CMC 6m rule and EV fires

[Mr Plodd]

See hereSee hereI see in the press there are suggestions being made that car park spaces will need to be made bigger in order to facilitate quicker/easier access/greater safety in the event of an EV fire.

Car parking spaces will have to be bigger because of electric car fires

1960s-era fire safety laws could be inadequate to tackle risks from EV batteries, says report

www.telegraph.co.uk

Thinking about the existing "6m rule" on CMC sites does that mean they will think about the possiblity of prohibiting EV's from being parked alongside pitched caravans?

Just a bit of a devil's advocate thought

 

[Buckman]

I don't think EV fires are the issue, but rather that parking bays are too narrow for modern cars. After all if EV fires were common place then all car parks should be burnt out shells. I think that last big fire in a car park was caused by a petrol Landrover? As everyone knows I am definitely not an EV fan!

 

[otherclive]

A bit like domestic garages the parking spaces don't recognise that cars have got larger. To gain better access to fight the fire would require a very large, and impractical, increase in spaces. Sprinklers with AFFF foam drench would help more.

 

[Buckman]

A bit like domestic garages the parking spaces don't recognise that cars have got larger. To gain better access to fight the fire would require a very large, and impractical, increase in spaces. Sprinklers with AFFF foam drench would help more.

Would AFFF foam drench sprinklers be okay to use if there are people around being sprayed with the stuff plus probably reducing their visibility o find safe exits?

 

[otherclive]

Would AFFF foam drench sprinklers be okay to use if there are people around being sprayed with the stuff plus probably reducing their visibility o find safe exits?

From my experience training with AFFF the answer is “yes” With sprinklers it would be limited to the hot zone around the fire. It’s not like a foam disco party.

 

[woodsieboy]

Our son is in Fire Service and is attending meeting today to discuss EV fires and the way forward, seems the problem is the battery, which is made from linked cells and if subject to shock, impact or heat, a cell may self ignite, and spread to adjacent cell, also the battery location makes it difficult to get to, so currently fire may be put out, but can reignite several hours later. At the momnet FS has no recognised protocol for bets way to move forward, when I asked, he said 'no one knows for sure'

 

[Buckman]

From my experience training with AFFF the answer is “yes” With sprinklers it would be limited to the hot zone around the fire. It’s not like a foam disco party.

I have no idea what AFFF is which is why I queried it. I was under the impression that generally when a water sprinkler system is activated, it will do the whole building and not just the section where the fire is located.

A read on Wiki indicates the AFFF is very dangerous to human beings and is being banned and all current AFFF foam applicators are being destroyed.

 

[Raywood]

I think the problem is that if a car catches fire in a car park the distance the next one would have to be away is so great that it is not feasible. I am not sure if the 6m gap applied to most caravan sites would be correct for this, but at best to leave a useful gap would probably halve the car park capacity or even worse. From seeing a video of the Luton fire it is clear the spaces next to the Range Rover were empty so an even bigger gap between them would be needed. I cannot see larger spacing would be a practical solution.
I do agree the spaces need to be both longer and wider as cars are now larger, but that is a different issue.

 

[Dustydog]

I thought AFFF was life expired and due to be replaced?
Water fed sprinklers with “ Misting “ type auto heads are still a good medium for preventing the spread of fire. The idea is the water cools everything down whilst the water mist restricts the oxygen feed. The auto sprinkler heads will only operate by the fire.

EVs have no worse a self ignition issue than ICE but do present problems with initial fire extinguishment and the aftermath. They do reignite and are often left well away from everything else post fire. Some experts place them in large water containers to suppress reignition.

Whilst not an EV fan I have no concerns being parked by one on site. But a JLR may make me think twice😉😉😁

 

[RogerL]

I thought AFFF was life expired and due to be replaced?
Water fed sprinklers with “ Misting “ type auto heads are still a good medium for preventing the spread of fire. The idea is the water cools everything down whilst the water mist restricts the oxygen feed. The auto sprinkler heads will only operate by the fire.

EVs have no worse a self ignition issue than ICE but do present problems with initial fire extinguishment and the aftermath. They do reignite and are often left well away from everything else post fire. Some experts place them in large water containers to suppress reignition.

