Journal of Energy Chemistry 91 (2024) 609–618

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Energy Chemistry

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

Understanding the combustion behavior of electric bicycle batteries

and unveiling its relationship with fire extinguishing
Zhanglong Yu a,b,1, Xueling Shen a,b,1, Ran Xu a,b, Zheng Wang c, Zengming Wan a,b, Mingyang Chen d,
Yi Cui a,b, Yanyan Fang a,b,⇑, Xiaoli Ma a,b,⇑
a
China Automotive Battery Research Institute Co., Ltd., Beijing 101407, China
b
China Grinm Group Co., Ltd., Beijing 100088, China
c
Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Equipment Industry Development Center, Beijing 100846, China
d
Hefei Guoxuan High-tech Power energy Co., Ltd., Hefei 230000, Anhui, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study, a detailed analysis of the combustion behaviors of the lithium iron phosphate (LFP) and
Received 14 December 2023 lithium manganese oxide (LMO) batteries used in electric bicycles was conducted. This research included
Revised 31 December 2023 quantitative measurements of the combustion duration, flame height, combustion temperature, heat
Accepted 1 January 2024
release rate, and total heat release. The results indicated that LMO batteries exhibited higher combustion
Available online 18 January 2024
temperatures of 600–700 °C, flame heights of 70–75 cm, a significantly higher heat release rate of
40.1 kW (12 Ah), and a total heat release of 1.04 MJ (12 Ah) compared to LFP batteries with the same
Keywords:
capacity. Based on these experimental results, a normalized total heat release (NORTHR) parameter was
Combustion behavior
Electric bicycle
proposed, demonstrating good universality for batteries with different capacities. Utilizing this parame-
Lithium-ion battery ter, quantitative calculations and optimization of the extinguishing agent dosage were conducted for fires
Fire extinguishing involving these two types of batteries, and the method was validated by extinguishing fires for these two
Normalized total heat release types of battery packs with water-based extinguishing fluids.
Ó 2024 Science Press and Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Published
by ELSEVIER B.V. and Science Press. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Lithium-ion batteries, known for their portability and environ-
mental friendliness, have become integral in various industries,
including the consumer electronics, electric vehicle, and electric
bicycle (E-bicycle) industries [1–3]. E-bicycles, in particular, have
become the preferred mode of short-distance travel in many coun-
tries [4–6]. As of 2022, E-bicycle ownership in China reached 350
million, with the global market valued at 17.83 billion USD [7].
However, in just the first half of the same year, China reported
8370 cases of fires involving E-bicycles [8], and in October, the Uni-
ted States recalled approximately 22,000 E-bicycles due to poten-
tial fire and explosion risks from their lithium batteries [9].
Serious E-bicycle fires occur during the thermal runaway pro-
cess in lithium-ion batteries [10,11]. Thermal runaway and subse-
quent ignition of lithium-ion batteries can result from multiple
factors, including mechanical, electrical, and thermal abuse
⇑ Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: fangyy@glabat.com (Y. Fang), maxl@glabat.com (X. Ma).
1
These authors contributed equally to this work.
[12–17]. In ordinary life, during the charging and discharging pro-
cess of a battery, needle-like lithium is formed due to the uneven
deposition of lithium, which reduces the thermal stability of the
battery [18]. Furthermore, overcharging is a typical form of electri-
cal abuse [17,19–21]. During overcharging, internal side reactions
in the battery are intensified, accumulating heat and potentially
leading to thermal runaway and the production of jet flames,
which can ultimately lead to further fires [22–25]. Moreover, the
amount of heat and the types and quantities of chemical products
released during the combustion of lithium-ion batteries are key
indicators in electrochemical safety research. This includes the
heat release rate (HRR) and the total heat release (THR), which
are critical for understanding the chemical and physical behaviors
of batteries under extreme conditions and reflecting the intensity
relationship with the battery materials [26–28]. Wang et al. [29]
summarized the impact of reactions between the cathode, anode,
and electrolyte of lithium-ion batteries on the thermal runaway,
fires, and explosions of these batteries. Feng et al. [30] proposed
a new energy release diagram summarizing the reactions of
materials in batteries during thermal runaway, which could
quantify the reaction kinetics for all the battery component

