Generally, LiFePO4 (LFP) batteries are quite safe and stable, but it’s still possible for something to go wrong, even something catastrophic, like the battery management system (BMS) developing a direct short. This is one of the tests required to be certified for the UL 2054 standard that targets household and portable battery safety. In a recent series of videos, [Will Prowse] demonstrates how a series of commercial batteries pass these tests, and how some still fail.
This particular short-circuit test is quite demanding, as it requires that this failure condition is immediately detected and some kind of fail-safe mechanism – like a fuse – kicks in. The first two batteries easily pass this test by blowing their fuse, just as you expect. Interestingly, the second unit here isn’t even UL-listed but comes with multiple layers of safety.
The third unit shown is a ‘Li Time’ LFP battery akin to what you’d purchase off a random online retailer’s website. This battery features the typical basic BMS and battery configuration, but is missing a chunky, prominently placed fuse. ‘LiTime’ also claims to be UL 2054 certified. The problem with this claim is that there is no fuse to prevent a thermal runaway event if the BMS were to short.
The final battery tested is made by Battle Born, and it also had issues. [Will’s] testing shows the battery catches fire as its purported thermal safety does extremely little to interrupt the current.
The takeaway from this demonstration is that you should look for safety features such as internal fuses. It’s also worth it to add terminal fuses to batteries to potentially interrupt dangerous currents at those points. Better to replace a blown fuse than to deal with an out-of-control inferno and/or violent hydrogen detonation.
Battleborn still stands by their statement “it’s a designed safety feature” and would rather file lawsuits to cover it up instead of fixing the issue.
Probably they will be sued back as soon as they admit something. So they act as if everything is allright.
External fuse wouldn’t even help matters because remember the original complaint came from the use of plastic washers on the battery terminals and loose connections leaving to internal overheating conditions.
Battleborn probably doesn’t have enough money to issue a recall. I think the next step for them is to declare bankruptcy.
Incorrect test method if the scoped standard is UL2054. But he has sent a clear message that some of these batteries suck.
Per the U.S. OSHA and (UB) building standards, you are looking at NFPA 70 or 855 is the battery is a structural install. NFPA will require test certificates to test standards such as UL2054, UL1973, UL1642, UL9540, and others. So this simplistic test is the tip of the iceberg. In any case, it takes much more than just proper fusing to build a safe battery or ESS.
This guy might be needing to talk to a lawyer. Conformity to a standard is assumed only where there is an NRTL mark with a reference to a test certificate on the device or system. If the company says ‘built to conform to…’ or ‘we tested widget xyz per…’, or some such weasel words, but never claims an NRTL cert, then he could be subject to litigation.