Explosions fires rescue at sea

[Checkswrecks]

Originally Posted by Montanan

I have learned recently about a fire extinguishing agent that several of the electric vehicle manufacturers and battery manufacturers have adopted for use in their battery charging and assembly facilities. The agent is added to water in ratio of 3% of less and is used in a pressurized fire extinguisher or pumped hose distribution. A 10-ounce bottle of F-500 EA provides a 3% solution, when mixed with 2 ½ gallons of water. The head assembly is re-attached and the extinguisher unit is charged to 100 psi with a standard air chuck used for filling tires. The refilling procedure is quick, inexpensive and simple.
...

This appears to be one of the AFFF alternatives. While at least one fire chief told me they use a form of AFFF for wetting, the NFPA does not endorse use of AFFF or similar agents. As I recall (so may be a wrong memory) and setting aside the environmental impact, it had something to do with water providing a constant flow of cooling, whereas the wetting and foaming agents locally heat-load and become less effective. Essentially they become insulation and meanwhile the thermal runaway is still going on inside of the cell(s).

In a different post, Cpt Pat mentioned burn bags. When the subject of burning batteries became a big topic and till a couple of years ago, there were people and companies elbowing each other out of the way to develop and promote their unique patented burn bags, vented boxes, and other devices. The FAA tested a bunch of them. Some airlines have some of those devices on their airplanes but in the end most realized that the fastest response was the simpler one I keep mentioning.

Move passengers 5 (? iirc) rows away.

Pour cooling water, soda, or even hot coffee on the device. Anything liquid and non-flammable. If you have a sink hose which can spray water to where the battery is then that might be of help both to cool the battery and wet anything else the the battery ignites.

If possible and after determining it to be necessary, move the device to immerse it.
I've seen this trained to be pulling out a galley cart drawer and sliding the device in with a metal serving tray or anything else on hand. Then dump enough drinks into the drawer to cover the device and move the drawer away from the pax, generally to the aft galley floor. (The airflow in big planes goes down then aft then overboard.)
Of course, for us with boats, just chuck the device overboard if possible.

[Cpt Pat]

[Reference post #72]


Bob,

That looks like an excellent setup! One question: Is there any venting in the steel case to prevent a pressure build-up in case of catastrophic venting? If not, the assembly could turn into a bomb. One could always drill a hole, and if I did, I'd find some way to vent the case overboard that could withstand hot gasses.

If I took that a step further, I'd install the cases below the waterline, and run the vent pipe through an always-open-undereway seacock to a through hull below the waterline but higher than the case that was sealed with a pressure cap. That way, if the batteries started venting, the pressure would blow out the vent plug, and when the pressure dropped, the case would be automatically flooded with sea water. Then you'd have to close the seacock. Just a crazy thought...

[Cpt Pat]

It seems to me that the solution to carrying portable lithium battery-powered tools aboard is to have a good inverter that can power tools with AC instead. Then the risk is limited to that of the house battery banks - over which you have some control. Any good inverter will have a ground fault interrupter that mitigates the risk of shocks, provided it is properly connected to the boat's common ground.



I don't understand the aversion to wires. As a cyber security practitioner, many of the breaches I see are due to people's reticence to put up with wired devices. I mean really, how inconvenient is a keyboard with a wire -- as opposed to the risks taken with a Bluetooth keyboard that leaks every keystroke (including passwords) over-the-air? And WiFi is nice, but never as safe as a wired ethernet connection. Convenience has become the enemy of safety and security.

As I walk through my marina, I find a dozen boats with Bluetooth-enabled systems that, if I were a "blackhat," I could easily exploit using the factory default passwords (if any passwords are needed at all). You don't want someone blowing up your battery bank because they think it'd be fun to reset your bank's SOC at "0%".

[Cpt Pat]

Since it's way off topic, I'll just leave here a few links on the topic of Bluetooth security. If you're interested, there are apps you can get to break into your own Bluetooth devices to see how flawed Bluetooth security really is.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoff.../#5a0c7af74ec8
https://www.csoonline.com/article/34...erability.html
https://www.mdpi.com/2224-2708/7/3/28/pdf (PDF download of whitepaper)

[dannc]

Originally Posted by GrowleyMonster

This has been a very sobering and informative thread. Thanks to all who contributed! It has caused me to do some rethinking, for sure. I don't have any cordless tools on my boats simply because I hate them and hate the business model that causes a tool to be obsolete after only 10 or 20 years. I am 60 and many of my Grandfather's old B&D, Craftsman, Skil, etc tools are still going strong 70 and even 80 years after he bought them. ...