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jechem.2024.01.005
2095-4956/Ó 2024 Science Press and Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Published by ELSEVIER B.V. and Science Press. All rights reserved.
Z. Yu, X. Shen, R. Xu et al.
materials. Liu et al. [31] suggested that the combustion character-
istics of overcharged 228 Ah lithium iron phosphate batteries are
more intense than those triggered by heating, as reflected in the
peak HRR values. Therefore, these studies demonstrated that the
combustion characteristics of lithium-ion batteries are not only a
crucial aspect of energy chemistry research but also essential for
understanding and preventing E-bicycle fires and their impacts
on the environment and safety.
Researchers have begun exploring the effectiveness of various
fire extinguishants at the chemical level on battery fires, including
understanding the interactions between different extinguishants
and the chemical reactions of the battery [32]. Sun et al. [33] calcu-
lated the design mass of the gaseous extinguishant C6F12O based
on the formula in the DB37/T 3642-2019 standard, considering fac-
tors like the volume of the protected area, design extinguishing
concentration, specific volume of superheated steam, minimum
ambient temperature, and altitude correction factor. Zhang et al.
[34] discussed the effectiveness of water sprays in controlling bat-
tery thermal runaway, mentioning that the design consumption of
water sprays is related to the efficiency of water use, and they con-
ducted experiments to determine the final adjustments to obtain
precise design dosages. These studies, primarily covering the com-
bustion characteristics of batteries, can provide significant insights
for the prevention and mitigation of E-bicycles fires, particularly in
which equipped with retired electric vehicle batteries [35,36].
However, research on predicting and devising firefighting strate-
gies specifically for E-bicycles remains relatively scarce, especially
concerning the combustion characteristics of battery materials like
lithium manganese oxide (LMO), which is not commonly used in
power batteries [37]. Therefore, there is an urgent need for com-
prehensive research dedicated to fire prevention and suppression
strategies for E-bicycle batteries, with a focus on understanding
and addressing the unique risks posed by these specific battery
systems.
This study focused on LMO and lithium iron phosphate (LFP)
batteries and their battery packs commonly used in E-bicycles.
The hazards posed by the heat generated in battery fires were
assessed by studying their thermal characteristics. Furthermore,
a normalized total heat release (NORTHR) method, which is univer-
sal for different kinds of lithium-ion batteries, was further pro-
posed to enable quantitative calculations and optimization of the
amount of fire extinguishing agent required for fires involving
these batteries packs with a spraying device designed in house.
This method can provide theoretical and technical guidance for
surveying the fire accidents of E-bicycle batteries.
2. Experimental
2.1. Battery samples
The study examined E-bicycle batteries, specifically pouch cells
and their assembled battery packs, provided by CHIWEE Group Co.
Ltd. The batteries and battery packs used in this experiment were
of two systems: LMO-graphite and LFP-graphite. To compare com-
bustion characteristics, single cells with capacity of 12, 24, and 36
Ah and battery packs with capacity of 30 Ah were used in this
work. Other parameters are shown in Table 1. The batteries were
fully charged using a constant current to constant voltage method
at a rate of 1 C until the current dropped to 0.05 C, ensuring that
each battery reached a 100% state of charge (SOC).
2.2. Experimental setup
The combustion characteristics tests were conducted in a setup
compliant with ISO9705 combustion chamber requirements. As
610
Journal of Energy Chemistry 91 (2024) 609–618
illustrated in Fig. 1(a), the experimental apparatus comprised a
combustion chamber, a thermal runaway triggering device, an
electronic balance, analyzers and data recorders, cameras, and
other components. The HRR testing device is manufactured by
Suzhou Phoenix Instrument Co. Ltd. (model PX 07-001). The
combustion gas was collected by a high-powered fan with a flows
speed of 0.5–0.6 m3/h to analyze the O2 consumption, and the HRR
was calculated by the HRR testing device. Other data were
recorded using a HIOKI LR8450 data logger.
An extinguishing fluid spraying device designed in-house was
used for the extinguishing tests. The extinguishing fluid was circu-
lated through a high-pressure pump into a simulated fire extin-
guishing box of E-bicycle battery. The internal dimensions of the
fire extinguishing box were 500 mm
356 mm
410 mm. Addi-
tionally, an electronic igniter was installed inside the extinguishing
box. Once the box was filled with smoke, the electronic ignition
device was activated for electronic ignition. This was primarily
due to the difficulty in igniting LFP battery packs during overcharg-
ing. Two rows of sprinklers were evenly arranged at the top of the
fire extinguishing box, and each row contained five heads with
100 mm spacing between the adjacent sprinklers, shown in
Fig. 1(b).
2.3. Test methods
Single-cell battery pretreatment method: All single cells were
charged to 100% SOC before the experiments. The charging process
involved 1/3 C constant-current charging to the maximum voltage,
followed by constant-voltage charging until the current dropped
to 0.05 C.
Battery pack pretreatment method: Similar to the single cells,
battery packs were charged to 100% SOC before the experiments.
This involved a 1/3 C constant-current charging to the maximum
voltage of the battery pack, followed by constant-voltage charging
until the current was 0.05 C.
Combustion characteristics testing method: The pretreated
samples were installed in the battery combustion HRR testing
device. Samples were triggered to thermal runaway by overcharg-
ing at a 1 C constant current. The smoke extraction system,
explosion-proof electronic balance, gas analyzers, cameras, and
thermal analysis systems were activated synchronously to record
data throughout the test. Moreover, several rulers were placed at
different heights above the samples, allowing measurement of
the flame width and height after photography. The flame photos
are shown in Fig. S1. After testing, recording was stopped once
the sample temperature dropped below 60 °C, and the post-
experiment samples were photographed. In these tests, a type-K
thermocouple sensor was placed at the center of the largest face
of the sample, and all flames were ignited by an electronic igniter
that was activated when the sample began to emit smoke.
Extinguishing test method: The pretreated battery packs were
placed in an extinguishing box, simulating the layout in a charging
cabinet. The box dimensions are presented in Section 2.2. Thermo-
couple sensors were positioned at the center of the left side, the
top center, and the center of the right side of the inner-side of fire
extinguishing box, each at the closest distance of 100 mm from the
sample, and they were respectively labeled as T1, T2, and T3. Prior to
testing the battery pack samples, protective devices within the
samples were removed and the battery pack casings were restored
to their initial condition. Then, the entire battery pack was over-
charged at a 1 C constant current to trigger thermal runaway and
ignition. The extinguishing spray system was activated when T2
reached 400 °C and was maintained until the fire was completely
extinguished. Based on GB 50219-2014 ‘‘Technical Specifications
for Water Spray Extinguishing Systems”, the extinguishing param-
eters were a spray pressure of approximately 0.25 MPa and a flow
Z. Yu, X. Shen, R. Xu et al. Journal of Energy Chemistry 91 (2024) 609–618

Table 1
The basic parameter of lithium-ion battery.

