EVS TF-04-XXe
9th
UN ECE / WP29 / GRSP/
EVS Informal Meeting in Changchun
th
China (5 TFG-7 F2F Meeting)
Korea opinion for
“Fire resistance test”
Sep. 15, 2015
Seulki Lee
Senior Researcher
Korea Transportation Safety Authority (TS)
Korea Automobile Testing & Research Institute (KATRI)
Contents
1. Open issues of TF-7
2. Review of TOR
3. Review of current research results
4. Review of test purpose
5. Review of other regulations
6. Korea opinion for ‘Fire resistance test’
1. Open issues of TF-7
 Open issues( EVS-08-22e)
Part 1. Short Duration Fire Resistance Test
1. Gasoline pool test vs. LPG burner test – equivalency etc.
2. Necessity to define a single or multiple test methods
3. Necessity to provide temperature profile regarding to starting condition
4. How to define the temperature sensor location
5. Need to measure heat flux of LPG burner test
6. Necessity to define a specification of test equipment
7. How to justify performing the vehicle test on a mock up structure with the
combustible materials removed.
☞ # 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 : Should be considered after making a decision for # 1, 2 above
Part 2. Long Duration Fire Resistance Test
1. Define the proper test method for long duration test
2. Basic issues of the fire resistance test such as purpose, definition of long term,
exposure time, etc.
3. Detailed working plan and timeline by US and Canada
1/22
1. Open issues of TF-7
 Main issue
 The task of TF-7 is to study and discuss on fire resistance test procedure of REESS 7.2.6.3.2
which has been proposed by Korea as an alternative.
 Korea proposal is based on component level. But, possibility of vehicle based test was considered
by request. So we have 4 types of test method for fire resistance test optionally.
 4 test methods are a burden to manufacturer. Depending on the purpose of GTR, it needs to
define a single method or reduce the number of test methods.
Test method
Component
based test
Vehicle
based test
Gasoline pool fire test
Remark
• Thermal Energy : High
• Flame control : Impossible
• Flame temperature : Uneven
• Occurred waste water,
• Gasoline smoke : Plenty
• Thermal Energy : Lower than Gasoline
• Flame control : Possible
• Flame temperature : Even
• No waste water
• Combustion smoke : Few
• High severity
compared to
vehicle level
• Temp. of DUT : Lower than LPG
• Temp. of DUT : Low
• Need to adjust the condition of temp. by
shape of vehicle body
• Removal
combustible
materials
in vehicle
Remark
LPG burner fire test
• It is possible to make thermal energy
equivalency with gasoline test if exposure
time is extended.
2/22
2. Review of TOR
 The purpose of 1998 Agreement
CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHING OF GLOBAL TECHNICAL REGULATIONS FOR WHEELED
VEHICLES, EQUIPMENT AND PARTS WHICH CAN BE FITTED AND/OR BE USED ON
WHEELED VEHICLES
1.1. The purpose of this Agreement is:
1.1.1. To establish a global process by which Contracting Parties from all regions of the world can jointly develop
global technical regulations regarding the safety, environmental protection, energy efficiency, and anti-theft
performance of wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles;
1.1.2. To ensure that, in developing global technical regulations, due and objective consideration is given to the
existing technical regulations of Contracting Parties, and to the UN/ECE Regulations;
1.1.3. To ensure that objective consideration is given to the analysis of best available technology, relative benefits
and cost effectiveness as appropriate in developing global technical regulations;
1.1.4. To ensure that the procedures used in developing global technical regulations are transparent;
1.1.5. To achieve high levels of safety, environmental protection, energy efficiency, and anti-theft performance within
the global community, and to ensure that actions under this Agreement do not promote, or result in, a lowering of
these levels within the jurisdiction of Contracting Parties, including the subnational level;
1.1.6. To reduce technical barriers to international trade through harmonizing existing technical regulations of
Contracting Parties, and UN/ECE Regulations, and developing new global technical regulations governing safety,
environmental protection, energy efficiency and anti-theft performance of wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts
which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles, consistent with the achievement of high levels of safety and
environment protection and the other above-stated purposes; and
1.1.7. To ensure that, where alternative levels of stringency are needed to facilitate the regulatory activities of certain
countries, in particular developing countries, such needs are taken into consideration in developing and establishing
global technical regulations.
1.2. This Agreement is to operate in parallel with the 1958 Agreement, without affecting the institutional autonomy of
either Agreement.
3/22
2. Review of TOR
 TOR of EVS IWG
Terms of Reference for the informal group on Electric Vehicle Safety (EVS)
2. OBJECTIVE OF THE PROPOSAL
The GTR will address the unique safety risks posed by EVs and their components. It will be performance-based to the
extent possible so as not to restrict future technology development. It will be preceded by an exchange of information on
current and future planned domestic regulatory safety requirements for electric vehicles based on section C of the formal
proposal, (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2012/36 and its Corr1) including the underlying scientific and technical basis and research.
The GTR will cover high voltage electrical safety, electrical components such as electric connectors and inlets, and
REESS-- in particular those containing flammable electrolyte. The provisions will address the safety of electric vehicles,
both in-use and post-crash. The key items would be as follows:
a. In-use--normal operation of the vehicle excluding maintenance and repair:
c) Safety requirements for REESS risks, including thermal shock, thermal cycling, mechanical shock, over-discharge,
isolation resistance, over-charge, vibration, fire resistance and short circuit, etc.
b. During and post-crash:
To the extent possible, the experts of the subgroup will develop the GTR using the following processes:
∙ Identify potential safety risks specific to EVs
∙ Develop and evaluate the requirements by reviewing analyses and evaluations conducted to support the requirements;
Develop and validate test procedures using existing evaluations and research;
and
∙ Avoid design-restrictive requirements and provisions that are not technically supported
4/22
2. Review of TOR
 Difference of Certification System
 Type Approval
 Type approval is the confirmation that production samples of a design will meet specified
performance standards. The specification of the product is recorded and only that specification is
approved.
