Fire Safety Journal 146 (2024) 104145

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fire Safety Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/firesaf

Design fire scenarios for hazard assessment of modern battery electric and
internal combustion engine passenger vehicles
Jonathan L. Hodges a ,∗, Urvin Salvi a , Anil Kapahi b
a Jensen Hughes, Inc., 2020 Kraft Drive Suite 3020, Blacksburg, 24060, VA, USA
b
Jensen Hughes, Inc., 3610 Commerce Drive Suite 817, Baltimore, 21227, MD, USA

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Full-scale fire testing of battery electric (BEVs) and internal combustion engine (ICEVs) passenger vehicles has
Battery electric vehicles historically shown peak heat release rates (HRRs) ranging from 5–10 MW. However, the vehicles tested in
Performance based design these studies are smaller with less energy capacity than vehicles currently on the market. This paper presents
Heat release rate
a model to extrapolate data from full-scale vehicle fire tests to evaluate the fire hazard associated with larger
Fire safety
passenger vehicles. The model is validated on 20 full-scale vehicle experiments in the public literature and is
Passenger vehicles
NFPA 502
then used to develop conservatively bounding fire scenarios for vehicles representative of the current market
environment. No significant difference was observed in the HRRs between the similarly sized ICEVs and BEVs in
this work; however, the predicted HRRs for both vehicle types significantly exceeded existing design guidance.
While the model may be shown to be overly conservative in future testing, it is validated using the data that
currently exists, and points to an alarming trend in the fire protection industry, where the hazard posed by
single passenger vehicles may exceed existing design guidance.

1. Introduction turnaround facilities. Performance-based design (PBD) can be used to

Traditional guidance on fire safety design scenarios for passenger
vehicles, such as NFPA 502 [1], Standard for Road Tunnels, Bridges, and
Other Limited Access Highways, PIARC 05.05.BEN [2], Fire and Smoke
Control in Road Tunnels, and the UK’s Design Manual for Roads and
Bridges [3], have recommended peak heat release rates (HRRs) ranging
from 5–10 MW based on data from real-scale vehicle fire tests [4–
6]. However, modern vehicles present a different hazard than historic
vehicles due to the increase in the use of combustible plastics and the
presence of alternative fuel systems. Recent research has shown that
test data from older vehicles are not representative of the hazard posed
by modern vehicles [7]. This topic was also mentioned in the recently
published PIARC summary report on the impact of new propulsion
technologies on road tunnel operations [8]. The authors noted that the
lack of data on modern vehicles makes it difficult to derive statistically
relevant information about the different hazards posed by these vehi-
cles. Ensuring robust fire safety measures for infrastructure exposed to
passenger vehicles is essential to protect occupants, first responders,
and infrastructure. As technology and consumer habits continue to
evolve, the regulatory landscape will likely struggle to keep pace with
emerging risks, resulting in a lag in updating safety guidelines. While
passenger vehicle fires may not be the bounding design scenario for
tunnels, these scenarios may be bounding in parking garages and quick
assess and mitigate fire hazards when prescriptive guidance is not
applicable.
PBD is a framework for designers to customize safety measures to
specific circumstances and hazards which are relevant to a specific
design. In this approach, specific performance metrics are established
for an infrastructure design which are then compared with the set
of potential hazards which may expose the infrastructure [9]. Design
basis scenarios represent the most severe credible hazard which a
proposed trial design must effectively manage in order to meet the
established performance requirements [10]. These scenarios are created
by evaluating the likely hazard sources in the area of interest and
developing a representative progression of the hazard event based on
available test data. The success of a PBD lies in the ability to charac-
terize accurately the worst-case scenarios. Unfortunately, the limited
data on modern passenger vehicle fires and the rapid development
of battery technologies makes it difficult to ensure that developed
scenarios are conservatively bounding. There is no consensus in the fire
safety community on best practices in considering the degree of hazard
posed by these vehicles in design.
The primary combustible materials in internal combustion engine
vehicles (ICEVs) consist of mixtures of plastics and polymers and liquid
hydrocarbon fuels. Fully electric BEVs replace the liquid hydrocarbon

