Fire Safety Journal 134 (2022) 103695

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fire Safety Journal

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

Fire tests with lithium-ion battery electric vehicles in road tunnels

Peter Sturm a, *, Patrik Fößleitner b, Daniel Fruhwirt a, Robert Galler c, Robert Wenighofer c,
Simon Franz Heindl d, Stefan Krausbar e, Oliver Heger f
a
Institute of Thermodynamics and Sustainable Propulsion Systems, Graz University of Technology, Austria
b
FVT mbH, Graz, Austria
c
Chair of Subsurface Engineering, Montanuniversität Leoben, Austria
d
Vehicle Safety Institute, Graz University of Technology, Austria
e
Austrian Fire Brigade Association, Austria
f
ILF Consulting Engineers, Austria

A B S T R A C T

Alternative propulsion technologies, including battery-electric vehicles, are becoming increasingly prevalent. Whilst such vehicles remain a small overall proportion
of the vehicle fleet, the combined impact of government policy and technological advances in alternative fuels is expected to accelerate the increase in their numbers
in coming years.
As a result of these changes, the nature of tunnel safety risk (including the risk of fire) is expected to change over time. The risk implications associated with such
vehicles thus requires more detailed consideration. This entails evaluation of incident consequences with particular attention being paid to the impact of fire
characteristics and toxic emissions on tunnel users and to the need for specific emergency intervention strategies.
In the past, concerns were voiced with respect to the fire safety of the new energy storage device (battery) and the possibility of more difficult firefighting
conditions. This resulted in a series of investigations concerning the safety aspects of batteries and battery electric vehicles. However, most of the tests performed
merely dealt with battery cells or battery packs. To date, publicly available tests involving actual vehicles remain relatively rare. In 2018, the Austrian Government
commissioned a research project concerning the effect of incidents with battery electric vehicles on tunnel safety. This project encompassed fire tests of passenger
cars, simulations for heavy duty vehicles, and the impact of incidents with such vehicles on the safety of tunnel users and the tunnel structure.
In a series of fire tests, the heat-release and production of (toxic) substances has been evaluated. The burning behaviour of vehicles with different energy storage
technologies (i.e. Li-ion batteries, Diesel) was monitored and compared to each other. The heat-release rate and emission of (toxic) substances was measured, and
different fire-fighting methods were applied during each test.
This paper will focus on the aspect of full-scale fire tests of passenger cars performed in a road tunnel. It should be emphasized that the battery-electric vehicle fire
tests presented here were the first of their kind under real road tunnel conditions. This concerns the fire behaviour, but also some new approaches to fighting a BEV
fire. All previous tests reported in journals were either carried out in fire halls or only concerned individual battery modules.

safety risks originating from road incidents is expected to change over

time.
1. Introduction
Consequently, greater attention needs to be paid to the risk of sig­
nificant incidents, including that of fire in road tunnels. Particular
As the topography of Austria is relatively mountainous, fire incidents
attention has to be paid to fire characteristics, toxic emissions, and their
in road tunnels are of particular interest. As of January 2020, motorways
impact on tunnel users and on emergency intervention strategies. Bat­
and expressways in Austria included 175 tunnel facilities, with a total
teries as energy storage are mainly to be found in passenger cars with a
length of 404 km. An additional 16 km were under construction and 36
still limited driving range. However, the development is moving towards
km in planning [1]. In 2019, Austrian fire fighters attended to about
battery systems with higher power densities.
2500 vehicle fires, covering both passenger and heavy duty vehicles.
Current battery generations are strongly based on lithium-ion tech­
Alternative propulsion technologies, including battery-electric ve­
nology. In the event of a fire, combustion behavior, risks, and gases
hicles, are becoming increasingly prevalent. Whilst such vehicles remain
produced with such a technology are quite different to those found for
a small overall proportion of the vehicle fleet, the current policy of
conventional energy sources (e.g. liquid fuels). This can be particularly
greenhouse gas reduction is expected to accelerate the increase in their
critical in underground traffic facilities or in garage areas, where
numbers in coming years. As a result of these changes, the nature of

