkwood.com/mass-timber https://www.thinkwood.com/mass-timber https://www.naturallywood.com/topics/mass-timber/ https://www.naturallywood.com/topics/mass-timber/ https://www.ijpr.org/housing/2022-09-04/oregons-mass-timber-industry-gets-boost-from-federal-government https://www.ijpr.org/housing/2022-09-04/oregons-mass-timber-... And regarding fire retardation - Cross Laminated Timber Fire Testing from the Forest Products Laboratory and US Forest Service - https://youtu.be/HuVTCOmRGd0 https://youtu.be/HuVTCOmRGd0
  - Animatronio 4y ago
    yes, you're absolutely right, I couldn't find the right term for it. unfortunately it works at the cost of 2x or 3x the raw materials it would normally take.
    - shagie 4y ago
      It represents a sequestration of carbon whereas the cement in a traditional cement framework building represents significant portion of the carbon footprint. As to the cost - https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/62676 https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/62676 > Based on commercial construction cost data from the RSMeans database, a mass timber building design is estimated to have 26 percent higher front-end costs than its concrete alternative. And from the paper: > The resulting TLCCs of the two buildings under these scenarios are shown in Table 6 and Figure 5. From the results of these scenarios, it was found that the TLCC for the mass timber building would have a cost advantage with its longer life span (100 yr) than the concrete alternative (75 yr) when other factors are the same (see Scenario S0 and S4), and the higher front-end cost (value) showed an even greater advantage of 7.0 percent difference (Scenario S4). When the life spans of the two buildings were the same, the end-of-life cost or value of the mass timber building was not able to be offset by the higher front-end costs (see Scenario S1 [12%], S2 [6.7%], and S3 [5.9%]). In this case study, the two buildings were designed to be functionally equivalent. Thus, we assumed the same operational utility and maintenance during the building-use stage. No impact from these parts were considered in the TLCC calculations on the cost- performance for the comparison of the two buildings. But if there are energy savings discovered in the new mass timber buildings, the LCC analysis would reveal more cost benefits (Liang et al. 2019). I can't find any sources that agree with your cost assessment... instead: https://www.bdcnetwork.com/5-myths-about-cross-laminated-timber https://www.bdcnetwork.com/5-myths-about-cross-laminated-tim... > When considering the total in-place value of a CLT system, it is cost competitive to other plate building materials. But you also need to consider all the value added benefits: > • More savings can be found in the reduced installation cost, usually 50% cheaper than installing other plate materials. > • With an earlier project completion date, you are open for business sometimes months ahead of schedule. > • The building structure will weigh less than half the weight of other construction types, so the foundation costs less money. > • Job site safety is dramatically increased due to the prefabricated CLT panels and usually the only power tools are pneumatic drills. > The intent of cross laminated timber is not to replace light-frame construction, but rather to offer a versatile, low-carbon, and cost-competitive wood-based solution that complements the existing light frame and heavy timber options while offering a suitable candidate for some applications that currently use concrete, masonry, and steel.

xor99 4y ago

Sorry to hear that! Valid point ofc, I would like to see if they have addressed that with the wooden build. BTW the plans can be made using non-wooden materials or limited wood but this may change the zero carbon status/ease of fabrication.