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jhodges@jensenhughes.com (J.L. Hodges).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2024.104145
Received 10 October 2023; Received in revised form 27 March 2024; Accepted 29 March 2024
Available online 30 March 2024
0379-7112/© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.L. Hodges et al.
fuel with lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) which present a different hazard
profile than ICEVs. The prevailing industry guidance is that the HRR
of burning passenger vehicles is linked primarily to the vehicle class
and size, rather than the propulsion system [7]. However, the tests on
which these conclusions are based are limited to vehicles with small
energy capacities relative to newer vehicles on the market. Recent tests
conducted by Sturm et al. indicate that the HRR may be higher for BEVs
with larger energy capacities than for similarly sized ICEVs, with the
tested vehicles having up to 80 kWh battery capacities [11]. However,
the 200 BEV models on the market with the largest batteries in the
United Stated (e.g., extended range) have capacities greater than 80
kWh, with the largest battery over 3 times larger at 246 kWh [12]. In
addition to the increased HRR potential from the battery, the total mass
of these vehicles is larger to accommodate the large batteries which
further increases the combustible mass.
Several researchers have proposed design fires for passenger vehi-
cles in recent years. Boehmer et al. [7] reviewed the existing vehicle
fire data as of 2020 and found that the majority of test data showed
HRRs in the range of 5–10 MW which is in alignment with guidance
in NFPA 502 [1]. However, the authors note that this is a wide range
which gives the designer significant discretion in the severity of the fire
hazard to consider. Willstrand et al. [13] developed a design scenario
based on the full-scale test data collected in their study. The scenario
had a peak HRR of 5 MW which was reached approximately 22 min
after ignition. The authors assumed a medium-slow growth rate of
900 s after ignition to reach the peak. Brzezinska et al. [14] proposed
a peak HRR of 7 MW based on an average heat release rate per unit
area (HRRPUA) released from the battery and the exposed surface
area of the battery. Wang et al. [15] reviewed the existing data on
BEV fires and found a similar range of HRRs. While the scenarios
evaluated in each of these studies are relevant to the vehicles tested,
none proposed a systematic approach to extrapolate the experimental
results to develop conservatively bounding scenarios for design based
on the hazard posed by larger vehicles with a larger energy capacity.
This paper addresses this gap in fire safety design by presenting a
new approach to develop design basis scenarios for BEV, ICEV, and
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) fires based on the curb weight,
liquid fuel tank size, and battery energy capacity. The method is based
on a synthesis of publicly available data on ICEV, BEV, PHEV, and
LIB fire experiments. The conservatism of the model is evaluated by
comparing it with data available in the literature. Section 2 describes
the available data in the literature and the approaches used to develop
the design basis scenarios. Section 3 compares design basis scenarios
developed using the proposed approach to existing test data for various
vehicles currently available on the market. Section 4 discusses these
results and the broader implications for fire safety design.
2. Methodology
2.1. Full-scale test data
There are limited full-scale fire tests conducted on passenger vehi-
cles due to the significant cost and the desire to protect proprietary
information. The test data used to develop and validate the model in
this work included three older studies documented in the SFPE Hand-
book [16] as well as more recent studies. The HRR was characterized in
each experiment, either through oxygen consumption calorimetry [17]
or fuel consumption calorimetry [18]. Table 1 summarizes key data
collected in several recently conducted passenger vehicle fire studies.
Additional details on the batteries used in the BEV experiments are
provided in Table 2.
There were a total of 14 experiments included from the SFPE
Handbook. This included seven experiments conducted by [19]. Five
of these tests (test numbers 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8) utilized single passenger
vehicles of varying sizes. Two of these tests (test numbers 9 and 10)
utilized two passenger vehicles in each test, with one being a smaller
2
Fire Safety Journal 146 (2024) 104145
vehicle and the other a larger. Four tests on single passenger sedans
collected from Okamoto et al. [20] and data from three minivans
collected from Okamoto et al. [21] were also utilized. The more recent
studies have primarily focused on BEVs and alternative fuel vehicles.
Each BEV fire experiment used a LIB of energy capacity ranging from
16–80 kWh. Relevant insights provided by the authors on their results
are summarized in the following paragraphs.
A study conducted by Lecocq [22] tested two small passenger BEVs
with 16.5 kWh and 23.5 kWh batteries and two similarly sized ICEVs.
The tests showed that the peak HRR and the total heat released (THR)
remained relatively similar between the ICEV and BEV from similar
manufacturers. The authors noted that the ICEVs used a full tank of
gas but did not indicate the size of the tanks. Watanabe et al. [23]
conducted a similar full-scale experimental study involving a Nissan
Leaf electric vehicle which was compared to a gasoline-powered car.
The 24 kWh LIB of the BEV was compared to a 10 L gasoline car
which resulted in higher maximum values for HRR in the BEV than
the gasoline vehicle. The authors advocated that BEVs could present a
more severe fire hazard than ICEVs based on their results. It is unclear
how full the gasoline tank was or how involved it was in the fire due
to the low peak of 2 MW observed during testing. The authors used
a heat of combustion of 22 MJ/kg in calculation of the HRR, but this
value was assumed and not measured.
Lam et al. [24] tested seven full-scale vehicle fires including three
BEVs, two PHEVs, and two ICEVs. All three BEVs were small passenger
vehicles with a battery capacity of 20 kWh. Two of the BEVs were the
same make and model, the only difference being the state of charge
(one at 100% and the other at 85%). The third BEV was a different
make and model but similar in size to the other two. The primary
difference in this BEV was the LIB consisted of two separate packs in
different locations rather than a single pack used in the other two BEVs.
The state of charge in the third BEV was 100%. The authors observed a
slightly higher growth rate in the HRR of the first two BEVs as well as
the presence of a second peak which did not occur in the related ICEV;
however, the peak HRR was similar between the BEVs and the ICEV.
The third BEV had a lower peak HRR compared to the similar ICEV
in this study. The authors did not provide information on the energy
capacity of the PHEVs or the size of the fuel tanks in the PHEVs or
ICEVs.
Willstrand et al. [13] tested an ICEV full-size van, a BEV full-size
van with an 40 kWh battery, and a BEV family car with a 24 kWh
battery. While the ICEV and BEV at 40 kWh had similar vehicle sizes,
the BEV exhibited a higher peak heat release rate (7 MW for BEV
and around 6 MW for ICEV). The report also highlighted that the
effective heat of combustion was nearly the same for both full-size
vans, but considerably smaller for the BEV family car. The authors
noted these differences in burning characteristics primarily stemmed
from variations in fire development within the vehicles. The heat of
combustion for the ICEV measured by the authors is low compared
to that presented elsewhere in the literature and may be indicative
that the gas tank was either not full or did not have a significant
rupture during testing. The authors presented empirical relationships
for the peak HRR and total energy of LIB batteries related to the
electrical energy capacity. These relationships are used to estimate the
contribution of the battery in the design fire calculations.
Sturm et al. [11,27] conducted five full-scale fire tests involving
three BEVs in a tunnel environment. Each of these tests provides a
value data point; however, it is difficult to compare with a model
due to the uncertainties. The sedan BEV had manual intervention after
5 min with the application of a fire blanket. The utility van BEV had
an unfortunate loss of data shortly after the measured peak, leading
to some uncertainty if the peak HRR was achieved in the test. The
SUV ICEV had an unknown amount of fuel within the gas tank. The
total energy released in the utility van ICEV test (1,540 MJ) was
less than the total energy capacity of the reported fuel tank size (50
L × 0.83 kg/L × 40.2 MJ/kg = 1,670 MJ). The SUV BEV had ignition
J.L. Hodges et al. Fire Safety Journal 146 (2024) 104145

