2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTAIL CODE R327.3.1 ( 3 FT DISTANCE BETWEEN ENERGY STORAGE DEVICE)

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Designer101

Senior Member
Location
California
Occupation
Solar and ESS Designer
"Individual units shall be separated from each other by not less than 3 feet (914 mm) except where smaller separation distances are documented to be adequate based on large-scale fire testing complying with Section 1206.1.5 of the California Fire Code"

has anybody deal with this requirement before?
how did you guys get away with this?
suggestions are appreciated.

i saw there is an exceptions for UL9540 LISTING.

can we install other equipment's between Battery Units if we keep 3 ft separation between energy storage?/
 
Designer101 said:
"Individual units shall be separated from each other by not less than 3 feet (914 mm) except where smaller separation distances are documented to be adequate based on large-scale fire testing complying with Section 1206.1.5 of the California Fire Code"

has anybody deal with this requirement before?
how did you guys get away with this?
suggestions are appreciated.

i saw there is an exceptions for UL9540 LISTING.

can we install other equipment's between Battery Units if we keep 3 ft separation between energy storage?/
Click to expand...
Tesla PowerWalls are designed to be stackable in sets of three; does this mean that you cannot stack them in California?
 
ggunn said:
Tesla PowerWalls are designed to be stackable in sets of three; does this mean that you cannot stack them in California?
Click to expand...
Tesla has done the UL 9540A testing. Their latest spec sheet on PW2 says that it "Meets the unit level performance
criteria of UL 9540A." I think, but am not sure, that means there's no separation requirement between PW2s, beyond the 10" for ventilation in side to side installs.

www.tesla.com

Powerwall Owner Documents | Tesla Support

Download ownership documents on Powerwall specifications, warranty and supporting equipment.
www.tesla.com www.tesla.com

Cheers, Wayne
 
ggunn said:
Tesla PowerWalls are designed to be stackable in sets of three; does this mean that you cannot stack them in California?
Click to expand...
i think the code enforcement is jurisdiction specific, i have never had issues up to now. Until we get this one.
 
ggunn said:
Tesla PowerWalls are designed to be stackable in sets of three; does this mean that you cannot stack them in California?
Click to expand...
What Wayne said. If they've passed UL9540A testing, then you can stack them per Tesla's instructions. It should be fine although you may have to feed the documentation to the AHJ.
 
I learend from some ESS vendors at a tradeshow that UL9540A is not a simple compliant/non-compliant standard. They pointed out that the actual detailed test results report are often required by AHJ's to determine allowance for stacking or < 3 ft distance placement. NYC was pointed out as an especially strict AHJ that pretty much won't allow stacking in general.
 
analog8484 said:
I learend from some ESS vendors at a tradeshow that UL9540A is not a simple compliant/non-compliant standard. They pointed out that the actual detailed test results report are often required by AHJ's to determine allowance for stacking or < 3 ft distance placement. NYC was pointed out as an especially strict AHJ that pretty much won't allow stacking in general.
Click to expand...
My impression is that the listing certifies that fire won't spread from one unit to another at the distance between units that is tested for. Thus the manufacturer's installation instructions ought to state specifically what that separation distance is.

IOW, you are correct that the UL9540A listing doesn't imply that zero inches of separation is allowed.
 
Well, the testing procedure under UL9540A goes roughly as follows:

- First you try to induce a cell to go into thermal runaway. If you can't do that (per the procedure specified), then your ESS qualifies for the label that allows it to be installed within living space. If you can induce thermal runaway:

- You then induce thermal runaway in one cell of an ESS module. If the damage to the module meets some specified limitations, the ESS passes at the module level. Otherwise:

- You induce thermal runway in one cell of the entire ESS. If the damage to the ESS meets some specified limitations (IIRC no visible flame and a maximum temperature on the ESS chassis), then the ESS passes at the unit level (the PW2 result).

- Lastly, you test at the installation level, where you have multiple ESSs arranged per the manufacturer's instructions, maybe in a partial room? Then you induce thermal runaway in one cell of one ESS, and see if it spreads to the other(s).

Given the above, it's possible that passing at the unit level does mean that installation is allowed with no clearance. Not sure on the details.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top