whatilearned
Read more: https://www.internationaltimber.com/resources/how-does-timber-handle-fire-compared-to-steel-and-concrete/
TIL that wood/timber can be safer than steel in a structural fire because it burns from the outside in, whereas steel conducts heat to its center and is therefore more likely to fail catastrophically at high temperatures
8 Comments
Leave a ReplyLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
But jet fuel can’t mumble mumble.
Whether this is true or not, your source might be a bit biased.
There is absolutely no way wood framing is safer than steel. By the time steel has a structural failure due to heat, your wood beam would be long gone
That’s one of the reasons there are new multi story timber buildings in some countries. They are all prefabricated in a factory. They go up very rapidly because there are no concrete floors to pour. Floors are large cross laminated wood panels. I think some are 8 to 10 stories tall.
Typically you design in redundancy so that catastrophic failure doesn’t occur in such situations–at least not until there is time to evacuate etc. That’s actually one if the first things they impress on engineers and architects–no single-point-of-failure modes.
Obviously there are unanticipated circumstances and failure modes that come up on rare occasions.
Basically, the report cited is more like a marketing team looking for things they can call a benefit “after the fact” in the literature than an actual benefit chosen as an intentional material improvement from the get-go.
“Since we’re painting it a boring cheap white color, how can we market that?”
“I know…we’ll call it high-visibility coating and charge a little more!”
r/showerthoughts
Jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to make me forget the image of my mother naked
Bush did ……