Table 1
Full-scale vehicle fire experiments.
Study Vehicle Battery Gas Initial Peak Time to THR 𝛥Hc Lost
capacity tank mass HRR peak mass
(kWh) (L) (kg) (MW) (min) (GJ) (MJ/kg) (%)
CTICM [19] ICEV Car – 38a 951 1.2 27 1.8 9.5 19.5%
ICEV Car – 29a 757 3.5 10 2.1 15.2 18.2%
ICEV Car – 38a 955 2.2 30 3.1 21.2 15.2%
ICEV Car – 38a 1303 8.3 25 6.7 24.0 21.3%
ICEV Car – 29a 830 4.1 22 4.1 22.2 22.2%
2 ICEV Cars – 11 2096 7.5 13 8.9 30.0 14.1%
2 ICEV Cars – 11 2096 8.2 – 8.4 24.6 16.3%
Okamoto et al. [20] ICEV Car – 10 1360 3.5 26 5.0 22.0 16.5%
ICEV Car – 10 1360 3.0 25 4.9 22.0 16.3%
ICEV Car – 20 1360 1.9 15 4.9 22.0 16.5%
ICEV Car – 10 1360 2.4 56 5.0 22.0 16.8%
Okamoto et al. [21] ICEV Minivan – 10 1440 3.6 55 5.4 22.0 17.0%
ICEV Minivan – 10 1440 3.1 55 5 22.0 15.8%
ICEV Minivan – 10 1440 4.1 20 5.2 22.0 16.3%
Lecocq et al. [22] ICEV Car – 45a 1128 4.8 15 6.3 35.9 17.0%
ICEV Car – 45a 1501 6.1 17 10.0 36.4 19.6%
BEV Car 17 – 1122 4.2 25 6.3 29.8 19.0%
BEV Car 24 – 1502 4.7 30 8.5 30.7 18.6%
Watanabe et al. [23] ICEV Car – 10 1275 2.0 37 4.3 22.0b 15.3%
BEV Car 24 – 1520 6.3 40 6.4 22.0b 29.0%
Lam et al. [24] ICEV Car – 45a 1096 7.1 6 3.3 12.0 25.0%
BEV Car 20 – 1448 6.0 5 N/A N/A 23.0%
BEV Car 20 – 1475 5.9 5 4.9 17.0 20.0%
ICEV Car – 57a 1344 10.8 8.0 4.7 13.0 22.0%
BEV Car 20 – 1650 6.9 10 4.7 13.0 22.0%
PHEV Car 8a 20a 1467 6.0 7.5 4.7 15.0 21.0%
PHEV Car 8a 20a 1712 7.9 8.3 5.9 13.0 26.0%
Willstrand et al. [13] ICEV Van – 44 1326 5.9 7 5.9 23.0 19.0%
BEV Van 40 – 1587 7.0 20 5.2 21.0 15.6%
BEV Car 24 – 1540 5.0 17 6.7 17.0 25.6%
Sturm et al. [11] BEV Car 80 – 1865 7.0 5 2.9 N/A 34.0%
BEV Van 24 – 1564 6.1 5.3 4.6 N/A 17.0%
BEV SUV 80 – 1951 4.9/8.6 10/15 4.5 N/A 35.0%
Kang et al. [25] ICEV Car – 45a 1320 7.7 15 8.1 27.4 22.3%
BEV Car 39 – 1540 6.5 15 8.5 29.8 18.4%
BEV Car 64 – 1685 7.3 11 9.0 30.5 17.6%
Hynynen et al. [26] BEV SUV, no bat. 50 – 2110a 2.8 45 5.0 20.8 21.0%
BEV SUV, sprink. 50 – 2110a 3.0 107 5.7 17.3 21.0%
a
Estimated based on typical vehicle sizes/available information.
b
Assumed by the authors but not measured.

Table 2 the battery was initiated by injecting a saline solution into the battery
Battery characteristics in BEV fire experiments.
casing which resulted in a rapid growth in HRR to 8.6 MW. The authors
Study Battery SOC (%) Chemistry Cell form
noted that the HRR of BEVs is higher than conventional gasoline cars;
capacity (kWh) factor
however, the amount of additional heat released hinges on the level of
Lecocq et al. [22] 17 100 * *
24 100 * *
the battery’s involvement in the fire. Due to the high uncertainties in
the quantity of liquid fuel included in the test, the ICEV tests are not
Watanabe et al. [23] 24 100 LMO/LNO Pouch
included in benchmarking.
Lam et al. [24] 20 100 * *
20 85 * *
Kang et al. [25] compared the HRR between ICEVs, BEVs, and
20 100 * * Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEV). The BEVs tested by the
Willstrand et al. [13] 40 80 NMC Pouch authors included a 39 kWh and 64 kWh capacity. The authors also
24 80 NMC Prismatic tested subassemblies to apportion the HRR into its constitutive com-
Sturm et al. [11] 80 100 NMC Pouch ponents. These tests included tests of individual LIB pack fires as well
24 * LMO Pouch as fires involving the entire BEV body with the LIB pack removed prior
80 100 NMC Pouch
to testing. The apportioned HRR between the LIB packs and the BEV
Kang et al. [25] 39 100 NMC Pouch provide a basis for calculating the HRR of BEVs in this study.
64 100 NMC Pouch
Hynynen et al. [26] investigated the effectiveness of sprinklers at
Hynynen et al. [26] 50 90 NMC Prismatic
controlling the HRR of small SUV BEV fires. Data were presented from
*Unknown/not provided by authors. two BEV tests, one with sprinklers and one without sprinklers. The
non-sprinklered BEV scenario had the LIB removed prior to testing
to evaluate the burning of the non-battery combustibles. The authors
located in the rear seats and the battery was not involved in the fire found that the peak HRR and THR were affected by the fire scenario
for the first 800 s, resulting in a lower peak at 4.9 MW. However, and size of the vehicle but not significantly different between ICEVs
after the fire had caused some initial degradation, thermal runaway in and BEVs.

3
J.L. Hodges et al. Fire Safety Journal 146 (2024) 104145

Table 3
Representative vehicles on the U.S. market.
Class BEV ICEV
Curb weight Battery energy Curb weight Gas
(kg) capacity (kWh) (kg) tank (L)
Compact car 1600 40 1300 34
Sports car 2450 150 1800 61
Large car 2600 115 1760 57
8 passenger van 3000 100 2500 68
Pickup truck 3250 135 2600 87
Large SUV 4300 250 2900 121