Sample name Material system Capacity (Ah) Voltage range (V) Weight (g) Size: Length
Width
Height (mm
mm
mm)
Cell LFP/graphite 12 2.5–3.65 218.5 125
120
10
24 469.4 225
135
10
36 743.7 225
155
15
LMO/graphite 12 2.8–4.2 273.5 125
120
10
24 554.8 225
135
10
36 923.3 225
155
15
Pack LFP/graphite (1P15S) 30 37.5–54.75 9168.8 270.4
170.2
165.2
LMO/graphite (1P13S) 30 36.4–54.6 8048.1 250.5
165.5
155.5

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental research device platform. (a) The experimental device of combustion characteristics. (b) The experimental device of water-
based fire extinguisher.

rate of about 10 L/min in total. The model of the extinguishing
agent used was S-3-AB-(1 °C) (Beijing Jiu-jiu Shenlong Fire
Equipment Co., Ltd.).
Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) tests were performed
on a thermal analysis system (DSC3, Mettler-Toledo International
Inc.) under an air atmosphere at a heating rate of 5 °C/min. Sam-
ples were prepared in a glove box by placing about 2 mg of dried
powder removed from the cathodes of fully charged LMO or LFP
batteries, and they were heated with 2 drops (0.1 mL) of conven-
tional lithium-ion battery electrolyte (1.0 M LiPF6 dissolved in
mixed ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and ethyl methyl
carbonate at a ratio of 1:1:1 (vol%)).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Combustion characteristics of E-bicycle batteries
The most common E-bicycle batteries are LMO and LFP types. In
the event of thermal runaway, these batteries can cause intense
combustion in E-bicycles. The combustion characteristics of the
batteries are closely related to their SOCs, and to simulate the most
extreme thermal runaway scenarios, all tests were conducted on
lithium-ion batteries at 100% SOCs triggered at 1 C. Fig. 2(a) shows
the analysis of the flame morphologies of different-capacity LFP
and LMO batteries after thermal runaway. For LMO batteries, the
flame heights for the batteries with different capacities were con-
sistently within the range of 70–75 cm, whereas for LFP batteries,
they remained within 55–60 cm. This indicated that during the
thermal runaway and diffusion process for 12 to 36 Ah battery
packs, the flame height was not significantly affected by the cell
capacity but was greatly influenced by the type of electrode mate-
rial. LFP batteries generally had flames that were about 15 cm
lower than those of the LMO batteries with the same capacity. In
addition, according to Fig. S1, the flame of LFP battery was mainly
611
red during the combustion process, while that of the LMO battery
was lighter red, which indicated that the LMO flame temperature
was higher than the LFP battery flame temperature.
The widths of the flames for both types of batteries showed lin-
ear increases with the capacity, with the maximum flame width of
the LMO cell being about 10 cm wider than that of the LFP cell. This
approximate linear relationship was mainly due to the increase in
the battery capacity, and the amount of fuel for the flame (gas
produced during overcharge-induced thermal runaway and elec-
trolyte) also increased almost linearly. In the range of the battery
capacity in this work, the width of the flame increased with the
capacity during thermal runaway because punch cells mostly had
cracks first appearing on the edges of the sides, causing gas and
electrolyte to escape from the sides. This led to an increase in the
flame width as the capacity increased. The timestamps in the bot-
tom left corner of each image in Fig. 2(a) represent the duration of
the burning for each battery. As the capacity increased, the burning
durations for both types of batteries also increased. Notably, the
burning durations of the LFP batteries were generally three times
longer than those of LMO batteries with the same capacity, possi-
bly due to the greater gas production during thermal runaway in
the LFP batteries, which prolonged the combustion process. This
also indicated that the combustion intensity during thermal run-
away was greater in the LMO batteries than that in the LFP batter-
ies. For batteries with the same specific active material loading per
unit area, there is a proportional relationship between the capacity
and battery size. The observed correlation between the flame
status and the battery’s planar dimensions exhibited a trend anal-
ogous to that noted for the capacity, which indicates a proportional
relationship linking these physical parameters to the combustion
behavior of the battery.
Furthermore, data analysis of the temperature collection during
the combustion process of the samples, as shown in Fig. 2(b),
indicated that for batteries with the same capacity, the maximum
