<     |     >     

In the United States, the use of glulam is widely accepted as one of the most efficient and least expensive ways to meet the recognized criteria for fire protection as set forth in the U.S. model building codes.
 

FIREPROOF VERSUS FIRESAFE
Fireproof buildings do not exist. The contents of most buildings are combustible. As such, it is often a building’s contents, not its structural components, which pose the greatest potential fire hazard to life and property. Fire occurrences in the contents of so-called “fireproof” buildings can be so severe that a building constructed with non-combustible framing can collapse.

The fire in Chicago, Illinois’ McCormick Place exhibition hall is a classic example. All structural members of this large exhibition hall, including interior non-bearing walls, were constructed of non-combustible materials. In 1967, a fire quickly spread through the contents of the hall, generating temperatures so high that steel beams, girders and trusses buckled in the heat and the entire roof collapsed. The building was a total loss at a cost of $150 million.

With this lesson and others, the goal has become “fire safe” design, rather than “fireproof,” and it can be achieved with combustible structural materials as long as building code regulations are met. In addition to structural materials, considerations include the combustibility of contents and furnishings, interior finishes, the degree of protection provided by interior sprinklers, and the availability of adequate firefighting equipment. A reliable smoke detector with an alarm system and easily accessible exits are also vital in protecting a building and its occupants.

ABOVE: Aftermath of the fire at Turbotech, Inc. in Vancouver, Washington (USA).
Glulam remained standing while the rest of the so-called “fireproof” building collapsed.