2.2. Representative vehicles

As discussed in the introduction, modern vehicles can be signifi-

cantly larger with higher energy capacities than what has been tested to
date. Table 3 shows a selection of representative BEV and ICEV vehicles
which was created to analyze the potential fire hazard of these vehicles
coming to market using the approach presented in this work. These Fig. 1. Comparison of consumed mass with measured peak HRR.
vehicles were selected by manual observation of vehicles online [12].
Representative curb weights and battery capacities were developed by
examining high range vehicles in each vehicle category available in the
aligning with observations on the experimental data. The impact of this
U.S. BEV market. A similar approach was used to identify comparably
quantity on the HRR in the model is further discussed in Section 4.
sized ICEV vehicles for comparison. Note that the pickup truck class
There are similar difficulties in estimating the peak HRR of the non-
vehicle corresponds to a light-duty personal vehicle common in the
propulsion related vehicle components, 𝑄̇ 𝑣𝑒ℎ . The majority of passenger
U.S. market, and the large SUV class corresponds to heavy-duty off-
vehicle test data in the literature includes some quantity of liquid
road personal vehicles fairly unique to the U.S. The SUVs tested by
fuel in the gas tanks which increases the uncertainty in scaling these
Sturm et al. [11] and Hynynen et al. [26] correspond to typical SUV
components. Fig. 1 compares the consumed mass from ICEV vehicle fire
sizes in many markets; however, the large SUV class in the US can be
tests in the literature with the peak HRR reported by the authors. These
significantly larger.
cases include the 21 ICEV cases from Table 1. The linear fit corresponds
to the equation
2.3. Design fire HRR calculation
𝑄̇ 𝑣𝑒ℎ,𝑟𝑒𝑓 𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
𝑄̇ 𝑣𝑒ℎ,𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑐,𝑣𝑒ℎ,𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑑 = 0.02 × 𝑚𝑐,𝑣𝑒ℎ,𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑑 (4)
The empirical correlations presented by Willstrand et al. [13] and 𝑚𝑐,𝑣𝑒ℎ,𝑟𝑒𝑓 𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
the apportioned HRR results presented by Kang et al. [25] were used
where the subscript reference indicates the data collected by the authors
as the primary basis to scale the design fire HRR and THR proposed in
and scaled indicates the design vehicle, and the subscript c indicates the
this study. The data provided by the authors for the full vehicle as well
consumed mass during testing. The slope in Eq. (4) was calculated using
as independently for the battery and vehicle are used to scale the HRR
a linear regression. Note that the 11 MW peak in Fig. 1 corresponds to
and THR based on their individual heats of combustion.
a relatively short-lived peak HRR from one of Lam et al.’s tests from
significant liquid fuel involvement. Outside of the short lived peak, the
2.3.1. Peak heat release rate
sustained peak was around 6 MW which is also in line with the linear
The peak HRR of a vehicle fire in this analysis consists of the linear
fit. 𝑄̇ 𝑣𝑒ℎ,𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑑 was scaled using Eq. (4) in this work.
combination of individual contributions of the LIB, liquid gasoline (for
The mass of the other vehicle components (i.e., not battery and not
ICEVs and PHEVs), and other vehicle components,
liquid fuel) is related to the curb weight of the vehicle, battery mass,
𝑄̇ 𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑄̇ 𝑏𝑎𝑡 + 𝑄̇ 𝑣𝑒ℎ + 𝑄̇ 𝑔𝑎𝑠 (1) and the size of the gas tank using the equation

where 𝑄̇ is the peak HRR and the subscripts indicate the total, battery,
vehicle, and liquid fuel contributions, respectively.
𝑄̇ 𝑏𝑎𝑡 is scaled based on the empirical relationship presented by
Willstrand et al. [13],
( 0.67 )
𝑄̇ 𝑏𝑎𝑡 = 0.16 × 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐 (2)
where 𝑄̇ 𝑏𝑎𝑡 is in MW and 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐 is the electrical energy capacity of the
battery in kWh. Note the units in Eq. (2) have been converted from the
original presentation to be MW and kWh.
It is difficult to estimate 𝑄̇ 𝑔𝑎𝑠 in a vehicle fire due to the high vari-
ability of events which can occur. For example, the tank may rupture
violently resulting in rapid vaporization and subsequent combustion of
the fuel, or the gasoline may leak and accumulate as a pool on the
ground. In this work, 𝑄̇ 𝑔𝑎𝑠 is instead related to a fixed time required to
consume all of the gasoline, according to the equation
𝑚𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝛥𝐻𝑐,𝑔𝑎𝑠
𝑄̇ 𝑔𝑎𝑠 = (3)
𝛥𝑡
where 𝛥𝑡 is the fixed time interval of the gasoline burning. A fixed value
of 𝛥𝑡 of 600 s (10 min) is used in the statistical analysis in this work
𝑚𝑖,𝑣𝑒ℎ = 𝑚𝑖,𝑡𝑜𝑡 − 𝑚𝑖,𝑏𝑎𝑡 − 𝑚𝑖,𝑔𝑎𝑠 (5)
where 𝑚𝑖,𝑣𝑒ℎ is the mass of other vehicle components, 𝑚𝑖,𝑡𝑜𝑡 is the total
curb weight of the vehicle, and 𝑚𝑖,𝑔𝑎𝑠 is the mass of the liquid fuel in
the tank in the design scenario. The mass of an arbitrary LIB battery
pack is estimated based on the energy capacity and mass measured by
Kang,
𝑚𝑖,𝑏𝑎𝑡,𝑟𝑒𝑓 𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
𝑚𝑖,𝑏𝑎𝑡,𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑑 = 𝐸 (6)
𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐,𝑟𝑒𝑓 𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐,𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑑
where m is the mass in kg, the subscript i indicates the initial value be-
fore the fire, and the subscript bat indicates the battery. The reference
battery had a capacity of 64 kWh and an initial mass of 446 kg. The
consumed mass of the other vehicle components, 𝑚𝑐,𝑣𝑒ℎ , is calculated
based on the consumed mass fraction observed during testing,
𝑚𝑐,𝑣𝑒ℎ,𝑟𝑒𝑓 𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
𝑚𝑐,𝑣𝑒ℎ = 𝑚𝑖,𝑣𝑒ℎ × (7)
𝑚𝑖,𝑣𝑒ℎ,𝑟𝑒𝑓 𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
As shown in Table 1, the consumed mass fraction varies widely
across tests and vehicle types. Fig. 2 compares the curb weight of tested
vehicles with the fraction of vehicle mass that was consumed during

