This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I clarified the terminology here as the prior text could have more easily been misconstrued to falsely indicate that this building was or is immune to fire. The fact that part of it burned should be proof enough, actually. As the page on fireproofing indicates, it is sort of a trade term that did, despite its overly optimistic connotation, make it into the National MasterFormat, and thus also into private and public sector project specifications and master specifications. This building is notfireproof. No building or item is immune to the effects of fire of sufficient intensity or duration. If you don't think so, just check the time/temperature curves used in construction fire testing on the fire-resistance rating page. They top out at 1350°C with the Dutch RWS curve. Then check out the refractory insulation market and you'll see that refractories have to hold back much more temperature, like 1700°C and some speciality ceramics, such as leading parts on scram jets and re-entry vehicles can be made to withstand even higher temperatures. Still, the best possible heat resistant material we know of right now has issues and is subject to repair and replacement - and is thus not fireproof. There is no evidence to suggest that our species is now capable of making a material that is fireproof under all circumstances. As a stark example, look at the World Trade Center fire. The structural steel that held up those two buildings was fireproofed. But that fireproofing was designed to hold up under an ASTM E119 fire - not high speed hydrocarbon jetfuel crashing in via a full airplane, which blew the fireproofing off. So much for fireproofing being "fireproof". Change the parameters and guess what: the results change. Similar fireproofing held up nicely in the First Interstate Tower fire in Los Angeles. Guess what: If that fire had gone on, say 2 hours longer: Would any PFP professional bet a month's wages that that building would not have pancaked like the WTC Towers? Hardly. Refractory and atmospheric re-entry fireproofing measures deal with much higher temperatures, which are far and above the temperature ranges expected to be experienced in building fire-resistance (1100°C), fire-resistance against hydrocarbon fires, or even the worst: tunnel fires. No matter how good the fireproofing, at some point it's toast. So to say "fireproof building" can be misleading if it is not understood that it is now a trade term - although whoever came up with the term "fireproof building" may very well have thought that the building was indeed immune to fire. But we know better now.--Achim (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
