Expanding foam explosion house ruined

2 stroke

postitnote wrote: »

Just read that there myself. He was pre heating the cans in front of a heater to make it work better.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2010FAI10.html

I dont use the stuff much, but I've done that myself, though my usual method is a bucket of hot water. I keep the stuff outside, as a can once leaked and caused quite a mess. I guess I'll just bring them to room temp more gradualy in future.

baz321

Yes there's no mention of the name of the product or the people who made it , strange how that is left out !!!.it also mentions the family were happy with the verdict of accidental .
I know I wouldn't be if I lost 2 family members !

RosieJoe

baz321 wrote: »

Hi guys . I was using an expanding foam product in a stud wall when the gasses from the foam exploded causing major damage to my house ,luckily I was uninjured .The only source of ignition is a socket in the stud wall a distance of three feet away from the foam ie.no foam came in contact with the socket . There is a small warning on the back of the can that this can occur , I read the instructions and safety of use and there was nothing in that about using more than one can or risk of explosion.i have read the backs of other expanding foams in hardware shops since the incident and none of them have any waning about using more than one can and risk of explosion . Is it just this product that is extremely dangerous ? Anyone have a similar experience .

Just curious, but how is a socket in the wall capable of being a source of an ignition? Surely you would either need a spark or flame to ignite something.

shedweller

RosieJoe wrote: »

Just curious, but how is a socket in the wall capable of being a source of an ignition? Surely you would either need a spark or flame to ignite something.

If the foam makes its way into the socket it could arc across exposed cables.
Well, the electricity would arc, not the foam....hehe.

2 stroke

The op was sealing for mice, could there already be a chewed cable in the wall? Also is it possibly that electricty might arc more easily through fumes than through air.

Alkers

Here is a picture from the op



Don't know why it's upside down in the post:

http://omg.wthax.org/6KgbRh.jpg

baz321

Wiring all new only a few weeks ago as part of the refurb .There is no expanding foam on the socket or on the new wiring leading to the socket , that was my first thought too .where the spark came from that ignited the fumes is still not confirmed .

air

That's really unfortunate Baz & I hope your house insurance covers it for you. Unfortunately I doubt you will get any comeback from Bostik, using any aerosol product in the confined space would likely have lead to the same results. Every aerosol I've ever come across is flamable, unfortuntately for you the confined space allowed it to mix with the ambient air in the perfect fuel : air ratio. The constriction provided by the walls then ensured you got an explosion rather than just a fireball when the mix was ignited.

deandean

I think a lot of those products use butane gas as a propellant.

littlemac1980

If you're potentially gonna be out of pocket by €30,000, you should really think about talking to a solicitor about this.

They'd be the only one who could tell you for sure if you have potential comeback against the manufacturer - expect to pay for an engineer or relevant person to report on the cause of the explosion also before you get an answer.

But if there was 30K on the line - I'd be seeking professional advice.

baz321

Bostik said there is no propellant used in the can , which is something that I and others don't understand .

Thargor

Are you going to sue? They'll probably settle before they let pics like yours get out, you should take a lot more pics in a lot better quality than that one up there.

air

I'd advise discussing with your insurer immediately and get an assessor out ASAP. I think insurance is your first port of call in order to get the funds back to rectify the damage.
If any legal action down the road ruled in your favour, presumably the insurer would be reimbursed.
If you put all your eggs in the legal basket I'd imagine at best you are likely to have a long wait until you see any cash, at worst you mightn't see any compensation!

Can you link to the actual product? Sealocrete seems to cover a whole range of products but I don't see any expanding foam amongst the range on their website.

Sleveile

baz321 wrote: »

Was using it to prevent mice entering base of wall .it was one of the last jobs I was doing in a major refurb of the house . The fitted kitchen was on this stud wall , the blast was so severe it threw the wall kitchen cabinets and they hit the far wall along with splash back tiles and plasterboard . Roof tiles are blown off the roof above the stud wall, plasterboard ceilings are pushed down away from the timber with the force of the blast and joints on the boards are all cracked as is plaster on the walls where they meet the ceilings .floor kitchen cabinets are in the middle of floor where the blast forced them , most of the new unused appliances are damaged as I can see so far . I estimate total costs around 30 thousand or more .

My dad, a sparks of many many years came across this stuff regularly and he says that mice love it and always came across foam that was eaten through by the little feckers.

wexie

deandean wrote: »

I think a lot of those products use butane gas as a propellant.

I think if that were true we'd see explosions like this every few days.

baz321

I don't want to give too much away as to my plans legal or otherwise as bostik might be watching .lets just say this is an extremely dangerous product in certain conditions , bostik themselves said in an email using more than one can in area and even an electrostatic charge could have ignited it .

Maksim

My advise would be to buy another few cans of this material in same shop and find good chemical expert.