4
J.L. Hodges et al.
Fig. 2. Comparison of consumed mass with curb weight.
testing for each of the studies discussed in Section 2.1. The data shows
there is not a strong correlation between curb weight and the mass
loss fraction; however, the variability does tend to increase with larger
vehicles. The two data points from Sturm et al. in particular have a
much higher mass loss fraction than the other data points. Two values
for mass loss percent were used in this work, 17% and 25%, which
were determined statistically to be the best fit to the data and meet the
conservatively bounding objective, respectively.
2.3.2. Total heat released
Similarly, the total energy associated with a vehicle fire in this
analysis consists of the linear combination of individual contributions
of the LIB, other vehicle components, and liquid gasoline (for ICEVs
and PHEVs),
𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡 = 𝐸𝑏𝑎𝑡 + 𝑚𝑐,𝑣𝑒ℎ 𝛥𝐻𝑐,𝑣𝑒ℎ + 𝑚𝑐,𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝛥𝐻𝑐,𝑔𝑎𝑠 (8)
where 𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡 is the THR of the full vehicle including the battery, other
components, and liquid fuel in MJ, 𝛥𝐻𝑐 is the heat of combustion,
the subscript veh indicates the value corresponding to the non-battery
vehicle components only, and the subscript gas indicates the gasoline.
The total heat released by the battery is calculated using the empir-
ical relationship from Willstrand et al.
𝐸𝑏𝑎𝑡 = 48.5 × 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐 (9)
where 𝐸𝑏𝑎𝑡 is the total heat released by the battery in MJ. Note the
units in Eq. (9) have been converted from the original presentation to
be MJ and kWh. The contribution of liquid fuels to the total energy is
calculated based on the size of the fuel tank assuming a liquid density
of 720 kg∕m3 [28]. The heat of combustion of the gasoline, 𝛥𝐻𝑐,𝑔𝑎𝑠 , is
considered to be 44.1 MJ/kg [28].
An estimate of the heat of combustion of the other vehicle compo-
nents (i.e., non-battery and non-liquid fuel mass), 𝛥𝐻𝑐,𝑣𝑒ℎ , is needed
to scale the total energy content of these components. The heat of
combustion of other vehicle components measured by Kang et al. was
28.8 MJ/kg; however, this value is high compared to many of the
other studies presented in Table 1. There are many potential sources
for variation in the heat of combustion across tests, including the
ignition methodology, calorimetry methods, laboratory conditions, and
localized flame extinction resulting in variable quantities of unburned
hydrocarbons being exhausted. Fig. 3 compares the measured mass loss
fraction with the 𝛥𝐻𝑐 across the available full-scale test data. Note that
the data where the curb weights (Hynynen et al.) or 𝛥𝐻𝑐 (Sturm et al.
and Watanabe et al.) were not reported are omitted from the figure.
As discussed in Section 2.3.1, two values for consumed mass fraction
were used to provide a best estimate and a conservatively bounding
5
Fire Safety Journal 146 (2024) 104145
Fig. 3. Comparison of heat of combustion with consumed mass fraction.
peak HRR. The same values were used in calculation of 𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡 in the
two configurations; however, because 𝛥𝐻𝑐 scales with the consumed
mass fraction, 𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡 is fairly independent of the consumed mass fraction.
Instead, conservatism is added by directly applying a safety factor to
the total energy predicted by the model,
𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡,𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠 = 𝑆𝐹 × 𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡 (10)
where 𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡,𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠 is the conservatively bounding 𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡 and 𝑆𝐹 is the safety
factor. The best fit results shown in Section 3 use the 17% consumed
mass fraction with 𝑆𝐹 = 1.0, and the conservatively bounding results
use the 25% consumed mass fraction with 𝑆𝐹 = 1.35.
2.3.3. Characterizing the time-resolved HRR
Design fire heat release rates are often characterized as t-squared
fires according to the equation
𝑄 = 𝛼𝑡2 (11)
where t is the time in minutes and 𝛼 is the fire growth rate in MW∕min2 .
NFPA 72 defines growth rates based on the time required for a fire
to grow to 1.055 MW [29]. A medium growth rate is characterized
by a growth time of 5 min, and a fast growth rate by a time of
2.5 min. Kang et al. identified that the growth rate of the two BEVs
tested was generally described by a medium to medium-fast growth
rate [25]. In this work, the time to peak HRR was calculated based on
the time required to reach the peak based on a medium-fast growth
rate (i.e., characteristic time of 3.75 min corresponding to 𝛼 = 0.075
MW∕min2 ).
The time-resolved profile of a design fire is difficult to quantify
when deviating from directly using experimental measurements. One
common approach used is to consider the t-squared growth until the
fire reaches its peak and then freeze the HRR at that level until the
fuel is consumed. While this may be conservative in some scenarios,
this is not representative of the typical burning behavior of a vehicle.
Instead, the exponential curve approach originally proposed by Numa-
jiri et al. [30] and later adapted by Ingasson [31] for design fires in the
transportation section is used in this work. This model represents the
time resolved HRR according to the following equation
𝑄(𝑡) = 𝑄𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑛𝑟(1 − 𝑒−𝑘𝑡 )𝑛−1 𝑒−𝑘𝑡 (12)
where 𝑄𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the peak HRR in kW, n, r, and k are shape factors related
to the time to peak, THR, and 𝑄𝑚𝑎𝑥 . The shape factor parameters are
calculated using the empirical fits,
𝑛 = 0.74294𝑒2.9𝑄𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∕𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡 (13)
J.L. Hodges et al. Fire Safety Journal 146 (2024) 104145

Table 4
Calculated fire hazard of representative vehicles on the market.
𝑟 = (1 − 1∕𝑛)1−𝑛 (14) Class BEV ICEV
𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑄𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡 𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑄𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡
(min) (MW) (GJ) (min) (MW) (GJ)
𝑘 = 𝑟𝑄𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∕𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡 (15) Compact car 10.6 8.5 9.8 10.5 8.3 8.4
Sports car 12.4 11.6 17.4 12.8 12.2 12.2
where 𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the time to peak in seconds, and 𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡 is in kJ. Large car 13.1 12.8 17.2 12.5 11.8 11.8
8 passenger van 14.1 15.0 19.0 14.6 16.1 16.3
Pickup truck 14.5 15.8 21.3 15.3 17.6 17.6
2.4. Conservatism characterization Large SUV 16.0 19.3 30.2 16.7 20.9 20.6

