Beijing Television Cultural Center Fire

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the fire at the Beijing Television Cultural Center, specifically questioning why the building did not collapse after burning for several hours despite being under construction and lacking a sprinkler system. Participants explore the structural integrity of the building and the materials used in its construction.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the building did not collapse after burning for five hours, suggesting that steel should have weakened enough to cause a collapse.
  • Another participant notes that buildings often do not collapse due to fire, citing safety factors in engineering that are designed to prevent such failures, and mentions that typical house fires do not reach temperatures high enough to melt steel.
  • A participant raises a question about how a fire could start from the outside, expressing skepticism about the flammability of glass and metal.
  • Another participant speculates on the materials that fueled the fire, suggesting that wood and paper products would not burn hot enough to significantly weaken the structure.
  • It is proposed that the incomplete state of the building may have contributed to its stability, as it would have been lighter than a fully completed structure.
  • Concerns are raised about the presence of flammable construction materials and debris that could have facilitated the fire's spread.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the reasons for the building's structural integrity during the fire, with no consensus reached on the specific factors that contributed to its stability or the nature of the fire's origin.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various assumptions about fire behavior, structural engineering safety factors, and the materials involved, but these assumptions remain unresolved and are not universally accepted.

Hexnergy
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Beijing_Mandarin_Oriental_Hotel_fire_of_February,_2009

Can anyone explain to me why didn't this building collapse on itself after burning for 5 hours? I thought the steel would have weakened enough to allow some kind of total or partial collapse. This building was still under construction and had no working sprinkler system.

The Chinese engineers that designed and built this thing are amazing! What kind of materials did they use? I always believed fire brought down large structures.

Sorry if this was discussed before. I was searching through your forums and didn't find any mention of it.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Because in most cases, burning does not cause buildings to collapse, at least that's what I saw in a documentary on discovery channel or natgeo.

In all engineering constructions there are safety factors, when human lives are at risk, these safety factors are very large. I'm guessing, the structure was built with these safety factors in place so that the building doesn't collapse during a fire. Steel melts at around 1300°C and house fires with fuels involved reach about 650°C.
 
More importantly, how did a fire start from the outside? Since when does glass and metal catch fire so easily?
 
This thread is just asking for a 9/11 conspiracy theorist to pop in.
 
I'm wondering if they already have...

Three things:
1. The fuels for the fire would have been wood, paper products, and other construction debris. These things don't burn hot enough to risk significant weakening of the structure.
2. As the building was not completed, it is quite possible the building was not as heavy as it would have been in a few months, which would lower the risk of collapse.
3. As the building was under construction, the roof (and rest of the building) was probably covered with flammable construction materials/debris, making it an easy fire to start/spread.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
16K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
34K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
12K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
10K
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K