• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Fire extinguisher travel distance

M

Mech

Registered User
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
1,037
Location
Eastern PA
2009 IBC

Section 906.3

This may sound stupid, but is there a definition for Maximum Travel Distance to Extinguisher? Is it the distance from a fire to the extinguisher? Is it the distance from where someone is standing / sitting to the extinguisher.

Scenario: Automotive showroom and adjacent sales offices with glass walls. From a sales office, the travel distance to the extinguisher is 60 ft, which is acceptable for Class A fires (papers burning at the desk) but it exceeds the 50 ft maximum allowable for Class B fires (car burning immediately outside the glass wall and visible from inside the glass office.) 25 of the 60 ft travel distance is used to get out of the office. Do I need to add more extinguishers so that the travel distance is 50 ft from all the sales offices?

Thanks in advance.
 
From the standard NFPA 10



Class A = 75’ TD

Class B = 30 -50’ TD

Class C = Use TD for Class A & B

Class D = < 75’ TD

Type K = Max 30’ TD

Measured from the hazard. If the distance to the (or a) specific hazard is greater than the maximum travel distance then additional extinguishers or arrangement (mounting) is required so the extinguisher can be reached within the specified TD.
 
I am thinking this is high hazard (flammable fuels >5g), so 30' to a 40B or 50' to an 80B.

Travel distance is the walking distance from any point.

If it is >50' from any point in the office where somebody may stand to an 80B extinguisher, the extinguisher must be relocated or additional extinguishers added as necessary.
 
Mech said:
NFPA 10 has auto showrooms listed as ordinary (moderate) hazard.
Click to expand...
Duly noted.. would drop to 10/20 I believe.

There would still be a travel distance problem.
 
Since the answer has been provided; I guess this is ok. When I first saw the topic;

"Fire extinguisher travel distance"

My first thought was that fire extingueshers should not be allowed to travel; it make them hard to find.

Uncle Bob

 
The minimum travel distance to any fire extinguisher should be 20 feet beyond the exit discharge.

Fire Extinguishers don't save buildings. Fire Extinguishers keep fire extinguisher companies in business. The only reason for the regulations on fire extinguishers is because the big fire extinguisher companies control the codes.

This isn't some crazy rant about buying votes. If you calculate the cost of fire extinguishers compared to the few times they actually work it is tremendous. If you review large loss fires you can usually find that someone delayed calling for help because they were trying to use a fire extinguisher. They probably weren't trained on how to use a fire extinguisher. And by the way those ratings 2A 10BC, etc. is an absolutley worthless method of evaluation.

A 2A fire extinguisher is effective on a trash can fire if applied by an average white male of thirty five years of age after extensive training at the testing lab. So unless you have one of those guys standing next to the fire extinguisher its not likely to work very well.
 
Having been in the fire service, I know that [properly used] fire extinguishers can put out a LOT of fire. So much so that our first due teams were bringing a radio, a light, a tool and and extinguisher.

I think in an occupied building of ordinary hazard, properly trained employees could save a lot of property damage. The question is whether or not they have been trained. When I can doing the inspections I would ask the staff if they knew how to use one, it was 50/50. I'd give them the brief tutorial and tell them when in doubt, run!

Also remember they must be in a visible, easily accessible location, so it is not just the employees who may use extinguishers.

Not to say I discredit your postulation on big fire extinguisher companies pushing the legislation.
 
There is no way to know how many fires are extinguished with fire extinguishers as most are not reported to the fire department. We only are able to record the fires that were not able to be extinguished with fire extinguishers as they usually call 911 for help. Short story: I was setting in big box lot entering and inspection into laptop and see a large mushroom black cloud arise over auto repair shop less than 200 feet from me. I put truck into gear and next see a large white cloud arise. By the time I reach the bussines the fire was out and they were trying to get the battery cables off the battery. Deck boat outside the bussiness, they had taken the carb off and a short caused the starter to activate filling the transom well with gas and ingite into a large fireball. I do not think my fire extinguisher operator was a trained operator but the fire was extinguished with very little damage. Had I not seen it I would never have known.
 
Maybe I can put on the plans "No fires allowed, intentional or accidental" and then I can eliminate fire extinguishers altogether.
 
FBG brings up some good points....hence my seeing many proposals back in the day to eliminate portables in sprinkled facilities. It has always been my interpretation that the purpose for portables were to aid one's ability to egress the structure in the event of fire. They can be useful if the Rambo method is not used by the user as I often instruct against. Out of a group of 10 trainees there is always 2 who despite the training use the Rambo method that will only cause fire spread so the rough statistic would be 80% effectiveness when used properly.
 