The objective of a typical modeling approach is to have a model

prediction without any systematic bias. However, this approach may
not be desirable in a performance-based design because the model
predictions may prove to be non-conservative compared with the ex-
periments due to the uncertainties (i.e., half of model predictions
would be under-predicting the HRR compared with experiments). The
objective of this analysis is instead to have as little variability about
the mean as possible, while purposely having systematic bias in the
conservative direction to account for the variable uncertainty. A model
in which the bound in the non-conservative direction is above the mean
experimental value is considered to be conservatively bounding in this
work.
The conservatism of the design fires generated in this work is
characterized by evaluating the model uncertainty using the approach
presented by McGrattan et al. [32]. The relative bias describes the
systematic tendency of the model to over-predict (> 1) or under-predict
(< 1) the measured values. The model standard deviation describes
the scatter of the predicted value about the experimental measurement
after correcting for any systematic bias present in the predictions. In the
context of a conservatively bounding design scenario, the desired bias
is sufficiently larger than 1 such that the standard deviation in error
will result in conservative predictions at the lower end (i.e., higher than
experimental measurements). However, the bias should not be higher
than needed to accomplish this objective as higher values will be overly
conservative. The model uncertainty in this approach is calculated for
a discrete set of comparisons using the equations
2
[ ]
𝜎𝑀 = 𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑉 𝑎𝑟 (𝑙𝑛 (𝑀∕𝐸)) − 𝜎𝐸2 , 𝜎𝐸2 (16)
( )
2
𝛿 = 𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝑙𝑛 (𝑀∕𝐸) + 0.5𝜎𝑀 − 0.5𝜎𝐸2 (17)
where M is the set of model predictions on the set of experimental
observations, E, 𝜎𝐸 is the experimental deviation, Var indicates the
variance assuming a normal distribution, and the overbar indicates
the mean. The uncertainty in heat release rate measurements varies
significantly based on measurement technique and operating condi-
tions. An experimental uncertainty of 7.5% is assumed in this work
and is used in calculation of the model uncertainty. This value is at
the upper limit of theoretical uncertainties in oxygen consumption
calorimetry (2.5–7.0%) [33] and in the middle of the reproducibility
of peak and time-averaged peak HRRs measured in round robin stud-
ies [34]. While this estimate is reasonable for laboratory-scale testing,
the true experimental uncertainty in full-scale vehicle fire testing is
likely higher.
One of the key uncertainties in the test data and the proposed
model is the consumed mass percent. Experimentally, this percent has
been observed to vary from 15%–35%. This parameter was used to
tune the model performance to achieve the performance objective. The
value of 17% was found to provide the best fit agreement with the
experimental measurements (i.e., 𝛿 = 1), and the value of 25% was
found to be representative as conservatively bounding based on the
experiments. Model performance results are provided for both of these
cases in Section 3. Recommended passenger vehicle design fire HRRs
are provided using the conservatively bounding 25% in Section 4.
3. Results
Scatter plots demonstrating the performance of the model are pro-
vided in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 for 𝑄̇ 𝑚𝑎𝑥 and 𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡 , respectively. The left plot
in each figure shows the statistical best fit of the model, whereas the
right plot shows the proposed conservatively bounding fit. In each plot
the 𝑥-axis corresponds to the experimental measurement provided by
the authors and the 𝑦-axis corresponds to the model prediction based
on the curb weight, battery capacity, and liquid fuel capacity. The
solid black line shows the 1:1 line with the experiments, and the two
dashed black lines show 95% confidence intervals on the experimental
measurements. The solid red line shows the bias-adjusted centerline of
the design basis predictions, and the two dashed red lines show the
95% confidence interval on these predictions. The overall uncertainty
is documented in the bottom-right of each figure. Note that the optimal
behavior of the best fit model would be for the red lines to overlap
with the solid lines; however, the optimal behavior for the conservative
design fire model is for the lower red dashed line to be in line with the
solid black line (conservatively bounding) and the spread between the
two red dashed lines be as small as possible (not overly conservative).
The time-resolved design fire for each vehicle calculated using the
methodology proposed in this work is compared with the experimental
data in Fig. 6. Each figure compares the experimentally measured
HRR profile (dashed line) with the representative design fire using the
proposed methodology with the conservatively bounding configuration
(solid line). Each study used different ignition and initiation strategies.
As a result, several of the cases had long incipient periods prior to the
ignition and rapid fire growth associated with the LIB. The test timeline
was offset in these cases such that a time of zero corresponds closer to
the onset of rapid growth in HRR. Note the study by Hynynen et al. is
not benchmarked due to the presence of sprinklers in the testing.
Similar design fire curves for a selection of representative BEVs and
ICEVs in Table 3 are shown in Fig. 7. The calculated peak HRR, THR,
and time to peak for each of the representative vehicles in Table 3 are
provided in Table 4. The peak 𝑄̇ 𝑚𝑎𝑥 is similar between the similarly
sized BEVs and ICEVs, with the exception of the ICEV pickup truck
which has a 10% higher HRR than the BEV counterpart. However,
across all vehicle classes the BEVs have a higher calculated 𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡 than
the ICEV counterparts. Qualitatively, this leads to sharper peak in the
predicted HRR profile of the ICEVs than is predicted for the BEVs. This
trend is particularly evident in the large SUV case shown in Fig. 7.
These results are discussed in more detail in Section 4.
4. Discussion
The comparisons in Fig. 6 demonstrate qualitatively that the pro-
posed design fire calculation methodology generates conservatively
bounding descriptions of each test. In this context, we consider conser-
vatively bounding to mean that the HRR of the design basis scenario
is higher than the experiment for the duration of testing. This criterion
is generally true except in the cases tested by Lecocq et al. [22]. In
these cases, the model over-predicted the peak HRR, particularly in
the 24 kWh experiment, which resulted in the decay phase of the
fire occurring more quickly than observed experimentally. Typically, in