* Corresponding author. Institute of Thermodynamics and Sustainable Propulsion Systems, Graz University of Technology Inffeldgasse 25c, 8010, Graz, Austria.
E-mail address: sturm@ivt.tugraz.at (P. Sturm).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2022.103695
Received 2 September 2022; Received in revised form 16 October 2022; Accepted 19 October 2022
Available online 3 November 2022
0379-7112/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
P. Sturm et al.
Acronyms
BEV Battery Electric Vehicle
HF Hydrogen Fluoride
HRR max, avg Heat Release Rate, maximum, average
ICEV Vehicle powered by an Internal Combustion Engine
LFP Lithium–Iron-Phosphate
LIB Lithium-Ion Battery
LMO Lithium-ion Manganese Oxide
NEC New Energy Carrier
NMC Nickel–Manganese–Cobalt
NaClaq Sodium chloride, liquid solution
PM Particulate Matter
SOC State of Charge
SUV Sport Utility Vehicle
firefighting is more difficult, and the possibilities for diluting toxic
smoke gases are very limited.
Extensive research on battery failure among single cells has been
conducted since the early 2000s [2–8]. These investigations have been
followed up by full-scale fire tests [9–12] in order to study fire devel­
opment and the associated consequences under realistic boundary
conditions. As battery technology continues to evolve, research in the
field also continues. Recent work done by Ref. [13] looked at modern
technology Lithium -Ion Batteries [14]. looked at toxic gases from BEVs
in fire [15]. dealt with fire risks with NEC in partially or fully enclosed
underground facilities, such as road tunnels or car parks, and also looked
at methods needed to fight BEV fires. A comprehensive report on the
risks and impacts of alternatively-fuelled vehicles was recently provided
by Sandia Research Laboratories [16].
The results of these research activities can be found in the individual
sections below. The main results of all of these studies can be summa­
rized as follows. Hydrogen fluoride (HF) can be considered as an
important and new toxic gas. The quantity of HF emissions depends on
the cell chemistry used (and indirectly, also on the model year of the
vehicle/battery) and on the energy stored in the battery. The heat
release rate (HRR) of a battery or BEV depend on the amount of elec­
trical energy stored in the battery (SOC). However, common to all these
research initiatives is that tests were only performed on a few batteries
or BEVs. In addition, full scale BEV fire tests were mainly performed in
fire testing labs and not in real tunnels.
In order to improve knowledge in this area, a project has recently
been initiated as part of the Austrian Transport Infrastructure Research.
Under the leadership of Graz University of Technology, the Mon­
tanuniversität Leoben, the Austrian Fire Brigade Association and ILF
Consulting Engineers, have all begun collaborating in the BRAFA project
in order to investigate the fire behavior of such vehicles and its effects on
the safety of tunnel users [17]. The project is designed to deal with
various aspects of heat release and toxicity in BEV fires, associated
fire-fighting possibilities, the impact on tunnel infrastructure, and the
influence of BEV fires on the overall risk of fire for tunnel users (risk
assessment).
The following experimental investigations were conducted during
the project:
- Fire tests with battery cells
- Fire tests with battery modules
- Fire tests with BEV incl. investigation of fire-fighting techniques
During all tests, several measurements (e.g. temperature, gas con­
centration, …) were performed, which are described in detail in this
paper.
Following the experimental part, the measurement data was used to
2
Fire Safety Journal 134 (2022) 103695
calibrate simulation models. First, the temperature profile and gas
concentration inside a tunnel facility were predicted for fire incidents
involving commercial vehicles (i.e. bus) by using numerical modelling
methods. Second, the findings from the experiments were incorporated
into a risk assessment model. The numerical analyses and risk assess­
ment are not subject of this paper (see Ref. [18]).
From the beginning, it was clear that the research programme would
have to cope with several different, sometimes conflicting, objectives.
For example, while some groups wished to focus on investigating com­
bustion behaviour and the associated aspects of a BEV fire, the fire
brigade preferred to investigate various techniques for firefighting.
These are opposing goals. The former approach welcomes an extension
of fire duration, while fire fighters prefer to reduce fire exposure to a
minimum. Both groups had to agree on research adaptations in one form
or another.
2. Fire tests
2.1. Test facility
All experiments were conducted at the tunnel research facility Zen­
trum am Berg [19]. This totally new research and training facility consists
of two motorway and two railway tunnels, each around 400 m in length,
with regular cross sections, as well as a 1000 m long test tunnel with a
reduced cross section of some 25 m2. Fig. 1 shows the layout of the test
site. One highway and one railway tunnel have been completed, and
exhibit inner lining and all the required equipment, while in the other
tubes only a shotcrete layer covers the tunnel surface. All the lanes are
paved throughout the tunnel. Fig. 2 shows the tunnel cross section
where the battery and BEV fire tests were performed. Due to the
different fire sources and fire sizes different test set-ups were employed.
2.2. Battery modules
A pre-study with battery modules comprising different numbers of
elements was conducted. These tests were mainly aimed at investigating
the different possibilities of triggering the fire, investigating the com­
bustion behavior and selecting the best available measurement tech­
nology for gas and particulate matter (PM) measurements. There was
little interest in determining the actual quantities of gas concentrations
and temperatures as such information was already available (e.g. Refs.
[13,14]) and most of the tests performed on a cell or module basis had
already been performed under conditions which were much easier to
control than in a tunnel at full scale.
The pre-test revealed that the best way to cause a thermal runaway is
to use an external fire to engulf the batteries. Other methods of trig­
gering a thermal runaway, such as the use of electrical overload or cell
penetration, were not really applicable under the given test environ­
ment. Visual observation alone revealed a clear difference between an
NMC battery pack fire (13 cells per module á 60 Ah, 27 modules in total)
and that of an LFP battery pack (40 cells per module á 20 Ah, 18 modules
in total). The SOC of the NMC modules was 100%, that of the LFP was
not exactly known. Compared to NMC batteries, LFP batteries have
significantly reduced fire dynamics. This confirms the findings reported
in the literature (e.g. Ref. [20]), that: (a) NMC batteries are more
problematic in cases of fire, and (b) the SOC has an influence on the
HRR. Fig. 3 shows the difference in fire dynamics. For the LFP cells, a
period of almost 40 min was needed before a thermal runaway was
started by external heat supply. In contrast, thermal runaway in the
NMC modules began after 10 min of exposure to the same external heat
source. While the NMC fire lasted for some 30 min, the fire of the LFP
modules lasted for more than 3 h.
2.3. Vehicle tests
Until now the majority of fire tests with BEV were performed in
P. Sturm et al. Fire Safety Journal 134 (2022) 103695

Fig. 1. Layout of the tunnel test centre “Zentrum am Berg” [19].

Fig. 2. Tunnel cross section for the battery and vehicle tests (left), image of the test section for standard vehicle fire tests (right).

