3 ms·
Some of the suggested alternatives, glued and compressed wood, sound far more flammable than an artificial stone like concrete. I'd much rather a building were
by mjevans 4y ago
Some of the suggested alternatives, glued and compressed wood, sound far more flammable than an artificial stone like concrete.
I'd much rather a building were as fire proof as possible, that should be a strong component of any replacement technology.
- antod 4y agoLarge wooden structural members perform better in fire than most people expect, and concrete ones often don't perform as well as most people expect.
- jaclaz 4y agoYes and no. No doubts about "traditional" wood elements (beams and the like) made from trees, they show quite good fire resistance, basically when on fire an outer shell of carbonized material forms and acts as a insulating layer that keeps the core stable for relatively long times. But in many "modern" structures the large, structural parts tend to be made of composed materials, essentially smaller parts glued together. In these cases the weak point becomes the glue used in them that may make the element fail well before a monolithic wood one. Of course it depends on local codes and standards, but generally speaking these elements need to be protected by either anti-fire paint or gypsum panels.