6
J.L. Hodges et al.
Fig. 4. Statistical performance of model on 𝑄̇ 𝑚𝑎𝑥 .
Fig. 5. Statistical performance of model on 𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡 .
PBD scenarios the earlier parts of the fire are of particular interest due
to the need to consider the impact on occupant tenability during egress
and the fast response time of local fire service. In these applications the
two scenarios would be conservative compared with Lecocq’s experi-
mental measurements. The model can be readily adjusted to remove
this non-conservatism by changing the assumed consumption percent
of the vehicle. However, the trade-off to this adjustment would be
significantly worse predictions across the other cases.
The quantitative results shown in Fig. 4(b) and Fig. 5(b) demon-
strate that the model achieves the overall objectives posed in Sec-
tion 2.4. The systematic bias of 1.34 in the peak HRR and the asso-
ciated variation of 14% shows that, after accounting for uncertainty,
the model predictions are consistently above the experimental mea-
surements. The one exception to the model providing conservatively
bounding peak HRRs is the ICEV case where a peak HRR of 10 MW
was measured. The initiating fire in this case was a 2 MW burner
located near the fuel tank. This resulted in the liquid fuel burning
significantly faster than the 10 min burning duration assumed in this
work. While a more conservative burning duration could be assumed
to better align with this test, this would increase the predictions of the
model for all ICEV and PHEV cases. For example, assuming a 7 min
burning duration for the gasoline aligns the model predicted peak HRR
with the measurement. However, this results in a bias factor of 1.40
7
Fire Safety Journal 146 (2024) 104145
and an associated variation of 14%. This was deemed to be overly
conservative, leading to the recommended 10 min duration in this
work. While it is possible that the variability could be decreased below
14%, the lower limit in the statistical assessment approach is to match
the experimental uncertainty of 7.5%.
The same trend is observed in the THR statistics as well, with the
lower end of model predictions consistently above the experimental
measurements. However, the bias factor and associated variation is
higher in this metric at 1.71 and 36%, respectively. Physically, the
over-estimation of the THR results in a longer decay phase than is
typically seen experimentally. As discussed previously, the earlier parts
of the fire are of particular interest in typical PBD applications. Over-
estimating the THR and the resulting duration of the exposure can be
beneficial in design to ensure that sufficient fire protection features and
suppression resources are available for extended fireground operations.
The variability in the model is also within the same range of
variability observed in testing. Consider each of the small vehicles with
a battery capacity in the 20–24 kWh range and a curb weight ranging
from 1440–1540 kg in Table 1. The experimental range in peak HRRs
observed in these 5 cases was 4.7–6.3 MW, corresponding to a 29%
difference across experiments. Similarly, the range of THRs observed in
these 5 cases was 4.9–8.5 GJ which corresponds to a 54% difference.
There are many reasons for the spread in experiments, some examples
J.L. Hodges et al.
Fig. 6. Comparison of design fire HRRs with experimental measurements. Solid lines are the design fire fits and dashed lines are the experimental data.
include differences in cell composition, arrangement, other vehicle
components, and test methodologies. Unless the model is adapted to
be more specific to these parameters, it is unlikely that the overall
statistical performance will be significantly improved. This may be
possible in the future as more vehicles are tested and data shared with
the community; however, the current set of available data is insufficient
to further adapt the model to include these other parameters.
Fig. 8 breaks down the HRR of each representative vehicle from Ta-
ble 3 by the contribution from the individual fuel sources. These results
indicate that the peak HRR for comparable vehicle classes of BEVs and
ICEVs is similar; however, the peak HRR was generally predicted to be
higher for the ICEV vehicles than for the BEV vehicles. In each case the
8
Fire Safety Journal 146 (2024) 104145
vehicle components are the largest individual contributor to the overall
peak HRR. While the overall curb weight of BEVs is higher than that of
the similarly sized ICEV, the contribution of other vehicle components
to the total HRR was less than in the ICEV for the majority of cases. The
reason this occurs in the model is due to the battery representing a large
fraction of the curb weight. After removing the estimated battery mass
from the curb weight, the total combustible mass of the other vehicle
components is less in most cases. The contribution of the fuel source to
the peak HRR is generally similar between the BEV and ICEV vehicles;
however, in the majority of cases, the gasoline contributes a slightly
higher HRR than the battery in the proposed model. This is due to the
conservative assumption that all of the gasoline in the tank is consumed
J.L. Hodges et al.
Fig. 7. Representative single passenger vehicle design fire HRRs.
Fig. 8. Representative single passenger vehicle peak HRRs by fuel.
within a fixed ten minute interval. Adjusting the gasoline burning time
interval to a longer duration representative of more of the test data
would yield more similar HRRs. There is additional conservatism built
into both the BEVs and ICEVs analysis in the 100% state of charge
assumed for the battery and the full gas tank assumed in the ICEV.
This study focused primarily on the fire behavior of a single pas-
senger vehicle. This provides a starting point for the growing hazard
associated with larger vehicles; however, it is often necessary to con-
sider the spread of the fire to adjacent vehicles in design. Existing PBD
guidance has recommended 5–8 MW as a representative peak HRR for a
vehicle for use in these analyses. NFPA 502 recommends a peak value of
8 MW for a single passenger car, and a peak HRR for multiple passenger
cars of 15 MW [1], and ISO guidance on car park design provides
similar recommendations in the absence of utility vehicles [35]. While
Fig. 7 does not show a significant difference between the HRRs of
BEVs and ICEVs of similar vehicle class, it is possible that the potential
for flame spread between vehicles could differ between these vehicle
classes. Funk et al. noted a similar concern due to the directionality of
fire due to the jetting of flammable gases from battery cells, which is
unique to BEVs, could increase the likelihood of flame spread to com-
bustibles or vehicles in the vicinity [36]. However, it is unclear whether
this additional hazard is more severe than the unique hazard posed by
a pool fire developing in an ICEV which could also expose adjacent
vehicles. In addition, though this paper focuses on the fire hazard, BEVs
9
Fire Safety Journal 146 (2024) 104145
present unique toxic and explosion hazards. These additional hazards
become more prominent in enclosed spaces and will be addressed in
our future work.
The recommended design fires presented here may be found to
be overly conservative in the future based on additional testing of
larger vehicles with higher fuel capacities. However, the model has
been validated on the range of data that currently exists and points
to a potential problem with existing and future designs. As consumers
adopt larger vehicles with higher loads of combustible plastics, fuels,
and battery energy capacities, the potential fire hazard posed by one of
these vehicles may exceed prior design guidance for multiple passenger
cars.
5. Conclusion
This paper presented a new approach to establish design fire scenar-
ios for passenger vehicles based on the data available in the literature.
The model was designed to provide conservatively bounding predic-
tions of the time resolved HRR profile of BEVs, ICEVs, and PHEVs based
on the energy capacity of the batteries, the curb weight of the vehicle,