Fig. 3. LFP battery fire, single module (upper left) and full floor plate (bottom left), NMC battery fire, 3 modules (upper right) and full floor plate (bottom right).

enclosed facilities (fire testing labs) with a relatively low ventilation
rate. Such an arrangement has the big advantage that important pa­
rameters like gas measurements, determination of heat release rate etc.
can be performed with a high level of accuracy. Unfortunately, in such
cases, tunnel-specific features such as smoke layers and vertical tem­
perature profiles, or fire development, can not be examined under
realistic ventilation rates. In order to have tunnel situations which are as
realistic as possible, the tests within the BRAFA project were performed
in a full-scale tunnel under realistic ventilation conditions. However, it
must be noted that in order to achieve realistic fire behaviour, some
disadvantages had to be accepted when measuring the smoke gas con­
centrations spatially and when estimating the heat release rate. Instead
of having a simple concentration and volume flow rate measurement at
one location (as would be the case when gases are collected in a hood),

3
P. Sturm et al.
profile measurements had to be performed at various locations in the
tunnel cross section.
2.3.1. Test set-up
The west tube of the railway tunnel was selected for hosting the
vehicle fire tests. The profile and cross section area of the railway tunnel
are quite similar to those of the road tunnel. Ventilation was provided by
jet fans with variable speeds. Fig. 4 shows the test set-up as well as the
position of the various sensors. The temperature sensors were distrib­
uted quite evenly across the cross-section at various points behind the
fire, but also at the soffit directly above the fire. Owing to budget con­
straints, gas sensors could only be positioned at 16 m (position 2) and 32
m (position 3) downstream of the fire site along the vertical axis of the
tunnel. In order to collect surface heavy metals, two non-woven fabrics
were exposed to the exhaust gases at position 4 and 5 downstream of the
fire.
In the tests where BEVs were involved, voltage and temperature were
monitored at various locations. Fig. 5 shows the location of the indi­
vidual sensors for BEV test BV01 and BV02 as an example.
Temperature measurements were performed using type K, class 1
sensors. For online gas measurements (CO, CO2, NOx and O2) a Horiba
gas analyser was employed. An ABB Uras 26 IR analyser was used to
monitor CO at a second location. HF, HCl and H3PO4 were monitored
using filter stacks with quartz filters. Heavy metals were also sampled
employing quartz filters. With the exception of the online monitors for
the gases all other measurements were time-averaged over a certain
period in order to get sufficient material for the analyses. The air ve­
locity was measured upstream of the fire using a DURAG D-FL ultra-
sonic path averaged velocity meter.
The heat release rate was determined by looking at the enthalpy of
the mass flow upstream and downstream of the fire location. While the
estimation of the enthalpy flow rate upstream could be performed with
sufficient accuracy (well mixed uniform air), the situation downstream
was different. Due to the thermal effects of the fire, a pronounced
Fig. 4. Test set-up for the vehicle fires.
4
Fire Safety Journal 134 (2022) 103695
vertical temperature and air velocity profile was observed. While the
temperature profile could be measured with acceptable accuracy, this
was not the case for the local air velocity. Based on mass conservation,
the local air velocity downstream was adjusted by using the monitored
temperature/density profile. The estimation of the heat release rate is
definitely a weak point in the whole investigation. Thus, the values
determined need to be treated as indicative rather than exact. The usage
of a different method, e.g. O2 depletion, was not possible due to the high
ventilation rates in the tunnel. The latter results in low pollution con­
centration levels and thus in relatively small changes in O2 levels be­
tween positions upstream and downstream of the fire.
A detailed description of the measurement set-up, data location and
the equipment used can be found in the data repository [21] and the
final project report [17].
2.3.2. Vehicle tests
The full-scale fire tests entailed five different vehicles. These are
listed in Table 1. Test BV01 concerned a brand-new BEV compact car,
tests BV03 and BV05 had also almost identical vehicles from the same
manufacturer, only the propulsion units were different. The vans used in
test BV02 and BV04 were almost identical – apart from the propulsion
unit.
Fig. 6 shows the two utility vans used for test BV02 and BV04.
As mentioned above, the different interests of the fire researchers
and the fire brigade led to a test program that took as many fire situa­
tions as possible into account. While this reduced the ability to compare
tests directly, it did serve to enrich general knowledge about vehicle
fires. The tests differed in terms of initial ignition source and site of fire
origin. The ignition source of the BEV in test BV01 was a saline solution
(NaClaq), which was directly injected into the battery pack, causing an
internal short circuit and a subsequent fire. For the tests ICEV SUV
(BV03) and BEV SUV (BV05) a propane burner was used to ignite the
seats inside the car. The BEV utility van (BV02) was ignited from
outside, with 2 propane burners positioned underneath. Finally, the fire
P. Sturm et al. Fire Safety Journal 134 (2022) 103695

Fig. 5. Measurement points in the battery packs (floor plate) of BV 01 (left) and BV 02 (right).