temperatures after thermal runaway for the LFP batteries were
Z. Yu, X. Shen, R. Xu et al.
Fig. 2. Lithium-ion battery combustion process and temperature change. (a) Maximum flame photographs of different lithium-ion batteries. (b) Combustion temperature
diagrams of different lithium-ion batteries. (c) Relationship between flame width, maximum temperature, and battery capacity.
approximately 400–500 °C, which were lower than the peak tem-
peratures (600–700 °C) of the LMO batteries. This suggested that
the combustion intensity was less for the LFP batteries than that
for the LMO batteries. Furthermore, the combustion temperatures
of both the LFP and LMO battery samples increased with the
battery capacity. However, the highest temperature rose to some
extent as the battery capacity increased.
The reason that the temperature differences of the battery com-
bustion flames found in many studies were more than 600 °C, or
even more than 1000 °C, needs to be determined. The temperature
has a strong relationship with the capacities, material systems, and
combustion spaces of lithium-ion batteries [38–40]. The capacity
of the single batteries used in this test was only 12–36 Ah. The
combustion space was also relatively empty in the explosion-
proof room, and thus the actual temperature obtained was also
relatively low. Based on Fig. 2(a and b), if we establish functional
relationships between the flame width W, the maximum tempera-
ture Tmax, and the battery capacity Q, as illustrated in Fig. 2(c), we
can observe that both the flame width and maximum temperature
increased almost linearly with the battery capacity. However, the
intercepts differed for the LFP and LMO systems, which provided
quantitative guidance for extinguishing fires in E-bicycles.
Fig. 3 presents the measurement results of the HRR and THR
during the combustion processes of the two types of lithium-ion
batteries. Fig. 3(a) shows that the peak values of the heat release
for the single-cell batteries of the same type increased with the
capacity. To clearly observe the peak HRR values of each sample,
the curves in Fig. 2(a) were shifted, and the x-axis coordinates
are not provided. For LFP batteries, the peak HRR raised from
8.9 kW for the 12 Ah battery to 23.4 kW for the 36 Ah battery,
while for LMO batteries, it increased from 40.1 kW for the 12 Ah
battery to 58.3 kW for the 36 Ah battery. The shapes of the HRR
peaks for the LFP batteries were broader, but the peak HRRs for
the LMO batteries were significantly higher, indicating that the
612
Journal of Energy Chemistry 91 (2024) 609–618
combustion heat release was more intense in the LMO batteries.
As shown in Fig. 3(b), the THR values for both battery types
increased with the capacity. For the same capacity, the THR of
the LMO batteries was about 1.2–1.3 times that of LFP batteries,
indicating that LMO batteries released more heat upon combus-
tion. Fig. 3(c) shows the linear fits of the peak values of the HRR
corresponding to Fig. 3(a). The values of the square of the linear
correlation coefficients (R2) in Fig. 3(c) show that the LFP batteries
had better linear relationships between the battery capacities and
the peak values of HRR than the LMO batteries. Meanwhile, the
fitted curves of the two batteries were significantly different,
which indicated that the peak values of THR and HRR in the
combustion process were closely related to the battery material
system. These differences were likely due to variations in the
battery systems, as illustrated by the DSC curves in Fig. 3(d). The
thermal release of the cathode active material of the fully charged
LMO battery was approximately twice that of the corresponding
LFP battery, releasing more heat during combustion, which
resulted in larger THR values of the LMO batteries than those of
the LFP batteries with the same capacity. The primary cause of this
issue was that the chemical stability of the LMO cathode material
at 100% SOC was poorer than that of the LFP. The LMO cathode
material underwent multiple-step reactions when heated in
conjunction with the electrolyte, resulting in the release of various
combustible gases and oxygen as well as the heat release of
approximately 252.95 J/g. In contrast, the 100% SOC LFP cathode
material exhibited fewer reactions and released less heat,
approximately 98.43 J/g.
Additionally, the mass losses and mass loss rates during com-
bustion were measured, and the results are shown in Table 2.
The peak mass loss rates increased with the battery capacity,
suggesting that larger batteries incurred greater combustion
losses. The peak mass loss rates of the LMO batteries were not
significantly higher than those of the LFP batteries. This was
Z. Yu, X. Shen, R. Xu et al. Journal of Energy Chemistry 91 (2024) 609–618