and the capacity of the gas tank. Model predictions were validated with
experimental data from 20 full-scale fire tests available from 6 studies
in the publicly available literature. Overall, the model predictions were
found to be consistently conservative in both HRR and THR with bias
J.L. Hodges et al.
factors of 1.34 and 1.71, respectively. The model was used to evaluate
the fire hazard posed by several representative vehicles currently on
the market or soon to be on the market. The total energy released
was consistently higher in the BEVs than in the equivalent ICEVs,
particularly in the larger vehicles. While no significant difference was
observed between the HRRs predicted for ICEVs and BEVs, the HRRs
predicted for larger vehicles of both propulsion types were found to
significantly exceed existing design guidance on passenger vehicles.
As consumers continue to adopt larger vehicles with higher energy
capacities, it will be important for the fire protection community to
ensure that sufficiently conservative design fires are used to represent
these increasing hazards. While the approach presented in this paper
is focused primarily on passenger vehicle fires, the general concepts on
creating conservative design fires and the statistical analysis approach
can be readily adapted to other fire hazard analyses.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jonathan L. Hodges: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original
draft, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Software, Project admin-
istration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualiza-
tion. Urvin Salvi: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Methodology,
Data curation. Anil Kapahi: Writing – review & editing, Visualization,
Methodology.
Data availability
The data used in this paper is all available in the public literature.
Acknowledgment
All authors approved the version of the manuscript to be published.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] NFPA, NFPA 502 Standard for Road Tunnels, Bridges, and Other Limited Access
Highways, National Fire Protection Association, 2020.
[2] F. PIARC, Smoke Control in Road Tunnels, PIARC Committee on Road Tunnels,
C5, 05.05, Vol. 32, B, Paris, France, 2002.
[3] S.H. Company, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, UK, 2020.
[4] D. Brzezinska, R. Ollesz, P. Bryant, Design car fire size based on fire statistics
and experimental data, Fire Mater. 44 (8) (2020) 1099–1107.
[5] M.K. Cheong, M.J. Spearpoint, C.M. Fleischmann, Design fires for vehicles in road
tunnels, in: Proc. 7th International Conference on Performance-Based Codes and
Fire Safety Design Methods, 2008, pp. 229–240.
[6] C. Mayfield, D. Hopkin, Design Fires for Fire Safety Engineering, VTT Technical
Research Centre of Finland, 2011.
[7] B. Haavard, M. Klassen, S. Olenick, Modern vehicle hazards in parking structures
and vehicle carriers, Fire Protect. Res. Found. (July) (2020) 60.
[8] P. Sturm, L. Mellert, D. Sprakel, H. Ingason, A. Mos, C. Willmann, J. Thompson,
G. Clark, Impact of New Propulsion Technologies on Road Tunnel Operations
and Safety, PIARC, 2022.
[9] E.R. Rosenbaum, SFPE Engineering Guide to Performance-Based Fire Protection,
second ed., SFPE and NFPA, Quincy, MA, 2007.
[10] SFPE, Code Official’s Guide to Performance-Based Design Review, Society of Fire
Protection Engineers, 2004.
10
Fire Safety Journal 146 (2024) 104145
[11] P. Sturm, P. Fößleitner, D. Fruhwirt, R. Galler, R. Wenighofer, S.F. Heindl, S.
Krausbar, O. Heger, Fire tests with lithium-ion battery electric vehicles in road
tunnels, Fire Saf. J. 134 (September) (2022).
[12] Electric cars battery gross capacity comparison chart, 2023, https://www.
myevreview.com/comparison-chart/battery-capacity-kwh. (Accessed 21 Septem-
ber 2023).
[13] O. Willstrand, R. Bisschop, P. Blomqvist, A. Temple, J. Anderson, Toxic Gases
from Electric Vehicle Fires, tech. rep., RISE Research Institutes of Sweden, 2020.
[14] D. Brzezinska, P. Bryant, Performance-based analysis in evaluation of safety in
car parks under electric vehicle fire conditions, Energies 15 (2) (2022).
[15] X. Wang, M. Wang, R. Jiang, J. Xu, B. Li, X. Wang, M. Lei, P. Su, C. Liu, Q. Yang,
J. Yu, Impact of battery electric vehicles on ventilation design for road tunnels:
A review, Tunnell. Undergr. Space Technol. 134 (February) (2023) 105013.
[16] V. Babrauskas, Heat release rates, in: SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection
Engineering, fifth ed., 2016, pp. 799–904.
[17] ASTM E2067, Standard Practice for Full-Scale Oxygen Consumption Calorimetry
Fire Tests, tech. rep., ASTM International, 2016, pp. 1–24.
[18] R.A. Bryant, M.F. Bundy, The NIST 20 MW Calorimetry Measurement System for
Large-Fire Research, NIST Technical Note 2077, 2019.
[19] E. Cresson, Development of Design Rules for Steel Structures Subjected to Natural
Fires in Closed Car Parks, tech. rep., CTICM, 1997, p. 160.
[20] K. Okamoto, N. Watanabe, Y. Hagimoto, T. Chigira, R. Masano, H. Miura, S.
Ochiai, H. Satoh, Y. Tamura, K. Hayano, Y. Maeda, J. Suzuki, Burning behavior
of sedan passenger cars, Fire Saf. J. 44 (3) (2009) 301–310.
[21] K. Okamoto, T. Otake, H. Miyamoto, M. Honma, N. Watanabe, Burning behavior
of minivan passenger cars, Fire Saf. J. 62 (PART C) (2013) 272–280.
[22] A. Lecocq, M. Bertana, B. Truchot, G. Marlair, Comparison of the fire conse-
quences of an electric vehicle and an internal combustion engine vehicle, in:
International Conference on Fires in Vehicles-FIVE, Vol. 2, 2012, pp. 183–194.
[23] N. Watanabe, O. Sugawa, T. Suwa, Y. Ogawa, M. Hiramatsu, H. Tomonori, H.
Miyanoto, K. Okamoto, M. Honma, Comparison of fire behaviors of an electric-
battery-powered vehicle and gasoline-powered vehicle in a real-scale fire test, in:
Proceedings from 2nd International Conference on Fires in Vehicles-FIVE, 2012,
pp. 195–206.
[24] C. Lam, D. MacNeil, R. Kroeker, G. Lougheed, G. Lalime, Full-scale fire testing of
electric and internal combustion engine vehicles, in: 4th International Conference
on Fire in Vehicle, Baltimore, 2016, pp. 95–106.
[25] S. Kang, M. Kwon, J. Yoon Choi, S. Choi, Full-scale fire testing of battery electric
vehicles, Appl. Energy 332 (November 2022) (2023) 120497.
[26] J. Hynynen, O. Willstrand, P. Blomqvist, P. Andersson, Analysis of combustion
gases from large-scale electric vehicle fire tests, Fire Saf. J. 139 (March) (2023)
103829.
[27] P.-J. Sturm, P. Fößleitner, D. Fruhwirt, S.F. Heindl, B. Kohl, O. Heger, R.
Galler, R. Wenighofer, S. Krausbar, Brandauswirkungen Von Fahrzeugen Mit
Alternativen Antriebssystemen: Ergebnisbericht, Technische Universität Graz,
Institut für Verbrennungskraftmaschinen und . . . , 2021.
[28] SFPE, Appendix 3: Fuel properties and combustion data, in: SFPE Handbook of
Fire Protection Engineering, fifth ed., Society of Fire Protection Engineers, 2016.
[29] NFPA, NFPA 72: National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, National Fire
Protection Association, 2019, p. 5406.
[30] F. Numajiri, K. Furukawa, Mathematical expression of heat release rate curve
and proposal of ’Burning Index’, Fire Mater. 22 (1) (1998) 39–42.
[31] H. Ingason, Design fire curves for tunnels, Fire Saf. J. 44 (2) (2009) 259–265.
[32] K. McGrattan, B. Toman, Quantifying the predictive uncertainty of complex
numerical models, Metrologia 48 (3) (2011) 173–180.
[33] M.L. Janssens, Variability in Oxygen consumption calorimetry tests, in: Thermal
Measurements: The Foundation of Fire Standards, ASTM STP. Vol. 1427, ASTM
International, 2002, pp. 147–162.
[34] ISO, ISO 5660-1:2015 Reaction-To-Fire Tests - Heat Release, Smoke Production
and Mass Loss Rate - Part 1: Heat Release Rate (Cone Calorimeter Method)
and Smoke Production Rate (Dynamic Measurement), tech. rep., International
Organization for Standardization, 2015, 2015.
[35] ISO, ISO/TR 24679-3: Fire Safety Engineering - Performance of Structure in Fire
- Part 3: Example of an Open Car Park, tech. rep., International Organization
for Standardization, 2013.
[36] E. Funk, K.W. Flecknoe-Brown, T. Wijesekere, B.P. Husted, B. Andres, Fire
extinguishment tests of electric vehicles in an open sided enclosure, Fire Saf.
J. 141 (August) (2023) 103920.