FBG brings up some good points....hence my seeing many proposals back in the day to eliminate portables in sprinkled facilities
Click to expand...
FM they are still trying

906.1 Where required.

Portable fire extinguishers shall be installed in the following locations.

1. In new and existing Group A, B, E, F, H, I , M, R-1, R-2, R-4 and S occupancies.

Exception: In new and existing Group A, B and E occupancies equipped throughout with quick-response sprinklers, portable fire extinguishers shall be required only in locations specified in Items 2 through 6.



2. Within 30 feet (9144 mm) of commercial cooking equipment.

3. In areas where flammable or combustible liquids are stored, used or dispensed.

4. On each floor of structures under construction, except Group R-3 occupancies, in accordance with Section 1415.1.

5. Where required by the sections indicated in Table 906.1.

6. Special-hazard areas, including but not limited to laboratories, computer rooms and generator rooms, where required by the fire code official .
 
There was an article in the Gated Wye about 1990. The Gated Wye is published by the Oregon FM Office. Fire Extinguishers controlled about 93% of the fire reported to the fire department. Or about the same ratio of fires controlled by sprinkler systems. NAFED has an ongoing survey about the use of fire extinguishers, successes and failures. I can try to find the results and post it here if there is any interest.

When we do a survey for fire extiguisher placement, we look at the travel distance not as a stright line, but the path around obstacles. Obstacles can change from year to year, as can the hazards in a building.

NFPA 10-2010 Chapter 6 list the installation and placement of portable extinguishers
 
A regulatory required fire extinguisher serves no purpose. It can not operate without an operator. The code does not require an operator. AND in fact the regulations (OSHA) for fire extinguisher training have become so vague due to the inability of employers to provide adequate training. I have trained thousands of people in the use of fire extinguishers. That includes professional fire fighters, who at least half of the time could not have met the requirement for a labratory fire extinguisher operator. 50% of the time the professional fire fighters could not put out a regulatory size fire with a standard fire extinguisher sized for the fire.

I call this the salt theory. If you tried to introduce salt as a food product today the FDA would never allow it because it causes heart conditions, strokes, etc.

If you tried to sell the code groups today on a new fire safety system that does not work unless trained operators were present, and then made it mandatory in all occupancies... it would never sell. But we continue to hold onto to this code requirement because change would erode our confidence in the value of existing requirements. If only... when the three legacy code groups came together back years ago they eliminated fire extinguishers, that would have been perfect.
 
While I understand your point, I am not sure I agree. Having trained 1000's of people you are certainly in a more qualified position to make a statement. Granted we use the 4A:80BC or 2.5g water, but I don't really remember running out of extinguishing agent prior to extinguishing a fire. Now obviously portable extinguishers were only used on fires where it was appropriate.

By the same logic we could remove life rings from pools and boats. I think there would be a similar level of training required to properly deliver them to victims.

Perhaps it is felt the additional cost is warranted for the chance they may safe a life. I don't know this for fact, just thinking out loud.
 
Plain and simple...use the P.A.S.S. acronym Pull (pin), Aim, Squeeze and Sweep.

The important thing is to allow the extinguishing agent to work for you (like any good tool) and surround the flames working from the base (lower front) of the fire.

If one looks at the fire and thinks it better to flee (egress) we (fire service) recommend the latter and call 911. The "Rambo" method is when one does not know how to use the extinguishing agent as a tool and blasts the center mass of a fire and ends up spreading the fire thus creating a condition far worse then fleeing (egressing) to safety.

Easier said than done as FBG alludes to. Only those who have trained on the proper use and have experienced some heat while practicing safe usage and know how to use the agent effectively should attempt. To effectively suppress most fires (that a portable could be used), one will feel some heat. And I can't remember how many I've trained over my 27 years but it's vast.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks WB. I checked a website explaining the PASS method, but thought you guys might be talking of something else. Anyway, the website I was looking at stated that the average fire extinguisher is depleted after 10 seconds. This does not seem like very much time to help with anything but a very small flare-up.
 
Pictograms are on the extinguishers, so you can always just look at the picture if you forget :)

I agree that training would increase the likelihood of a successful extinguishment; even using an extinguisher once would give the use a sense of what exactly it is capable of. Like jobsaver said, "10 seconds" doesn't seem like a lot-- until you are putting out a fire. Then 10 seconds seems like a minute.

I had looked into one of those electronic training systems, but at 5k starting there was just no way.
 
do we really want non fire professionals trying to suppress a fire.. or do we want them to get the heck out of the building?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top