Fig. 3. Combustion characteristics data of different lithium-ion batteries. (a) HRR. (b) THR. (c) Linear fitting curves of peaks in (a). (d) DSC curves of fully charged LMO and LFP
cathode active materials.

Table 2 dation for the suppression of fires involving lithium-ion batteries

Combustion process characteristics parameter of LFP and LMO battery. and battery packs.
Battery type Peak of HRR (kW) THR (MJ) Peak of mass loss rate (g/s) Drawing on the results of the battery combustion characteris-
12 Ah LFP 8.9 0.77 3.33
tics tests, we performed an energy normalization analysis on the
12 Ah LMO 40.1 1.04 2.67 HRR and THR of each battery relative to the rated energy of the
24 Ah LFP 18.5 1.66 9.65 battery, designated as NORHRR and NORTHR, which are defined
24 Ah LMO 53.7 2.25 9.33 respectively as follows.
36 Ah LFP 23.4 2.57 12.67
36 Ah LMO 58.3 3.08 13.33 HRR
NORHRR ¼ ð1Þ
U
Q
3600

primarily because the LFP batteries could experience case rupture
and venting during overcharging-induced thermal runaway, lead-
ing to electrolyte decomposition and vaporization without igni-
tion. In contrast, LMO batteries typically ignited upon thermal
runaway during overcharging. Consequently, the THRs of the LFP
batteries were less than those of the LMO batteries, although the
peak mass loss rates did not differ substantially.
3.2. Energy normalization analysis of combustion characteristics
Based on the preliminary discussions of the combustion charac-
teristics, we have identified significant differences in the HRR and
THR between the different types of lithium-ion batteries. Notably,
the HRRs of the LFP batteries were distinctly lower than those of
the LMO batteries, and the THR was correlated with the battery
capacity. To a certain extent, the combustion characteristics can
serve as a basis for fire extinguishing strategies, providing a foun-
613
THR
NORTHR ¼ ð2Þ
U
Q
3600
where U represents the rated voltage of the sample, with calculated
values of 3.2 and 3.7 V for the LFP and LMO batteries, respectively,
and Q denotes the sample capacity in Ah. The normalized NORHRR
represents the HRR per unit energy of a lithium-ion battery, which
can be used to assess the ignition intensities of different types of
lithium-ion batteries. Similarly, NORTHR represents the amount of
energy released per unit of energy in a lithium-ion battery fire,
which can be used to evaluate the fundamental characteristics of
such fires.
In Fig. 4(a), the results of the normalized HRR (NORHRR) energy
for the LFP and LMO batteries are shown, and to observe the
variation of the NORHRR values over time, a shift similar to that
in Fig. 2(a) was performed. The data revealed that the NORHRR
curve peaks for the LFP batteries, irrespective of the capacity, were
remarkably consistent, with an average value of approximately
Z. Yu, X. Shen, R. Xu et al.
Fig. 4. Energy normalization of LFP and LMO battery. (a) Normalized HRR energy. (b) Normalized THR energy.
0.065 s1. This consistency suggested the uniformity in the HRR
per unit energy across the studied capacity spectrum for the LFP
lithium-ion batteries. In contrast, the NORHRR curves for the LMO
batteries displayed distinct patterns. For instance, the NORHRR peak
for the 12 Ah LMO battery was notably higher, reaching 0.25 s1,
compared to around 0.17 s1 for the 36 Ah battery. This variability
in the NORHRR peaks between the LMO batteries was likely attrib-
uted to the intrinsic characteristics of the LMO cells, particularly
the lower stability of the positive electrode active materials. This
instability resulted in more intense heat release during thermal
runaway due to the accelerated decomposition. Moreover, the
lower-capacity LMO batteries underwent more extensive combus-
tion and decomposition in thermal runaway scenarios, leading to
higher NORHRR peaks in their larger-capacity counterparts. In con-
trast, the LFP batteries, with decomposition temperatures exceed-
ing 700 °C, exhibited superior stability compared to the LMO
batteries. Their combustion primarily involved electrolyte decom-
position, which was relatively consistent in composition and quan-
tity across the different capacities, thus resulting in uniform
NORHRR peaks for LFP batteries.
Fig. 4(b) shows a comparative bar graph of the NORTHR values
for various capacities of the LFP and LMO batteries. The graph illus-
trates that, within the examined battery capacity range, the LFP
batteries exhibited marginally lower NORTHR values than the
LMO batteries, yet the values fluctuated within a narrow band. This
observation implied that the NORTHR values for lithium-ion batter-
ies, regardless of their type or capacity, can be approximately
regarded as constant. This approximation is significant for formu-
lating quantitatively fire extinguishing strategies for E-bicycle
battery assemblies.
3.3. Establishment and calculation of NORTHR
The incidence of E-bicycle fires is primarily attributed to the
ignition of lithium-ion batteries, and these fires emit significant
heat. Notably, certain lithium-ion battery materials, such as
ternary materials, release oxygen at elevated temperatures. Thus,
effective fire extinguishment of lithium-ion batteries and their
assemblies requires rapid cooling. This cooling serves a dual pur-
pose: first, to quickly absorb the heat generated by a malfunction-
ing battery, and second, to prevent heat from spreading to other
cells within the battery pack due to high temperatures. This study
delved into the use of aqueous fire extinguishing agents for
lithium-ion battery packs, informed by the detailed study of their
combustion characteristics.
The analysis of the combustion properties of lithium-ion batter-
ies discussed above indicated that the NORTHR metric is instrumen-
614
Journal of Energy Chemistry 91 (2024) 609–618
tal in determining the necessary quantity of the fire extinguishing
agent for a lithium-ion battery fire per unit capacity. NORTHR can be
used to calculate the total heat released during the combustion of a
lithium-ion battery pack as follows.
Eexo ¼ NORTHR
n
U
Q
3600 ð3Þ
where n represents the number of individual burning cells in the
pack, U is the rated voltage of each cell, and Q is the capacity in
Ah of each cell. The heat absorption calculation formula is as
follows.
Eendo ¼ C
q
V
ðT  T 0 Þ
1000 ð4Þ
where C is specific heat capacity (J/(g °C)), q is the density of the
absorbing substance, V is the required volume (L) of the substance,
and T0 and T are the temperatures before and after heat absorption
(°C), respectively. The required volume of fire extinguishing fluid
can be calculated using the following formula based on the type
and number of lithium-ion batteries undergoing thermal runaway,
ensuring that the exothermic energy (Eexo) equals the endothermic
energy (Eendo).
NORTHR
n
U
Q
3:6
V¼ : ð5Þ
C
q
ðT  T 0 Þ
The NORTHR methodology is proved to be an effective tool for
calculating the required volume of fire extinguishing agents for
cooling lithium-ion batteries during thermal runaway scenarios.
Specifically, this study focused on water-based extinguishing
agents, considering their primary component, water. The specific
heat values of these agents were set at 4.1868 J/(g °C), equal to