Option 1. Producer used light flamabale materials not declared solvents.
Option 2. Technology fault:some way light solvents occured in your can only (badly mixed).
Option 3. Producer have no fire engineering support and do not know that in confind space expanding material create overpressure leading to rapid rise of temperature in gaseous component following autoignition of vapours normally not flamable. (Like spray of diesel in engine)

Good look in court

slimjimmc

wexie wrote: »

I think if that were true we'd see explosions like this every few days.

Butane is widely used as an aerosol propellant even in household and personal care applications (check a can of antiperspirant).
This foam from Tec7 uses Propane as a propellant (listed in it's MDS)
http://www.tec7.ie/products/pur7

Thargor

Ye never made flamethrowers or bombs from aerosol cans when you were kids?

ted1

Alun wrote: »

Ouch!

BTW, I wouldn't have thought a bit of expanding foam would put most mice off .. they'd nibble right through it surely?

It's pop corn to them. If your are going the legal route edit your posts and remove company name and product name.

A settlement out of court would probably in love a non disclosure agreement, which your jeopardising. Also if you lose in court, you open to a defamation / libel case

baz321

Well I don't see how I could make myself liable If I'm only stating what actually happened and
The cause of the explosion as stated by bostik themselves . My main concerns are that this incident will happen again and the next wont be so lucky , so just trying to find out if it has happened before and warn users of the dangers .sorry for sounding cranky but the situation has seriously pissed me off , central heating still off and half the house has no electricty .

sbsquarepants

wexie wrote: »

I think if that were true we'd see explosions like this every few days.

Look at every aerosol in your house they will all, without exception be marked extremely flammable.

baz321

Yes they all have extremely flammable on them , I have never come across any aersol that says its explosive except sealocrete "it does exactly what it says on the tin " ( in very small print I might add ) .none of the other expanding foams that I have looked at have any warning of risk of explosion . Why is this ?

postitnote

I came across the Bostik Sealocrete Material Safety Data Sheet.

It's a PDF - Google Bostik Sealocrete MSDS

Things that stand out for me are:
P271 Use only outdoors or in a well-ventilated area.
P241 Use explosion-proof electrical equipment.
P242 Use only non-sparking tools.
P243 Take precautionary measures against static discharge.

Flammable/combustible - Keep away from oxidisers, heat and flames. Ground container and transfer equipment to eliminate static electric
sparks.

Flash point (°C) 38

To me it seems like it just wasn't a product suited to your job. I think it did exactly what it said on the tin, so to speak.

It's possibly more of a question of who sold you this product.

Our workplace is coming down with Risk Assessments, but I know that I never do them at home. This seems like a product, in hindsight, that needs a risk assessment before anyone goes near it.

baz321

Many thanks for posting that , that's very interesting what you have said .i contacted the manager of Heiton Buckley were I bought the foam and he said bostik were looking into it , I invited him around to see the damage caused and he politely declined , he then went on to say that he was friends with the m.d of bostik and knew him for years .i don't know if anyone higher up in the grafton group knows about the incident , I tried to make contact but never heard a reply back .

wexie

slimjimmc wrote: »

Butane is widely used as an aerosol propellant even in household and personal care applications (check a can of antiperspirant).
This foam from Tec7 uses Propane as a propellant (listed in it's MDS)
http://www.tec7.ie/products/pur7

That's mad, aren't there any inert gasses they could use as a propellant?

deandean

wexie wrote: »

That's mad, aren't there any inert gasses they could use as a propellant?

there sure are.they are called CFC's and they never harmed anyone.then some tree-hugging earth-lovers convinced the politicians that CFC gases were bad for us. then manufacturers had to use propane/butane as aerosol propellant 'cos it is safer.
what a laugh.(with apologies to the OP for the irony).

scudo2

Well done Baz on Joe Duffy / live line. Today.

Keep us updated.

It was a job I had also exactly planned on doing in my home.

Thargor

deandean wrote: »

there sure are.they are called CFC's and they never harmed anyone.then some tree-hugging earth-lovers convinced the politicians that CFC gases were bad for us. then manufacturers had to use propane/butane as aerosol propellant 'cos it is safer.
what a laugh.(with apologies to the OP for the irony).

So basically every atmospheric scientist on the planet was wrong about why it would be a bad idea to destroy the ozone layer and you were right, okay.

Dan Jaman

baz321 wrote: »

Yes they all have extremely flammable on them , I have never come across any aersol that says its explosive except sealocrete "it does exactly what it says on the tin " ( in very small print I might add ) .none of the other expanding foams that I have looked at have any warning of risk of explosion . Why is this ?

There is an unspoken assumption that you would know that flammable gases will become explosive in the right circumstances. By mentioning the flammability, they covered their a55es.
Fwiw, I've used this stuff for years and been aware of the risk, although it's probably more luck than anything else I haven't had happen what you did. However, I was aware of the need to only do a bit then allow it to off-gas and ventilate for a while, because of some similar incident to that Nottingham one but happened years before that. If I hadn't seen that, I wouldn't have known what the boundaries were.