2.3.4. Additional investigations

Table 1
In addition to the gas and temperature measurements, the contami­
Overview of tested vehicles and estimated HRR.
nation of the forge water and the tunnel walls was also examined. The
Test Vehicle Battery Capacity Ignition source forge water was collected in the drainage system and samples were
(model year) type/fuel
taken after the tests in order to analyze pollutants.
BV01 BEV, NMC 80 kWh Thermal runaway triggered by Deposition of pollutants on the wall was collected on non-woven
compact car injection of liquid NaClaq
fabrics (see Fig. 4). After the tests, samples of the fabrics were taken
(2020)
BV02 BEV, utility LMO 24 kWh Gas burners below floor plate
and analyzed in order to assess the concentration of heavy metals and
van (2016) organic compounds.
BV03 ICEV, SUV Diesel unknown Fire start from burning interior
(2020) 3. Results
BV04 ICEV, utility Diesel 50 l Fire start from engine
van (2010) compartment (equivalent to
BEV 02) 3.1. Vehicle fires
BV05 BEV, SUV NMC 80 kWh Fire start from interior,
(2020) external triggering of the 3.1.1. Heat release rate
thermal runaway after 10 min
Golubkov et al. [22] investigated the impact of SOC on LIB cells.
of vehicle fire by NaClaq
injection into battery case
They found that a minimum charge level was needed to initiate a
(vehicle equivalent to BEV 03) thermal runaway. For fully discharged cells, heating up to 250 ◦ C did not
trigger a thermal runaway. On the other hand, at 100% SOC, a signifi­
cant self-heating process occurred when the cells were exposed to
in the ICE utility van (BV04) started in the engine compartment. 140 ◦ C. This result confirmed the findings of Larsen et al. [23] that a
higher charge level corresponds to a more rapid total energy release and
2.3.3. Investigated fire extinguishing methods a higher peak energy release rate. In order to investigate the worst cases,
The fire brigade wished to investigate different methods of fighting most vehicle tests were therefore performed at 100% SOC. Full-scale
battery electric vehicle fires. The standard approach is the application of tests for passenger car fires were performed by Lecocq et al. [12], Lam
water to cool down the vehicle and to control the fire and temperature [11] and Willstrand et al. [14]. According to the tests performed by
situation inside the tunnel. It is well known that for a BEV passenger car Lecocq et al. [12] the characteristics of the burning behaviour and the
fire, up to 10 m3 of water are required to stop thermal runaway and heat release rate (HRR) of the tested vehicles do not differ significantly
prevent reignition. Alternative methods, such as the use of fire-resistant between ICEV and BEV. However, the maximum HRR of both BEVs was
blankets to reduce the HRR, and the use of fire extinguishing lances for between 1.0 and 1.5 MW higher compared to that of the tested ICEVs.
direct injection of water into the battery casing were also investigated. Willstrand et al. [14] tested three different vehicles, one ICE full-size
In order to be as realistic as possible, the fire brigade did not attempt van, model year 2011, a BEV full-size van with an 80 kWh battery and
to extinguish the fire until a period of 10 min had elapsed after the initial model year 2019 (BEV A), and a 2016 BEV family car with a 24 kWh
breakout of the fire. This corresponds to the average travel time of first battery (BEV-B). Fig. 7 depicts the results of the heat release rate
responders arriving at the scene of the fire. (convective part). The vehicle size of the ICE-A car and the BEV-A were
similar, but the max. HRR differed, peaking at 7 MW for the BEV and at
around 6 MW for the ICEV. According to the test report, the effective

Fig. 6. Utility van, BEV test BV02 (left), ICEV test BV04 (right).

5
P. Sturm et al.
Fig. 7. Heat release rate of a conventional car (red line) and BEVs (blue and
green line) [14]. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
heat of combustion in MJ/kg was almost equivalent for both full-size
vans, whereas that of the BEV family car was considerably smaller.
This is consistent with the findings for similar cars made by Lecocq et al.
[12].The differences in burning characteristics are thus mainly due to
the differences in fire development inside the car.
It has to be noted that the air flow rate during these tests was around
24 m3/s (at 20 ◦ C) which is in the range of 10–20% of standard fire
ventilation rates. For example, in a standard tunnel with two lanes, the
standard fire ventilation rate is in the range of 120–180 m3/s, depending
on whether a controlled (1.5–2.5 m/s) or critical velocity philosophy
(2.5–3 m/s) is used in fire ventilation mode. Hence it is expected that in
tunnel situations with a higher volume flow rate, peak heat release rates
may be higher and the burning duration shorter.
During the fire tests within the BRAFA project the mechanical
ventilation system provided an air flow with a velocity in the range of
1.0–2.0 m/s upstream of the fire location. As in a real tunnel, it was not
possible to keep the air speed at a constant level throughout the test.
Taking the tunnel cross section of 52 m2 into account, the air volume
flow amounted to 52–104 m3/s.
Fig. 8 shows the HRR for two identically built SUVs, one propelled by
a diesel fuelled ICE, the other by an 80 kWh NMC battery at 100% SOC.
In both cases the fire ignition took place in the rear seats. However, it has
to be mentioned that in the case of the BEV, the battery was not involved
in the fire for the first 800 s (full voltage in all cells of the battery). After
Fig. 8. Heat release rate for two almost identical SUVs, ICEV (BV03) and BEV (BV05) with an 80 kWh NMC battery.
6
Fire Safety Journal 134 (2022) 103695
fire degradation was already underway, a thermal runaway in the bat­
tery was triggered by injecting a saline solution into the battery casing.
This resulted in a very quick thermal reaction of the whole battery and in
an extremely quick increase of the HRR within a short time. This can be
observed in Fig. 9. At 820 s the voltage in the battery dropped within
seconds from 400 V to almost zero while, from the same time on, tem­
perature inside the battery increased from almost ambient temperature
(note, the vehicle is already fully burning) to 420 ◦ C. The steep tem­
perature drop afterwards was caused by introducing water directly into
the battery casing via a fire extinguishing lance.
While in the case of the ICEV the max. HRR didn’t exceed 5 MW, the
BEV HRR peaked at 9–10 MW. It has to be mentioned that the external
ignition of multiple cells of the battery resulted in an extremely and
perhaps unrealistically quick increase of the HRR. Nevertheless, it
showed the potential of a BEV fire as soon as the battery is fully involved
in the burning characteristics. However, the test also showed that
although the vehicle had already burned for more than 10 min, the
battery was still not involved in the fire and the temperature inside the
battery was well below 50 ◦ C (Fig. 9). This shows that the internal
cooling of the batteries used in modern BEVs has been greatly improved.
The BEV for test BV05 was a 2020 SUV with an 80 kWh battery. The
fire was started in the compartment by igniting the rear seats. After a
short while (~150 s after ignition) the bursting of a rear window
allowed for sufficient air supply and the fire grew rapidly and peaked at
an estimated HRR of some 4–5 MW. The externally-induced short cir­
cuiting of the battery – occurring almost simultaneously in most of the
cells – caused an additional increase of HRR of about 3 MW. However, it
needs to be mentioned, that the start of a thermal runaway affecting
almost all cells at the same time is not to be expected in reality.
This can be observed in Fig. 10, where a BEV fire starting from the
battery (BV01), but only from a few cells, is contrasted with BV05,
where the majority of the cells started burning within a very short time
frame (see above). The HRR of BV01 with the 80 kWh NMC battery is in
the range of 5–6 MW. This test confirms the findings of the research
performed in Refs. [12,14]. The differences in vehicle size and fire
source (the battery in BV01 and the interior in BV05) are supposed the
be the reasons for the difference in fire duration.
Table 2 contains the calculated values for the maximum and average
HRR as well as those for the energy content of the fire. As already
mentioned above, the values are subject to a relatively high degree of
uncertainty due to the uncertainties in the calculation of the enthalpy
flux downstream of the fire site.
Willstrand et al. [14] combined the data from their battery and
P. Sturm et al. Fire Safety Journal 134 (2022) 103695