Whilst not an EV fan I have no concerns being parked by one on site. But a JLR may make me think twice😉😉😁

Water sprinklers in car parks are a big no-no as any spilt petrol/diesel will just float on top so spreading even more quickly.

 

[Dustydog]

Water sprinklers in car parks are a big no-no as any spilt petrol/diesel will just float on top so spreading even more quickly.

That’s true if there is a big spillage. Car fires don’t usually result in big spillages. Surely containment of the fire is a primary consideration.
However multi storey car parks U.K. Building Regs don’t require installation of sprinklers or other fire suppressant systems.

 

[otherclive]

I thought AFFF was life expired and due to be replaced?
Water fed sprinklers with “ Misting “ type auto heads are still a good medium for preventing the spread of fire. The idea is the water cools everything down whilst the water mist restricts the oxygen feed. The auto sprinkler heads will only operate by the fire.

EVs have no worse a self ignition issue than ICE but do present problems with initial fire extinguishment and the aftermath. They do reignite and are often left well away from everything else post fire. Some experts place them in large water containers to suppress reignition.

Whilst not an EV fan I have no concerns being parked by one on site. But a JLR may make me think twice😉😉😁

Yes under EU changes AFFF is to be prohibited but new low expansion foams are being introduced.

I did trials on water mist systems post the Manchester air disaster. Sat in a VC 10 with shallow burning fuel pans on its wings. The fire melted the seats including frames. With water mist in the cabin I could sit in the replacement seats no problem. We then did trials at Shoeburyness Range to see if water mist could extinguish a hydraulic fire from a leaking spray from a HP hydraulic system. It did, but it was in a shipping container to simulate our intended application.

The problem with mist systems in open ventilated spaces like that car park vis that the thermal currents plus any wind would disperse the mist away from where it’s required. The mist systems work best in an enclosed space.

 

[Buckman]

That’s true if there is a big spillage. Car fires don’t usually result in big spillages. Surely containment of the fire is a primary consideration.
However multi storey car parks U.K. Building Regs don’t require installation of sprinklers or other fire suppressant systems.

Probably would not require much spillage from a fuel tank to spread a fire floating on water? One must remember that a vehicle on fire will burn very quickly and no matter whether it is water or foam sprinklers, the fire will still probably spread quickly.
The last time I saw a car fire a few years ago, from smoke to a full blown fire was almost seconds and the people were lucky to get out. The vehicle burned for about 20 minutes as even the tyres were alight. By the time the fire brigade got to the car the flames were not so intense. It was an older car and it had been travelling.
I did attend the aftermath of a fire in the late sixties where the driver was unable to get out in time. It was a rear engine two door Renault 4 CV. It was not pleasant.

 

[otherclive]

I have no idea what AFFF is which is why I queried it. I was under the impression that generally when a water sprinkler system is activated, it will do the whole building and not just the section where the fire is located.

A read on Wiki indicates the AFFF is very dangerous to human beings and is being banned and all current AFFF foam applicators are being destroyed.

By that definition of AFFF I should be dead by now. 😂. Fires aren’t exactly life enhancing. Like many products the effect on health is a combination of extent of exposure and concentration of exposure.

 

[Dustydog]

It will be interesting to hear what Woodsieboy son finds out.

 

[Dustydog]

By that definition of AFFF I should be dead by now. 😂. Fires aren’t exactly life enhancing. Like many products the effect on health is a combination of extent of exposure and concentration of exposure.

Our Computer Room had a Halon Gas Suppressant system. An alarm would sound and we were told evacuate within 2 minutes before the gas went off. I believe it is banned now as very injurious to your health.
Jokes apart it does seem a lot of efforts made to halt or suppress fires have involved highly dangerous elements eg Asbestos.😥😥

 

[otherclive]

Our Computer Room had a Halon Gas Suppressant system. An alarm would sound and we were told evacuate within 2 minutes before the gas went off. I believe it is banned now as very injurious to your health.
Jokes apart it does seem a lot of efforts made to halt or suppress fires have involved highly dangerous elements eg Asbestos.😥😥

Halons were phased out as a response to the hole in the ozone layer.