the standard specific heat of water, and the density was close to
water density of 1 g/cm3 at room temperature. The initial temper-
ature was set to 25 °C, and Eq. (5) facilitated the determination of
the necessary extinguishing fluid volume. The fluid volume was
calculated for various values of the parameters, such as battery
capacity (Q), the number of burning cells (n) within a battery pack,
and the post-heat-absorption temperature (T) of the extinguishing
fluid. It should be noted that the volume of the extinguishing agent
obtained in this calculation is only the minimum value for practical
applications. In addition, since the calculation is based on the nor-
malization of the combustion THR of a single battery, we can also
inversely derive the number of burning cells from the fire extin-
guishing results.
Through practical application and adjustment of Q, n, and T, the
amount of extinguishing agent needed under various burning
conditions was efficiently quantified. Fig. 5(a and b) shows three-
dimensional representations of the volume of extinguishing fluid
(different colored dots) required for LMO and LFP battery packs
Z. Yu, X. Shen, R. Xu et al.
Fig. 5. Calculation of fire extinguishing agent dosage using NORTHR method. (a) LMO battery and battery pack. (b) LFP battery and battery pack (n indicates the number of
fully burned batteries in the battery pack).
under different scenarios. The graph forms a three-dimensional
coordinate system with variables n, T, and Q, representing the vol-
ume of extinguishing liquid required to extinguish a battery pack
fire, which is illustrated in the graph by the sizes and colors of
the circular points. These graphs show a rapidly increasing trend
in the required extinguishing fluid volume with the rise in the
number of burning batteries and battery capacity. Additionally,
an inverse relationship existed between the required fluid volume
and the post-absorption temperature of the extinguishing fluid.
Based on the comparison of the results shown in Fig. 5(a and b),
LMO battery packs demanded approximately 20%–30% more extin-
guishing agent than LFP battery packs under the same conditions.
3.4. Verification and analysis of NORTHR fire extinguishing technology
In an effort to replicate the ignition process of E-bicycle battery
packs during charging scenarios, a specialized fire extinguishing
box was developed, mirroring the dimensions of a charging com-
partment. This setup was utilized for conducting fire extinguishing
experiments on both LFP and LMO battery packs. It is important to
emphasize that high-volume fire extinguishing liquid spray signif-
icantly enhances the extinguishing effect, but it also results in con-
siderable waste. Therefore, a spray rate of 10 L/min was adopted in
the experiment, as recommended by GB 50219-2014 ‘‘Technical
Specifications for Water Spray Extinguishing Systems”, which also
facilitated the analysis of the extinguishing process. Fig. 6 shows
photographs of the instances of thermal runaway in these battery
packs induced by overcharging within the fire extinguishing box.
As detailed in Fig. 6, the LMO battery pack commenced smoking
after overcharging for at 1268 s, 54 s longer than the time recorded
for the LFP battery pack. This was primarily because, for the same
capacity, the LFP pouch cell produced a larger amount of gas than
the other batteries, which made them more likely to cause rupture
and gas escape during thermal runaway. The LMO battery pack
subsequently ignited at 1322 s, exhibiting a lower threshold for
thermal instability than the LFP pack, which did not ignite sponta-
neously but manually ignited at 1233 s. Both battery types rapidly
escalated into intense flames, engulfing the entire fire extinguish-
ing box and leaking flames externally.
Upon the onset of ignition, immediate extinguishing efforts
were launched. The LMO battery pack presented a more formidable
challenge in fire suppression, requiring 137 s to extinguish, 14 s
more than the LFP battery pack. This finding indicated the compar-
atively more difficult nature for extinguishing LMO battery fires.
From a numerical perspective, the flame-burning duration for the
615
Journal of Energy Chemistry 91 (2024) 609–618
LMO battery pack closely aligned with or was marginally less than
the combustion duration of a single 36 Ah cell, as shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 7 illustrates the results of the temperature monitoring
100 mm from the battery samples during their overcharging and
subsequent ignition. The data from Fig. 7(a and c) reveal that the
LMO battery pack commenced smoking at 1268 s and ignited at
1322 s, resulting in a rapid spike in all sensor temperatures above
100 °C. Following the initiation of the water-based extinguishing
process at 1329 s, the flames were extinguished within 130 s, with
a significant drop in all monitored temperatures to below 100 °C,
consuming approximately 21.7 L of extinguishing fluid.
Conversely, as depicted in Fig. 7(b and d), the LFP battery pack
started smoking at 1213 s and ignited at 1233 s. The extinguishing
agent was deployed as the temperatures approached their peak
(1244 s), successfully extinguishing the flames within 112 s using
18.7 L of fluid. Notably, both battery types reached peak flame tem-
peratures of about 600 °C. However, for the LMO battery pack, the
monitored temperatures continued to rise, even after the extin-
guishing spray was activated, only beginning to decline after
reaching peak values for several seconds. This observation under-
scored the extreme severity of the thermal runaway and combus-
tion of the LMO battery pack, with a limited amount of
extinguishing fluid proving insufficient for immediate fire suppres-
sion. In contrast, after the extinguishing spray application, the LFP
battery pack exhibited a rapid temperature decrease. While the
right-side temperature continued to rise due to the substantial
gas generation and ongoing combustion of the LFP battery, temper-
atures on the other sides dropped below 100 °C. This behavior indi-
cated a relatively milder and more controlled combustion process
in the LFP battery pack, effectively contained by the extinguishing
fluid and preventing further spread. These findings are consistent
with the stark differences in the NORHRR values between LMO
and LFP batteries, as previously shown in Fig. 4(a).
In this experimental approach, both the LMO and LFP battery
packs employed had individual cell capacity of 30 Ah. Drawing
upon the extinguishing fluid volume predictions for LMO and LFP
battery packs from Fig. 5, we estimated the potential extinguishing
agent requirements for these battery pack configurations. As
shown in Fig. 7, when extinguishing efforts ceased, the tempera-
tures around the sample were mostly in the range of 60–80 °C.
As depicted in Fig. 8, extinguishing a single 30 Ah LFP battery fire
to a temperature below 60 °C would require approximately
14.15 L of water-based extinguishing fluid, while an LMO battery
would need 17.73 L. In scenarios involving thermal spread across
15-cell battery packs, the LFP pack would require 212.26 L, and
Z. Yu, X. Shen, R. Xu et al. Journal of Energy Chemistry 91 (2024) 609–618