Fig. 9. BEV test BV05, HRR, voltage and temperature in 80 kWh NMC battery.

Fig. 10. Comparison of the HRR for BEVs, BV01 (green line), BEV05 (yellow line). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the Web version of this article.)

Table 2
Maximum and average HRR of the individual tests.
Test no. HRRmax [MW] HRRavg [MW] Energy content [MJ] Remark

BV01 (BEV) 7.0 3.5 2893 Extinguishing test with fire blanket after 500 s
BV02 (BEV) 6.1 3.4 n/a Short periods with measurement data loss
BV03 (ICEV) 4.9 2.5 3792 Exact amount of fuel unknown
BV04 (ICEV) 2.3 1.5 1540 Utility van, loading space totally empty (equivalent to vehicle BV02
BV05 (BEV) 4.9/8.6* 3/5* 4454 Battery ignition after 10 min;
* car only/car + battery

vehicle fire tests and found a linear relationship between the peak heat
release rates and the energy stored in the battery. The tests performed
within the BRAFA project confirmed this relationship (Fig. 11). It should
be noted, however, that the logarithmic representation used on both
axes simulates a good correlation and does not reflect the large range of
fluctuation which takes place, especially at high energy densities.
3.1.2. Toxic gases
The toxic gases are the biggest threats for tunnel users entrapped by a
vehicle fire in a tunnel. While for conventional cars, gases such as CO,
CO2, HCl and HN form the critical components, BEV with Li-Ion batteries
contribute hydrogen fluoride (HF) as a very critical component.
Research on single Li-ion pouch cells also came up with CO, CO2, H2 and
many different HCs vented as a result of the thermal runaway, i.e. before
any combustion activity [24]. The noticeable amount of HF in the flue

7
P. Sturm et al. Fire Safety Journal 134 (2022) 103695

CO are at a height of 6.4 m (sensor 2.1), 4.8 m (sensor 2.2) and 1.6 m
(sensor 2.3) above the road surface. The temperature values are given
for the soffit (T2.1) as well as for 6 m (T2.4) and 2 m (T2.8) above the
road surface. Neither the CO concentration nor the temperature values
reached critical values in the region up to 2 m above the road surface.
Table 3 shows the concentration values of different pollutants
measured during the fire tests. In terms of the IDLH 30 health criteria
(immediate danger to life and health, 30-min exposure time [26]), it can
be seen that for the two BEVs with 80 kWh batteries, the threshold value
for HF was violated within the smoke layer, but at a height of 1.6 m
above road level (i.e. the relevant region for a tunnel user). Otherwise,
the measured values were always far below the critical values.

Fig. 11. Peak heat release rates as a function of the energy stored in Li-Ion
3.2. Fire fighting
batteries, modified from [14].