Exactly. As my tool batteries died, I would wait for holiday sales to get a reasonable price on a battery but I would miss the sales, and I would also notice that I had not NEEDED the battery tool. In the end, I never replaced the batteries. For the cost of an expendable battery, I could buy a really nice corded tool... It might be different with the new Lithium batteries, but the old battery tools did not perform as well as my fairly cheap, corded tools.

Originally Posted by GrowleyMonster

I haven't heard of too many laptops spontaneously bursting into flames, to be fair about it. Phones are probably a lot more dangerous but they are mighty handy to carry around and the GPS is self contained.

It happens. We were looking at renting an AirBnB in Ireland a few years ago and the owner had a requirement about leaving laptops unplugged unless one was in the apartment. A family member had a laptop battery catch on fire.

Originally Posted by GrowleyMonster

I am very surprised that the rolling and slamming of the boat was enough to cause a power tool battery from a reputable maker (I AM curious about brand and model, but I understand the reluctance to spill the beans). It is enough to know that a big name in the industry is no insurance against disaster. We need to be more aware of the hazards implied by having these very useful and even some would say essential gadgets onboard, and think ahead of time about how we might deal with them if they go critical.

My batteries were never in a boat, much less banging around in the back of a truck. The last working battery I had started smoking and almost caught fire when it was placed back in the charger after a very short use. I posted about this earlier in this discussion. If the battery had caught fire, there was a good chance it would have burned down the house. It was a 18v Dewalt battery that had not been abused in any way. It just shorted out for some reason.

Later,
Dan

[Checkswrecks]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

[Reference post #72]


Bob,

That looks like an excellent setup! One question: Is there any venting in the steel case to prevent a pressure build-up in case of catastrophic venting? If not, the assembly could turn into a bomb. One could always drill a hole, and if I did, I'd find some way to vent the case overboard that could withstand hot gasses.

If I took that a step further, I'd install the cases below the waterline, and run the vent pipe through an always-open-undereway seacock to a through hull below the waterline but higher than the case that was sealed with a pressure cap. That way, if the batteries started venting, the pressure would blow out the vent plug, and when the pressure dropped, the case would be automatically flooded with sea water. Then you'd have to close the seacock. Just a crazy thought...

The packaging of the 8 prismatic cells and fit of the lid is very similar to the 787 batteries. Once a cell goes into thermal runaway with the big flat surface, pressure will likely distort the top and release pressure through the gap. The top of this 787 battery did just that and the black goo was the remnants of the electrolyte:


So first thing to address would be insuring there is no wood or anything else flammable near the battery. I'm not sure how to go about routing or destination but Cut Pat's idea about having a vent to somewhere is valid. Once Boeing put their blue battery casing into a stainless bank vault, below is their addition of an overboard vent tube from the vault. There's a pressure frangible disc at the top of the tube. The low outside pressure at altitude helps empty the bank vault.


Second thing from experience is that having the cells grouped like that ensures that the thermal runaway will propagate from cell to cell to cell over a long period. The 787 took roughly 45 minutes for all eight cells to release. The reason is that even after the pressure is gone (most of which is just very hot carbon monoxide gas), the burning electrolyte and guts of the original cell are still contained in the big box. This considerable heat means the battery case becomes an oven to take the adjacent cells to failure, beginning with the flat face next to the original cell.

Boeing has not had an initial cell propagate since putting blow-out holes (marked below as "pressure vent") in the blue battery case adjacent to the vent of each cell, with the expelled material then released into the bigger stainless vault. This lets a failed cell expel the burning and hot cell contents with the initial pressure and most of the related heat.


This much is public and the rest is proprietary. Hope it provides food for thought and helps.

[Tudorsailor]

This is a great thread.

I am not sure a non-airtight steel box works for me. So I have ordered a LiPo battery bag from Amazon having watched this video

https://youtu.be/dSnYDvj3BDs

If nothing else, it will make it easy to pick up the bag with smoking battery inside, using the boat hook, and sling overboard! Am I wasting my money?

TudorSailor

[JPA Cate]

@TudorSailor:

Pretty hard to manage a long boat hook below decks.

I'm afraid that Montanan's warning that one will have to get up close and expect significant unpleasantness [scary, hot, nasty smoke, molten plastic] with it, but the fire blanket's the way to go. Fast to overboard is the clue/plan. I've taken to charging our Milwaukee rt. angle drill that we use on winches in the gally sink. From there, the bad battery could be dropped into the pressure cooker pot (my heaviest one), and from there, up the companionway and into the drink. If Jim's aboard, I'll hand it out to him to dump.



Ann

[Checkswrecks]

Originally Posted by Tudorsailor

This is a great thread.

I am not sure a non-airtight steel box works for me. So I have ordered a LiPo battery bag from Amazon having watched this video

https://youtu.be/dSnYDvj3BDs

If nothing else, it will make it easy to pick up the bag with smoking battery inside, using the boat hook, and sling overboard! Am I wasting my money?