Our Computer Room had a Halon Gas Suppressant system. An alarm would sound and we were told evacuate within 2 minutes before the gas went off. I believe it is banned now as very injurious to your health.
Jokes apart it does seem a lot of efforts made to halt or suppress fires have involved highly dangerous elements eg Asbestos.😥😥

in enclosed areas with total flooding systems it was quite the norm to issue a short warning of operation. Even up to 10% concentration there would be few side effects or impact on personnel health. In. military systems such as MBT or some marine systems there isn’t time for a warning and the systems are either fired automatically or manually but without delay. This is to reduce the impact on personnel and the capability of the overall military system. The worst effects of halon are the breakdown products. That’s why it’s essential it has sufficient “ muscle “ to knock the fire out in one and prevent reigniting.

One interesting system I was involved with was to rapidly inject Nitrogen into a very large sealed container so as to reduce the percentage concentration of atmospheric oxygen below the ignition and fire threshold. Yet still retaining the oxygen partial pressure at a level that personnel could still function.

 

[Tobes]

See hereSee hereI see in the press there are suggestions being made that car park spaces will need to be made bigger in order to facilitate quicker/easier access/greater safety in the event of an EV fire.

Car parking spaces will have to be bigger because of electric car fires

1960s-era fire safety laws could be inadequate to tackle risks from EV batteries, says report

www.telegraph.co.uk

Thinking about the existing "6m rule" on CMC sites does that mean they will think about the possiblity of prohibiting EV's from being parked alongside pitched caravans?

Just a bit of a devil's advocate thought

If the concern is over possible ignition risk, banning awing heaters, open flame gas BBQs, diesel and petrol cars would have a greater impact that banning EVs...

It's also pretty ironic that the two photos in the article are of combustion engine cars, and that the article states "that battery-powered cars did 'not present an increased likelihood of fire' when compared to conventional fuel cars brd on current data".

 

[Dustydog]

If the concern is over possible ignition risk, banning awing heaters, open flame gas BBQs, diesel and petrol cars would have a greater impact that banning EVs...

It's also pretty ironic that the two photos in the article are of combustion engine cars, and that the article states "that battery-powered cars did 'not present an increased likelihood of fire' when compared to conventional fuel cars brd on current data".

Tobes,
From what I have read and been told JLR s product was at the seat of the fire. The full forensic report will hopefully be issued soon . I am sure thousands of people are interested if only for a Bar room chit chat😁

Two major issues yet to be advised are causation and why such a rapid spread of the fire?

Whilst not a fan , I am reasonably confident on the evidence available an EV was not culpable for causing this disaster. More importantly there will be people who will be having brown trousers for not ensuring the architect designed fire protections were not installed prior to opening up the car park for use.Rest assured the full truth will emerge and the culprit imo will not be an EV😎

 

[Jcloughie]

Our Computer Room had a Halon Gas Suppressant system. An alarm would sound and we were told evacuate within 2 minutes before the gas went off. I believe it is banned now as very injurious to your health.
Jokes apart it does seem a lot of efforts made to halt or suppress fires have involved highly dangerous elements eg Asbestos.😥😥

We had a fire service led fire fighting instructional course at work around the early 2000’s. (Might have even been the 90’s). They demonstrated the purpose and effects of using appropriate and inappropriate extinguishers for different types of fire.

He then got out the halon and said when current stocks are gone the law prevents them from getting any more to prevent damage to the ozone layer.

He then demonstrated it on an oil fire. Very impressive.

He said that in the fire service’s opinion, the damage done to the ozone by putting fires out by slower methods, would be worse than using halon.

John

 

[otherclive]

Quote "He said that in the fire service’s opinion, the damage done to the ozone by putting fires out by slower methods, would be worse than using halon."

The Fire Service's opinion was clearly incorrect and not based on any scientific evidence. The Ozone layer is repairing after the banning of Halons, which also brought a benefit wrt their impact on Global Warming, although at that time that topic did not have much visibility. . The Global Warming Potential (GWP) of fluorinated gases is estimated to be up to 29000 times that of carbon dioxide over a 100 year period. So the banning of Halon via the Montreal Protocol was a good move on two counts; but lets not forget there are many other gases in common usage that also have a similar GWP, viz air-conditioning, refrigeration etc that's why there are controls on how appliances and equipment is disposed of.