Fig. 6. E-bicycle battery fire extinguishing process. (a) LMO battery pack. (b) LFP battery pack.

Fig. 7. Temperature monitoring 100 mm from the sample during the battery pack fire extinguishing process. (a) LMO battery pack. (b) LFP battery pack. (c and d) The
enlarged views of the fire extinguishing process corresponding to (a) and (b), respectively.

the LMO pack would need 265.88 L of extinguishing fluid to
achieve temperatures below 60 °C. Moreover, the calculations
revealed a notable reduction in the required volume of extinguish-
ing fluid as the temperature increased after absorbing heat. For
instance, in the case of 15 thermal-runaway LMO batteries, if the
extinguishing fluid’s temperature post-heat absorption climbed
to 80 °C, only 169 L would be required, corresponding to a 38%
decrease in volume compared to that of 60 °C.
However, during the actual extinguishing process of the LMO
and LFP packs, the volumes of consumed extinguishing fluid were
only 21.7 and 18.7 L, respectively, which were significantly
different from the volumes required to extinguish the entire packs
calculated using the NORTHR method. The reason for this discrep-
ancy was primarily that the uncontrolled burning of batteries
within a pack did not occur simultaneously but sequentially. Once
the flames were extinguished and the temperature dropped, the

616
Z. Yu, X. Shen, R. Xu et al.
Fig. 8. Calculation results using NORTHR method for the amount of fire extinguishing agent used to extinguish thermal runaway fires with different numbers of batteries to
different temperatures. (a) LMO battery & battery pack. (b) LFP battery & battery pack.
extinguishing spray operation was promptly halted, meaning that
not all samples had experienced thermal runaway ignition at that
time. Based on the combustion times of the individual 36 Ah LMO
and LFP battery from Fig. 2(a) and the NORTHR-based calculations
in Fig. 5, it was inferred that after extinguishing, only about two
cells in each battery pack were actively burning in the extinguish-
ing experiments. This also provides a method for calculating the
number of burning batteries in actual fire incidents. A significant
limitation, however, was that the extinguishing fluid was unable
to fully cool the samples post-flame due to the casing protection
of the battery pack, resulting in ongoing thermal propagation and
substantial white smoke emission after the fire was extinguished,
as shown in Fig. 6. This factor hindered the precise determination
of the number of actively burning cells at the time of flame extin-
guishment. Nonetheless, the study thoroughly demonstrated
through NORTHR calculations that suppressing and containing the
flames in E-bicycle battery packs can substantially reduce extin-
guishing fluid consumption and enhance the effectiveness of the
fire suppression process.
4. Conclusions
This research underscores the marked disparities in the
combustion characteristics of LMO and LFP lithium-ion batteries,
providing essential insights for mitigating and managing fires in
E-bicycle batteries. In contrast to the prolonged and relatively sub-
dued combustion of LFP batteries, LMO batteries exhibited more
vigorous burning, characterized by greater flames heights and tem-
peratures. The study affirmed the efficacy of water-based extin-
guishing agents for both battery types, though it emphasized the
need for optimizing the volume and application techniques of
the extinguishing agent in accordance with the specific battery
type and burning properties of the battery. The NORTHR method,
predicated on normalizing the THR energy of a lithium-ion battery,
introduces an innovative approach for calculating fire extinguish-
ing requirements. This method promises to effectively inform
real-world applications, facilitating more efficient and effective fire
prevention strategies. Looking ahead, future research should delve
into an expanded range of lithium-ion battery types and larger
capacity, particularly examining their combustion behaviors and
extinguishing responses under extreme conditions. Such investiga-
tions are pivotal for advancing battery technologies that are both
safer and more efficient.
617
Journal of Energy Chemistry 91 (2024) 609–618
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yanyan Fang: Conceptualization, Resources, Writing — review
and editing, Supervision, Project administration. Xiaoli Ma: Con-
ceptualization, Resources, Project administration. Ran Xu: Concep-
tualization, Resources. Zhanglong Yu: Methodology, Validation,
Investigation, Visualization, Data curation, Writing — original draft
preparation, Writing — review and editing. Xueling Shen: Method-
ology, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing — original
draft preparation. Yi Cui: Methodology, Validation, Visualization.
Zengming Wan: Validation, Writing — original draft preparation.
Mingyang Chen: Validation, Supervision. Zheng Wang: Investiga-
tion, Visualization, Supervision.
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.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the New Energy Vehicle Power Bat-
tery Life Cycle Testing and Verification Public Service Platform Pro-
ject [2022-235-224], the Beijing Science and Technology Planning
Project [Z221100005222004], the Key Technologies Research and
Development Program [2021YFB2012504], and the Beijing Golden-
bridge Project [ZZ2023002].
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary material to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jechem.2024.01.005.
References
[1] T. Kim, W. Song, D.-Y. Son, L.K. Ono, Y. Qi, J. Mater. Chem. A 7 (2019)
2942–2964.
[2] J. Xie, Y.-C. Lu, Nat. Commun. 11 (2020) 2499.
[3] C.P. Grey, D.S. Hall, Nat. Commun. 11 (2020) 6279.
[4] L. Li, B. Liu, W. Zheng, X. Wu, L. Song, W. Dong, Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 37
(2022) 102304.
[5] W. Liu, H. Liu, W. Liu, Z. Cui, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 139 (2021) 110596.
[6] L. Stilo, D. Segura-Velandia, H. Lugo, P.P. Conway, A.A. West, Transp. Res.
Interdiscip. Perspect. 10 (2021) 100347.
[7] Grand View Research, E-Bikes Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By
Propulsion Type (Pedal-Assisted, Throttle-Assisted), By Battery Type, By Power,
Z. Yu, X. Shen, R. Xu et al. Journal of Energy Chemistry 91 (2024) 609–618