One or more attempts were made to extinguish the fire in all of the
gases was confirmed by experiments with BEV fires [12]. Both BEVs
BEV tests. Water was always the main extinguishing agent used. How­
tested produced 60%–80% more HF compared to the ICEVs. Tests with
ever, experience has shown that lithium-ion batteries are only success­
full battery elements showed that metals such as cobalt, lithium, man­
fully extinguished if the water reaches the inside of the battery. External
ganese, and also F-aerosols, HF and Phosphine (PH3) are all to be found
cooling of a burning but only slightly damaged battery is hardly effec­
in relevant amounts as flue gases, but a risk for human health is expected
tive. The previous operations of the fire brigade revealed that several
to occur only in enclosed spaces with limited air exchange, e.g. garages
1000 L of extinguishing water may be required. If the water can pene­
[25]. Measurements performed as part of the ETOX project [14] showed
trate into the battery housing, the cooling effect increases and the
a clear dependency of the HF-emission quantity on the electrical energy
necessary water requirement is noticeably reduced.
stored in modern batteries (see also Fig. 12). On average the production
The use of a fire blanket to reduce the size of the fire by reducing the
rate was found to be in the range of 300 mg/Wh.
oxygen supply, and use of an extinguishing lance to introduce water
There are far fewer well-documented full-scale vehicle fire tests than
directly into the battery housing were also investigated as alternative
tests on batteries. As with battery fires, the pollutant hydrogen fluoride
extinguishing methods.
HF, is the additional critical component in BEV fires. In contrast to the
impact of HRR, Collela et al. [23] reported that the SOC has an inverse
3.2.1. Usage of a fire blanket
effect on the SOC level of a LIB, and that lower SOC levels resulted in
Fire resistant blankets to minimize the oxygen content in the flame
higher amounts of released HF. It should be noted, however, that due to
area and smother the fire are a useful tool in vehicle fire-fighting. Fig. 14
the evaporation/combustion of the air conditioning coolant, HF also
shows the development of the HRR over time during test BV01. When
occurs in conventional vehicle fires, albeit at high concentrations of very
the fire blanket was applied (at ~500 s), the fire was already fully
short duration. In BEV fires, however, there is a second, noticeably
developed and the battery totally involved (in BV01 the fire was initi­
longer, emission period.
ated in the battery compartment). This results in a strong reduction in
While the quantitative data for these gases varies noticeably across
HRR. However, from the moment the fire spreads to the battery, strong
the individual tests depending on the chemistry used in the battery,
flames near the ground make it extremely difficult to keep the fire
qualitatively speaking, it can be stated that the relevant concentrations
blanket over the entire vehicle (Fig. 15). The dynamics of the flames and
are as expected. HF was detected in relevant doses in the tests carried out
the oxygen self-sufficiency of the battery prevent the fire blanket from
in 2012 at INERIS [12] and as part of the ETOX project [14]. Willstrand
having a positive effect. After a few minutes, the attempt had to be
et al. [14] list the measured HF emission levels of different experiments
stopped and the fire blanket removed.
(Fig. 12). The scatter of the measured values is very high and a trend is
not discernible. Compared to the data published by INERIS [25], the
3.2.2. Use of a fire fighting lance
current cell chemistry appears to release significantly less HF. HF
Dealing with the problem of injecting water directly into the battery
measurements for BEV with 80 kWh batteries performed in the BRAFA
housing led to the development of fire lances. The effect of such a device
project [18] confirmed the trendline derived from the ETOX tests.
can be seen from Fig. 9. Conventional fire fighting started at time step
Within the BRAFA project, gas measurements were performed at
1080 s. However, although almost all flammable material had been
different locations inside the tunnel (see section 4.3.1). Fig. 13 depicts,
consumed, the fire continued to re-ignite from the battery as the re­
as an example, the results from BEV01, a compact car with an 80 kWh
actions inside the battery were still going on. This can be observed from
NMC battery at a distance of 16 m downstream of the fire. The profiles of
the temperature curve in Fig. 9, where the temperature in the battery
constantly increases although the overall fire load is already drastically
reduced. At time step 1260 s the battery casing was punctured by a fire
lance, a quite small amount of water was injected, and the temperature
dropped immediately, resulting in a full extinction of the fire (see Fig. 16
left).
The efficiency of the fire lance was demonstrated in a test, where the
whole 80 kWh battery pack of a BEV was set on fire by flooding the
battery with liquid NaCl, resulting in simultaneous short-circuiting of
the majority of the cells (see Fig. 16 right). After letting the fire develop
another few minutes, a fire lance penetrated the battery casing and with
around 30 l water it was possible to stop the thermal runaway and
extinguish the fire within 2 min.

Fig. 12. HF-Emission quantity as a function of the energy stored in Li-Ion

batteries [14], extended by results from [18].

8
P. Sturm et al. Fire Safety Journal 134 (2022) 103695

Fig. 13. BEV fire test; vertical temperature distribution and CO concentration, 80 kWh battery [18].

Table 3
Pollutant concentrations of full-scale BEV and ICE fires at 16 m downstream of the fire location at different heights above road surface [18].
Test-Nr. HCl [mg/m3] SO2 [mg/m3] H3PO4 [mg/m3] HF [mg/m3]

Location ② ② ② ②

Height 6.4 m 4.8 m 1.6 m 6.4 m 4.8 m 1.6 m 6.4 m 4.8 m 1.6 m 6.4 m 4.8 m 1.6 m
BV01 (BEV) 61.8 31.0 4.4 2.8 14.3 1.5 2.5 1.3 0.3 38.4 10.3 13.5
BV02 (BEV) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
BV03 (ICE) 61.2 32.1 0.9 0.9 3.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 8.3 3.2 0.7
BV04 (ICE) n/a 6.3 n/a n/a 3.7 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a * n/a
BV05 (BEV) 18.8 35.0 2.6 0.5 9.3 0.7 n/a n/a n/a 17.3 20.1 5.3
IDLH-30 81 286 1092 27

n/a ¼ not analyzed * ¼ below detection limit TU Graz/BRAFA project.

Fig. 14. Effect of the application of the fire blanket on HRR.

3.3. Water pollution and surface deposition to examine the level of contamination due to pollutants. The sampling
point was inside the drainage system. Reference values for contamina­
Samples from the extinguishing water were taken after the fire tests tion are given by a waste water treatment guideline. Although the

9
P. Sturm et al. Fire Safety Journal 134 (2022) 103695

Fig. 15. Usage of a fire blanket, (image TU Graz, Lunghammer).