 

[RogerL]

Quote "He said that in the fire service’s opinion, the damage done to the ozone by putting fires out by slower methods, would be worse than using halon."

The Fire Service's opinion was clearly incorrect and not based on any scientific evidence. The Ozone layer is repairing after the banning of Halons, which also brought a benefit wrt their impact on Global Warming, although at that time that topic did not have much visibility. . The Global Warming Potential (GWP) of fluorinated gases is estimated to be up to 29000 times that of carbon dioxide over a 100 year period. So the banning of Halon via the Montreal Protocol was a good move on two counts; but lets not forget there are many other gases in common usage that also have a similar GWP, viz air-conditioning, refrigeration etc that's why there are controls on how appliances and equipment is disposed of.

Surely Halon wasn't banned on it's own, there were other things banned at the same time - and the release of Halon wasn't common, only during a fire!

 

[Jcloughie]

Quote "He said that in the fire service’s opinion, the damage done to the ozone by putting fires out by slower methods, would be worse than using halon."

The Fire Service's opinion was clearly incorrect and not based on any scientific evidence. The Ozone layer is repairing after the banning of Halons, which also brought a benefit wrt their impact on Global Warming, although at that time that topic did not have much visibility. . The Global Warming Potential (GWP) of fluorinated gases is estimated to be up to 29000 times that of carbon dioxide over a 100 year period. So the banning of Halon via the Montreal Protocol was a good move on two counts; but lets not forget there are many other gases in common usage that also have a similar GWP, viz air-conditioning, refrigeration etc that's why there are controls on how appliances and equipment is disposed of.

I really do not see the ‘clearly’. Halon was just one, wasn't CFC's the real culprit? But I do not know. I was simply quoting the fire officer who was relating the brigade's position.

John

 

[otherclive]

Surely Halon wasn't banned on it's own, there were other things banned at the same time - and the release of Halon wasn't common, only during a fire!

The 1987 Montreal Protocol led to the banning of a large number of substances in the CFC and HCFC groupings. As this thread was about firefighting I referred to Halon as that was the most common firefighting agent, and one that most forum members would be aware of.
The MP underwent a number of revisions and the 2016 was the latest. But the revisions looked at substances that that did not necessarily affect the ozone layer, but had significant global warming potential. Every day fluids like car aircon, fridges etc were all affected. One of the reasons when some take the car in for an aircon service they face a higher cost as the OEM fluid has been superseded by a more expensive fluid.

It isn’t totally true that halon was used only if there was a fire. Some military systems underwent discharge tests but these ceased when the MP was ratified.

 

[Tobes]

Tobes,
From what I have read and been told JLR s product was at the seat of the fire. The full forensic report will hopefully be issued soon . I am sure thousands of people are interested if only for a Bar room chit chat😁

Two major issues yet to be advised are causation and why such a rapid spread of the fire?

Whilst not a fan , I am reasonably confident on the evidence available an EV was not culpable for causing this disaster. More importantly there will be people who will be having brown trousers for not ensuring the architect designed fire protections were not installed prior to opening up the car park for use.Rest assured the full truth will emerge and the culprit imo will not be an EV😎

Yes @Dustydog - my thoughts and point exactly. Current data shows that EVs are far less likely to spontaneously combust than combustion cars, and as an ignition source for a caravan fire, the other sources I mentioned, being either open flame or primary heat generators, are significantly more likely to cause a fire.

I acknowledge that once lit, a fire in an EV traction battery is likely to be catastrophic, but addressing the cause of fires is far more useful than ruling against the consequence.

I am at a loss as to why the idea of EV's as a source of fire risk seems to have taken hold of the population and media so ferociously, other than because there are false narratives being spread by those with an anti-EV agenda.

There is no requirement for everyone to have an EV, or even like one. But it is pretty annoying when the reasons sited for not choosing one are founded on untruth. Not pointing at anyone here - and not at @Mr Plodd - the devils horns in the OP are a good sign of "tongue in cheek" (as with my reply). It's a comment that applies to a MUCH wider spectrum of society than the PC forums, and particularly when related or retold from a position of power or perceived knowledge.