By Application, By Region, And Segment Forecasts, 2023–2030. https:// [22] D.P. Kong, G.Q. Wang, P. Ping, J. Wen, eTransportation 12 (2022) 100157.
www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/e-bikes-market-report, 2022 [23] Y.H. Chen, Ionics. 28 (2022) 495–514.
(accessed 8 December 2023). [24] J. Liu, Z. Wang, J. Bai, T. Gao, N. Mao, Appl. Therm. Eng. 212 (2022) 118565.
[8] He Qitong, Why China’s E-Bike Market Is Facing a Wave of Battery Fires. [25] X. Cao, J. Du, C. Qu, J. Wang, R. Tu, J. Energy Storage 75 (2024) 109661.
https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1013638, 2023 (accessed 8 December [26] J. Sun, B. Mao, Q. Wang, Fire Saf. J. 120 (2021) 103119.
2023). [27] S. Liu, T. Ma, Z. Wei, G. Bai, H. Liu, D. Xu, Z. Shan, F. Wang, J. Energy Chem. 52
[9] CPSC, E-Bikes Recalled Due to Fire, Explosion and Burn Hazards; Distributed by (2021) 20–27.
Ancheer. https://www.dhses.ny.gov/e-bikes-recalled-due-fire-explosion-and- [28] X. Meng, K. Yang, M. Zhang, F. Gao, Y. Liu, Q. Duan, Q. Wang, J. Energy Storage
burn-hazards-distributed-ancheer, 2022 (accessed 8 December 2023). 30 (2020) 101532.
[10] C. Shuai, F. Yang, W. Wang, J. Shan, Z. Chen, X. Ouyang, iScience 26 (2023) [29] Q.S. Wang, P. Ping, X.J. Zhao, G.Q. Chu, J.H. Sun, C.H. Chen, J. Power Sources 208
105786. (2012) 210–224.
[11] W. Ying, Z. Yongping, X. Fang, X. Jian, in: 22017 IEEE Int. Conf. Comput. Sci. [30] X.N. Feng, M.G. Ouyang, X. Liu, L.G. Lu, Y. Xia, X.M. He, Energy Storage Mater.
Eng. CSE IEEE Int. Conf. Embed. Ubiquitous Comput. EUC, IEEE, Guangzhou, 10 (2018) 246–267.
China, 2017, pp. 760–762. [31] P. Liu, S. Li, K. Jin, W. Fu, C. Wang, Z. Jia, L. Jiang, Q. Wang, Fire Technol. 59
[12] L. Zhang, K. Jin, J. Sun, Q. Wang, Fire Technol. 58 (2022) 1–42. (2023) 1051–1072.
[13] Y. Chen, Y. Kang, Y. Zhao, L. Wang, J. Liu, Y. Li, Z. Liang, X. He, X. Li, N. Tavajohi, [32] M. Ghiji, V. Novozhilov, K. Moinuddin, P. Joseph, I. Burch, B. Suendermann,
B. Li, J. Energy Chem. 59 (2021) 83–99. G. Gamble, Energies 13 (2020) 5117.
[14] J. Liu, Z. Wang, J. Bai, J. Energy Chem. 70 (2022) 531–541. [33] H.L. Sun, L. Zhang, Q.L. Duan, S.Y. Wang, S.J. Sun, J.H. Sun, Q.S. Wang, Process
[15] T. Shan, Z. Wang, X. Zhu, H. Wang, Y. Zhou, Y. Wang, J. Zhang, Z. Sun, J. Energy Saf. Environ. Prot. 167 (2022) 299–307.
Chem. 72 (2022) 241–257. [34] L. Zhang, Y. Li, Q. Duan, M. Chen, J. Xu, C. Zhao, J. Sun, Q. Wang, J. Energy
[16] X. Feng, D. Ren, X. He, M. Ouyang, Joule 4 (2020) 743–770. Storage 32 (2020) 101801.
[17] S. Bi, Z. Yu, S. Fang, X. Shen, Y. Cui, F. Yun, D. Shi, M. Gao, H. Zhang, L. Tang, X. [35] Y. Hua, X. Liu, S. Zhou, Y. Huang, H. Ling, S. Yang, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 168
Zhang, Y. Fang, X. Zhang, J. Energy Storage 73 (2023) 109039. (2021) 105249.
[18] F.N. Jiang, S.J. Yang, X.B. Cheng, P. Shi, J.F. Ding, X. Chen, H. Yuan, L. Liu, J.Q. [36] M. Mirzaei Omrani, H. Jannesari, Renew., Sustain. Energy Rev. 116 (2019)
Huang, Q. Zhang, J. Energy Chem. 72 (2022) 158–165. 109413.
[19] Y. Cui, D. Shi, Z. Wang, L. Mou, M. Ou, T. Fan, S. Bi, X. Zhang, Z. Yu, Y. Fang, [37] C. Xu, Q. Dai, L. Gaines, M. Hu, A. Tukker, B. Steubing, Commun. Mater. 1 (2020)
Batteries 9 (2023) 438. 99.
[20] E. Zhitao, H. Guo, G. Yan, J. Wang, R. Feng, Z. Wang, X. Li, J. Energy Chem. 55 [38] N. Wei, M. Li, Front. Energy Res. 11 (2023) 1230429.
(2021) 524–532. [39] P. Huang, Q. Wang, K. Li, P. Ping, J. Sun, Sci. Rep. 5 (2015) 7788.
[21] Z. Wang, J. Yuan, X. Zhu, H. Wang, L. Huang, Y. Wang, S. Xu, J. Energy Chem. 55 [40] M. Chen, Y. He, C. De Zhou, Y. Richard, J. Wang, Fire Technol. 52 (2016)
(2021) 484–498. 365–385.

618