Fig. 16. Use of the fire lance to fully extinguish a BEV fire (left), application to a battery floorplate of a BEV (right), both cases 80 kWh NMC battery.

dilution ratio was quite high in most of the experiments, problems were
detected for nickel and cobalt. For both metals the relevant threshold
values were exceeded. This is not a problem for road tunnels and open
streets where the run-off water is collected in special basins and a waste
water treatment is foreseen, but it might be in locations without such
facilities.
Surface deposition was measured at 40 and 90 m downstream of the
fire location. Fig. 17 shows the deposition values recorded during the
BEV experiments. The three main components of the investigated bat­
teries (LMO and NMC), nickel, manganese and cobalt are dominant. A
clear trend in deposition as a function of distance to the fire was not
detected in the collection sheets.
4. Conclusion
The increase in the number of vehicles with alternative propulsion
technologies in road tunnels is expected to change the nature of tunnel
safety risk. Currently, battery electric vehicles are becoming more and
more popular. The current standard of the energy storage device (bat­
tery) is based on Li-Ion technology, the combustion behaviour of which
is known to differ to that of conventional fuels, and which is likely to
result in more difficult firefighting conditions. Investigations to date
have mainly focussed on fire tests of individual battery cells or packs and
have been backed up by a few full-scale experiments with BEV. How­
ever, none of these tests were performed in real road tunnels. In order to

Fig. 17. Surface deposition at different distances from fire source, 90 m (TEM20) and 20 m (TM70) downstream of the fire.