TudorSailor

That's an example of one of the bags and devices I mentioned above. Before buying this, for a small battery (up to 5-ish AH) I would suggest simply wrap your cells loosely in a small fire blanket that is in an open top metal box. Again, avoid the box being air tight because you o not want it to pressurize. Small fire blankets start at only about $10 on Amazon and you can have it tomorrow.

The fire blanket is good to have anyway, for example for fires at the stove. fwiw, Something I have several pair of around the shop are gauntlet style welding gloves. Good for multiple uses. (need to put a pair on the boat)

[Tudorsailor]

Originally Posted by Checkswrecks

..................Small fire blankets start at only about $10 on Amazon and you can have it tomorrow.

The safe bag is only £14.90 and arrives today (thanks to Amazon Prime) https://smile.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07521...395841_TE_dp_1 So not a major investment
I have a fire blanket already.
Thanks
TS

[Checkswrecks]

From Tudorsailor's link to a fire bag ad, below are three photos from a test battery set off in the bag. The battery is a common 4.3 AH jump pack that is smaller than your hand. I've been near these failing in a short circuit and as the OP wrote, it sounds like several quick gun shots.

The first photo shows the rate of smoke given off and this will fill the cabin of a boat almost immediately. Most of it is carbon monoxide which decreases the breathable oxygen similar to a plastic trash fire. The battery smoke also usually contains small amounts of hydrofluoric, hydrochloric, sulfuric, or other acids. The proportions are small but enough that your eyes water badly, blinding you, and it'll make you start hacking if you get a lung full. This is what the OP was contending with, in addition to the secondary fire(s) the battery failure caused.


I've played around with the before/after photos so the bag is about the same size to convey how much the device expanded. This is in addition to the pressure of the initial release and the volume represented by smoke. The intent is to imply the pressure created and why NOT to put these in a case which can pressurize.


One last note: Most people think of LiFePo4 as "the safe lithium battery" and the chemistry generally is. HOWEVER, the test and plenty of incidents show that you can inadvertently force them to catastrophic failure. For example, an overcharge condition like in the test, or a hard short across terminals if the battery is not designed to account for those. This is not limited to small batteries and hopefully this will convey why you want to do everything possible to protect big house batteries.

[nebster]

Originally Posted by Checkswrecks

One last note: Most people think of LiFePo4 as "the safe lithium battery" and the chemistry generally is. HOWEVER, the test and plenty of incidents show that you can inadvertently force them to catastrophic failure. For example, an overcharge condition like in the test, or a hard short across terminals if the battery is not designed to account for those. This is not limited to small batteries and hopefully this will convey why you want to do everything possible to protect big house batteries.

Hang on a minute.

Everything discussed above in this thread -- the conflagrations, the power tool packs, and so on -- all is cobalt chemistry. Right?

Almost the entire rest of the thousands of posts of discussion in this forum relate to house bank LFP arrays, which most of us believe are substantially different.

You made a leap here, and I'd like to understand your sources. What is "the test" to which you allude, and can you point us to "plenty of incidents" with catastrophic LFP battery failure?

[bcboomer]

Originally Posted by Montanan

I have learned recently about a fire extinguishing agent that several of the electric vehicle manufacturers and battery manufacturers have adopted for use in their battery charging and assembly facilities. The agent is added to water in ratio of 3% of less and is used in a pressurized fire extinguisher or pumped hose distribution. A 10-ounce bottle of F-500 EA provides a 3% solution, when mixed with 2 ½ gallons of water. The head assembly is re-attached and the extinguisher unit is charged to 100 psi with a standard air chuck used for filling tires. The refilling procedure is quick, inexpensive and simple.

http://www.hct-world.com/wp-content/...guisher_V4.pdf

F-500 ENCAPSULATOR AGENT (EA)
F-500 EA is the answer to many of today’s firefighting challenges. In a world where fires have become hotter and more difficult to extinguish, F-500 Encapsulator Agent’s unique capabilities meet those challenges. First, F-500 EA has a remarkable ability to cool a fire and surrounding structures, with the ability to absorb 6-10 times more heat energy than plain water. Instead of scalding steam, F-500 EA releases a warm vapor. Secondly, F-500 EA encapsulates fuels forming micelles or “chemical cocoons” that render the fuel nonflammable and nonignitable. Finally, F-500 EA interrupts the free radical chain reaction. Free radicals are unburned gases produced during the combustion process that turn into smoke and soot. Inhibiting the chain reaction results in less smoke and toxins and increases visibility.

