I'm just guessing, but I think it wouldn't make much sense to put down such a requirement in writing, since the only way to check if the building fulfils that requirement would be to set it on fire and see what happens. So instead you have requirements that can actually be checked, and an assumption that if all those requirements are fulfilled, the structure should be able to survive a complete burnout. This fire in Beijing comes to mind:If what you say above is true, that all skyscrapers were/are DESIGNED to survive complete burnout and not collapse, then why did they propose a code change to provide for burnout without collapse as stated below?
Not only did this building not collapse, it didn't have to be demolished afterwards. Its opening was merely delayed by a few years. The Wiki page states:
However, it also states:The initial images of the blaze suggested that the tower might be nearly destroyed. However Rem Koolhaas said that "they are simply rebuilding it as it was, because there was no structural damage."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Television_Cultural_Center_fireThe engineering firm for the building was Arup, East Asia, who designed and built the TVCC after an extensive internal study of the World Trade Center building collapses on 11 September 2001.