主管：中华人民共和国应急管理部
主办：应急管理部天津消防研究所
ISSN 1009-0029  CN 12-1311/TU
消防科学与技术

消防科学与技术 ›› 2026, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (7): 81-87.

• • 上一篇    下一篇

不同水基灭火剂对磷酸铁锂电池火灾抑制效果研究

王志1,2, 林杨2, 袁狄平1,2, 孙强3, 范亚飞1   

  1. （1.中国矿业大学深圳研究院，广东 深圳 518000； 2.中国矿业大学 安全工程学院，江苏 徐州 221116； 3.中国民用航空飞行学院，四川 广汉 618307）
  • 收稿日期:2026-02-11 修回日期:2026-05-10 出版日期:2026-07-15 发布日期:2026-07-15
  • 作者简介:王志，中国矿业大学副教授，硕士生导师，主要从事火灾动力学、锂离子电池火灾安全等方面的研究，江苏省徐州市大学路1号，221116，zhiwang@cumt.edu.cn。
  • 基金资助:
    广东省重点领域研发计划项目（2024B1111080003）；应急管理部重点科技计划项目（2025EMST110401）；江苏省基础研究计划自然科学基金面上项目（BK20242088）

Study on the suppression effect of different water-based fire extinguishing agents on lithium iron phosphate battery fires

Wang Zhi1,2, Lin Yang2, Yuan Diping1,2, Sun Qiang3, Fan Yafei1   

  1. (1. Shenzhen Research Institute, China University of Mining and Technology, Shenzhen Guangdong 518000, China; 2. School of Safety Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou Jiangsu 221116, China; 3. Civil Aviation Flight University of China, Guanghan Sichuan 618307, China)
  • Received:2026-02-11 Revised:2026-05-10 Online:2026-07-15 Published:2026-07-15

PDF (PC)

18

摘要： 针对磷酸铁锂电池热失控喷射燃烧场景下明火易控制但极易复燃的处置痛点，选取纯水、水成膜泡沫、氟蛋白泡沫、F-500水基添加剂及三相泡沫开展对比试验。记录了规定喷洒过程内明火的熄灭时间及停喷后的复燃特性，并同步分析火焰区与电池表面温度、热释放速率及CO2、CO体积分数的动态响应。结果表明，纯水与水成膜泡沫在喷洒过程内未能完全扑灭明火。氟蛋白泡沫、F-500与三相泡沫可实现明火熄灭，其中三相泡沫灭火时间最短（7.56 s），F-500次之（13.05 s）；氟蛋白泡沫在喷洒过程末期实现熄灭，但停喷后13.27 s发生复燃。温度与燃烧特征分析表明，喷洒阶段的瞬时降温强度不能完全代表整体灭火效能，各灭火剂均可削弱热反馈，但停喷后的回热速率等因素决定了复燃是否发生。综合燃烧强度、冷却过程及防复燃能力评价，三相泡沫的抑制效能最优，F-500次之。研究揭示了不同水基灭火剂在喷射火焰作用下的冷却与阻氧防复燃机制差异，证实了通过构建长效的物理屏障，可有效切断热量再积累。

关键词: 磷酸铁锂电池, 热失控, 水基灭火剂, 复燃抑制

Abstract: Aiming at the critical challenge in handling lithium iron phosphate battery thermal runaway jet fires—where flames are easily controlled but prone to rapid re-ignition—this study conducts comparative experiments using pure water, aqueous film-forming foam(AFFF), fluoroprotein foam, F-500 water-based additive, and three-phase foam. The flame extinction time during the specified spraying process and post-extinction reignition characteristics after cessation of spraying are recorded, while simultaneously analyzing the dynamic responses of flame zone and battery surface temperatures, heat release rate (HRR), and CO2 and CO volume fractions. Results indicate that pure water and AFFF failed to fully extinguish the flames during the spraying phase. Fluoroprotein foam, F-500, and three-phase foam successfully achieved flame extinction, with three-phase foam exhibiting the shortest extinguishing time (7.56 s), followed by F-500 (13.05 s); fluoroprotein foam achieved extinction at the end of spraying but the flame reignited after 13.27 s of pause. Temperature and combustion characteristic analyses reveal that instantaneous cooling intensity during spraying does not fully represent overall fire suppression performance; although all agents reduce thermal feedback, post-extinction reheating rate and other factors determine whether reignition occurs. Based on comprehensive evaluation of combustion intensity, cooling dynamics, and anti-reignition capability, three-phase foam demonstrates superior suppression performance, followed by F-500. This study elucidates the differences in cooling mechanisms and oxygen-blocking anti-reignition behaviors among various water-based fire suppressants under jet flame conditions, confirming that constructing a durable physical barrier can effectively interrupt heat accumulation.

Key words: lithium iron phosphate battery, thermal runaway, water-based fire extinguishing agent, re-ignition suppression