Rapid cooling
Encapsulates the fuel
Interrupts the free radical chain reaction
Eliminates almost all cancer-causing toxins in smoke
Contains no fluorines (PFOS/PFOA)
Produces no scalding steam
F-500 Encapsulator Agent is not a foam, so it contains no fluorines, such as perfluorooctyl sulfonate (PFOS). F-500 EA is 100% biodegradable and is non-hazardous, containing no ingredients reportable under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III, Section 313 or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Shelf life is 15 years and it can be discarded as a non-hazardous waste under RCRA CFR261.

I'm looking into this as it seems like a good extinguisher to have for any galley or engine fires. With the misting nozzle it should be easy to just point and shoot.
I'm waiting to hear from the distributor about suitability for electrical fires other than Li batteries.
The pricing is very reasonable and a refill is downright cheap.

[Checkswrecks]

Originally Posted by nebster

Hang on a minute.

Everything discussed above in this thread -- the conflagrations, the power tool packs, and so on -- all is cobalt chemistry. Right?

Easy there my friend. Note that I never mentioned conflagration in the post you are citing. I never even used the word fire in that post, as it was talking about the smoke contents and need to avoid containment of pressure.

So my direct answer to your question is possibly but possibly not. One of my recurring comments has been that we consumers generally do not know what chemistry is in the plastic case. Plus, just because something has cobalt does not make it hazardous. There are countless formulations and some are reactively "hotter" than others. The makers of Lithium phosphate chemistries can "slow down" the reaction even more. For example Winston cells are super tolerant of abuse and generally referred to as LiFePo4 but they really are not. They add the rare Earth metal Yttrium to slow the reaction by trading off yet more energy density and their cell chemistry is really LiFeYPo4 which is pretty uncommon.

Originally Posted by nebster

You made a leap here, and I'd like to understand your sources. What is "the test" to which you allude, and can you point us to "plenty of incidents" with catastrophic LFP battery failure?

Not much of a leap as again, I used the word "catastrophic" not necessarily in terms of an explosion and shrapnel. Even in the cobalt world there are extremely few failures which go that badly.

I can't relate most of what I was involved with outside of the 787 and Teslas because those were almost all proprietary with manufacturers, so ignore the "plenty of incidents" phrase if you want. However, there have been a number of papers and other tests which have been shared in conferences like the following from FMGlobal. I just happen to know this one because it was published shortly before I retired last year. It is relevant due to being LFP and the 120 AH size they tested is in the range of what we here would consider to be a house bank.

https://www.fmglobal.com/research-an...18EC4A6A8.ashx
fwiw - Their ignition was from an electrical heater placed beneath the initial cell which is a fairly standard procedure.


No explosion but once the initial LFP cell overheated the failure continued to propagate through the rest of the cells. It did generate flame, smoke, and if in an enclosure would have generated significant pressure. The one exception I would note from this test for those using aluminum-cased prismatic is the the FMGlobal test did not bond the cells to the frame so this is essentially a series of individual cells and not a system which can dump potential electrical energy from other cells through one and that could slow the propagation.

To add a new item to the discussion, anybody want to take a guess as to what batteries are causing the most fires and injuries these days? I know a couple of forensic battery engineers whose income is supporting attorneys litigating about these failures.
Hint - Yes, most do include cobalt in the chemistry.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Checkswrecks

This appears to be one of the AFFF alternatives. While at least one fire chief told me they use a form of AFFF for wetting, the NFPA does not endorse use of AFFF or similar agents. As I recall (so may be a wrong memory) and setting aside the environmental impact, it had something to do with water providing a constant flow of cooling, whereas the wetting and foaming agents locally heat-load and become less effective. Essentially they become insulation and meanwhile the thermal runaway is still going on inside of the cell(s).

In a different post, Cpt Pat mentioned burn bags. When the subject of burning batteries became a big topic and till a couple of years ago, there were people and companies elbowing each other out of the way to develop and promote their unique patented burn bags, vented boxes, and other devices. The FAA tested a bunch of them. Some airlines have some of those devices on their airplanes but in the end most realized that the fastest response was the simpler one I keep mentioning.

Move passengers 5 (? iirc) rows away.

Pour cooling water, soda, or even hot coffee on the device. Anything liquid and non-flammable. If you have a sink hose which can spray water to where the battery is then that might be of help both to cool the battery and wet anything else the the battery ignites.

If possible and after determining it to be necessary, move the device to immerse it.
I've seen this trained to be pulling out a galley cart drawer and sliding the device in with a metal serving tray or anything else on hand. Then dump enough drinks into the drawer to cover the device and move the drawer away from the pax, generally to the aft galley floor. (The airflow in big planes goes down then aft then overboard.)
Of course, for us with boats, just chuck the device overboard if possible.

F-500 does not appear to be an Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Concentrate.
Reference data slide below.

Also video link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sl_t5pIhVU