10
P. Sturm et al.
close this gap in the research, the Austrian Government recently
commissioned a research project focussing on full-scale fire tests of BEV
under real world tunnel conditions. The ensuing investigations focused
on the fire characteristics (heat release rate, pollutants), on fire fighting
methods and on the impact of a BEV fire on the tunnel infrastructure.
Within the framework of this research project multiple fire tests on
battery modules and five full-scale tests of passenger car fires were
performed in a tunnel environment. The results can be summarized as
follows:
• The heat release rate of a BEV is higher than that of conventionally
fuelled vehicles. However, how much additional heat is released
depends very much on the extent to which the battery is involved in
the fire. The maximum of the detected HRR amounted to 8 MW for a
modern SUV with an 80 kWh NMC battery.
• Hydrogen fluoride is the most critical combustion product contrib­
uted by BEV vehicle fires. However, concentration levels exceeding
critical threshold values for human health were found only in the
smoke layer at relatively large heights. At heights of 1.6 m above the
roadway, the detected concentration levels stayed below the
threshold values.
• Alternative firefighting methods, e.g. fire blankets and fire lances
were also examined. The usage of fire blankets was not successful
once the battery had become involved in the fire. In such a situation,
the high fire dynamics, together with the self-supply of oxygen stored
in the battery prevent the flames from suffocating. The usage of a fire
lance to inject water directly into the battery casing proved to be very
efficient. The battery fire could be extinguished within a very short
time with a small amount of water. However, the application of such
a fire lance requires the possibility of a direct approach to the vehicle
and well-trained fire fighters.
• It was found that the internal cooling system of modern batteries is
very efficient and will delay battery involvement in a vehicle fire – as
long as the battery itself is not the source of the fire.
• The drainage water contained some metals such as nickel and cobalt,
and in concentrations high enough to require special treatment.
• The results from these tests have also become part of risk assessment
studies for Austrian tunnels (not reported in this paper). The results
presented in detail in Refs. [18,27] showed that even a strong in­
crease in BEVs in tunnels will not require any significant change in
current Austrian tunnel safety standards.
• The full-scale fire tests performed within the framework of the
BRAFA project covered vehicles in the size of passenger cars. Nu­
merical simulations of heavy-duty vehicle fires (reported in
Ref. [18]) showed that the simulated temperatures resulted in severe
damage to the tunnel structure. However, these results were strongly
influenced by assumptions concerning the fire development and
burning duration of the battery. Experimental verification of these
parameters is still lacking.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re­
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
Peter Sturm reports financial support was provided by Austrian
Research Promotion Agency.
Data availability
Data is publicly available: https://doi.org/10.3217/ysgwn-3a318,
Graz, 2021; Data in brief is available under DIB-D-22-01873.
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by the Austrian Government, Federal Min­
istry for Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and
11
Fire Safety Journal 134 (2022) 103695
Technology (BMK) and the Austrian motorway and expressway operator
(ASFINAG). The project was managed by the Austrian Research Pro­
motion Agency (FFG) under grant no. 873151. The authors express their
thanks to the funding organisations. Special thanks to Mrs. DI Sonja
Wiesholzer (BMK) and Mr. Günter Rattei (ASFINAG) for supporting and
supervising the project on behalf of the funding organisations. Special
thanks are also due to Andrea Schirmer, Thomas Nöst, Philip Leonhardt
and Alexander Hödl (all Graz University of Technology) and Bernhard
Reinwald (Montanuniversität Leoben) for their valuable support during
the measurement campaigns. The fire tests were supervised by the
professional fire brigade of the City of Linz (Austria) and the fire bri­
gades of VOEST Alpine Erzberg and the City of Eisenerz.
References
[1] M. Schludermann, „Ausbauübersicht Tunnel Bundesstraßen A und S: Stand Jänner
2020, 2020. Vienna.
[2] R. Spotnitz, J. Franklin, „Abuse behavior of high-power, lithium-ion cells, J. Power
Sources (2003) 81–100.
[3] J. Jiang, J. Dahn, „ARC studies of the thermal stability of three different cathode
materials: LiCoO2; Li[Ni0.1Co0.8Mn0.1]O2; and LiFePO4, in LiPF6 and LiBoB EC/
DEC electrolytes, Electrochem. Commun. (2004) 39–43.
[4] Q. Wang, P. Ping, X. Zhao, G. Chu, J. Sun, C. Chen, „Thermal runaway caused fire
and explosion of lithium ion battery, J. Power Sources (2012) 210–224.
[5] A. Golubkov, D. Fuchs, J. Wagner, H. Witsche, C. Stangl, G. Fauler, G. Voitic,
A. Thaler, „Thermal-runaway experiments on consumer Li-ion batteries with metal-
oxide and olivin-type cathodes, RSC Adv. (2014) 3633–3642.
[6] F. Larsson, S. Bertilsson, M. Furlani, I. Albinsson, B.-E. Mellander, „Gas explosions
and thermal runaways during external heating abuse of commercial lithium-ion
graphite-LiCoO2 cells at different levels of ageing, J. Power Sources (2018)
220–231.
[7] F. Larsson, B.-E. Mellander, „Abuse by external heating, overcharge and short
circuit of commercial lithium-ion battery cells, J. Electrochem. Soc. (2014)
A1611–A1617.
[8] S. Santhanagopalan, P. Ramadass, J. Zhang, „Amnalysis of internal short-circuit in
a lithium ion cell, J. Power Sources (2009) 550–557.
[9] B. Truchot, F. Fouillen, S. Collet, „An experimental evaluation of toxic gas
emissions from vehicle fires, Fire Saf. J. (2018) 111–118.
[10] N. Watanabe, „Comparison of fire behaviors of an electric-battery-powered vehicle
and gasoline-powered vehicle in a real-scale fire test, in: Second International
Conference on Fires in Vehicles, 2012. Chicago, United States.
[11] C. Lam, „Full-Scale fire testing of electric and internal combustion engine vehicles,
in: Fourth International Conference on Fire in Vehicles, Baltimaore, United States,
2016.
[12] A. Lecocq, „Comparison of the fire consequences of an electric vehicle and an
internal combustion engine vehicle, in: 2. International Conference on Fires in
Vehicles - FIVE 2012, 2012. Chicago, United States.
[13] R. Bisshop, O. Willstrand, F. Amon, M. Rosengren, „Fire safety of lithium-ion
batteries in road vehicles, RISE Report 50 (2019). Sweden, 2019.
[14] O. Willstrand, R. Bisschop, P. Blomqvist, A. Temple, J. Anderson, „Toxic gases from
fire in electric vehicles, RISE Report 90 (2020), 978-91-89167-75-9 (electronic),
2020.
[15] F. Leismann, F. Baum, S. Palis, S. Voigt, F.A. Sträubig, S. Amecke-Mönninghoff,
M. Lakkonen, „Improving the safety of urban underground Transport areas due to
the use of new energy carriers, in: Bd. Proceedings of the WTC, 2019, 2019.
[16] C. LaFleur, A.M. Glover, A.R. Baird, C.J. Jordan, B.D. Erhart, „Alternative Fuel
Vehicles in Tunnels,“ Sandia Report SAND 2020-5466, Sandia National
Laboratories, 2020.
[17] BRAFA, 05 05 2022. [Online]. Available: https://projekte.ffg.at/projekt
e/3290205.
[18] P. Sturm, P. Fößleitner, D. Fruhwirt, S. Heindl, O. Heger, R. Galler, R. Wenighofer,
S. Krausbar, “BRAFA”-Brandauswirkungen von Fahrzeugen mit alternativen
Antriebssystemen, Graz University of Technology, Graz, 2021, https://doi.org/
10.3217/8vj91-gc832.
[19] ZAB, 05 05 2022. [Online]. Available: www.zab.at.
[20] S. Bauer, AkkuWelt, Würzburg, Vogel Business media, 2017, p. 221.
[21] P. Fößleitner, P. Sturm, “BRAFA”-Project, Measurement Data, Data Repository,
Graz University of Technology, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3217/ysgwn-3a318.
[22] A.W. Golubkov, S. Sheikl, R. Planteu, G. Voitic, H. Wiltsche, C. Stangl, G. Fauler,
A. Thaler, V. Hacker, „Thermal runaway of commercial 18650 Li-ion batteries with
LFP and NCA cathodes - impact of state of charge and overcharge, RSC Advances,
Nr 5 (2015) 57171–57186.
[23] F. Larsson, P. Andersson, P. Blomquist, A. Lorén, B.-E. Mellander, „Characteristics
of lithium-ion batteries during fire tests, Journal of Power Sources, Bd. 271 (2014)
414–420.
[24] F. Colella, H. Biteau, N. Ponchaut, K. Marr, V. Somandepalli, Q. Horn, R. Long,
„Electric vehicle fires, in: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on
Tunnel Safety and Security, 2016.
P. Sturm et al. Fire Safety Journal 134 (2022) 103695

[25] L.D. Mellert, Electric mobility and road tunnel safety, in: Peter Sturm (Ed.), 9th [27] B. Kohl, O. Heger, A. Lehan, P. Fößleitner, Quantitative risk assessment approaches
International Conference “Tunnel Safety and Ventilation”, IVT-Reports, Graz, for new energy carriers in road tunnels, in: PIARC 2nd International Conference on
2018. ISBN: 987-3-85125-606-2. Road Tunnel Operations and Safety vol. 22, ATC, October 2022.
[26] National Center for Biotechnology Information, PubChem database: hydrofluoric
acid - CID=14917 [Online]. Available: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/compound/Hydrofluoric-acid, 15 Mai 2020.

12