 Self-certification
 Vehicle manufacturers, assemblers and importers need to assure (self-certification) that their vehicles
are compliant with the rules on safety standards by themselves.
 Government do defects investigation after vehicle sales.
Type Approval
Self-certification
Country
Most of countries (EU, China, Japan, Australia etc.)
Korea, Canada, USA
Post Management
COP(Conformity of Product)
Compliance test
Recall
 Comment
 Countries have a different stance which certification system is adopted.
 Reproducibility is one of the important factor for compliance test in self-certification system.
 There should be the same result whenever the test is performed.
5/22
3. Review of current research results
Compare LPG burner with Gasoline pool fire test
 Comparison flame temperatures
LPG burning with small mockup
Gasoline free burning (small pool)
Gasoline burning with small mockup
LPG burning with large mockup
Gasoline free burning (large pool)
Gasoline burning with large mockup
 Gasoline pool fire test shows a large deviation of flame temperature at the same height.
 Otherwise LPG burner fire test shows a small deviation of flame temperature at the bottom of
DUT stably.
6/22
3. Review of current research results
 A1-003760
FlameFuelTemperature
Fire Thermocouple 1-7( tree)
 Canada Research Result
 Heat
Release
Rate
Rate
Fire Heat Release
Gasoline
7000
Heat Release Rate
6500
TC 1
TC 2
TC 3
TC 4
TC 5
TC 5
TC 6
TC 7
6000
5500
Heat Release Rate (kW)
800
Temperature (°C)
25L Gasoline
1000
600
400
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
200
1000
500
TC Tree- Calibration
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Heat Release Rate - Calibration
0
300
Time (s)
Time (s)
4000
1000
TC 1
TC 2
TC 3
TC 4
TC 5
TC 6
TC 7
Temperature (°C)
800
700
600
Heat Release Rate
3500
Heat Release Rate (kW)
900
Propane
300
200
100
0
500
400
300
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
200
500
100
0
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Time (s)
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Time (s)
 Flame temperature in Canada test result using propane sand burner shows similar trend
with Korean result.
 Heat release rate of propane sand burner was maintained about 2,000kW.
 Heat release rate of gasoline pool is higher than propane sand burner. But It does not
entirely affect to DUT.
7/22
3. Review of current research results
 Comparison thermal energy
 Total Energy per unit area by CFD simulation
LPG
800 ℃ Reaching Time
Direct exposure
expand 30[s]
Thermal Energy Thermal Energy Total Energy
[kJ/m2]
[kJ/m2]
[kJ/m2]
Direct exposure, 120[s]
Pre-heating30[s]
Parameter
Heat Flux
[kW/m2]
Small Mockup
275
32,992
4,124
8,248
Large Mockup
118
14,158
1,770
3,540
Gasoline
Phase B, 70[s]
Phase C, 60[s]
SUM
Total Energy
[kJ/m2]
37,116
(45,364)
15,928
(19,468)
SUM
Parameter
Heat Flux
[kW/m2]
Thermal Energy
[kJ/m2]
Heat Flux
[kW/m2]
Thermal Energy
[kJ/m2]
Total Energy
[kJ/m2]
Small Pool
433
30,333
333
23,333
53,667
Large Pool
160
11,200
105
7,350
18,550
 Comment
 The thermal energy per unit area of gasoline pool fire test is 44% higher than LPG burner fire test for
the small, and 16% higher than LPG burner fire test for the large.
 To make a thermal energy per unit area equivalency between LPG burner and gasoline pool, direct
exposure time of LPG burner test should be extended about 30 seconds additionally.
8/22
3. Review of current research results
 Test Result
 Comparison component based test (PRIUS REESS)
< LPG >
 Temp. distribution
< Gasoline >
 Temp. distribution
- Avg. Temp. (150 sec from ignition)
- Avg. Temp. (150 sec from ignition)
ㆍInside : 287 ℃
ㆍInside : 408 ℃
ㆍBottom : 800 ℃
ㆍBottom : 755 ℃
- Avg. Temp. (40 min from ignition)
- Avg. Temp.(40 min from ignition)
ㆍInside : 159 ℃
ㆍInside : 154 ℃
- Max. Temp. : 887 ℃
- Max. Temp. : 872 ℃
< LPG burner test>
< Gasoline pool fire test >
 Comment
 Gasoline’s inside temperature is 100-200 ℃ higher than LPG during fire exposure time.
 After remove the fire resource, both DUTs burned themselves showing different temperature trend
until they burn out eventually.
9/22
3. Review of current research results
 Test Result
 Inside appearance after test
LPG burner Test
Gasoline pool fire test
 Comment
 The DUT of Gasoline pool fire test damaged more than LPG burner test comparatively due to higher
thermal energy
 The point where arcing happened is damaged more severely
 Both DUTs occurred arching within exposure time and after remove the fire source, they burned
themselves. The damage of DUTs are different due to difference of thermal energy, but it doesn’t
seem to really affect whether they explode or not.
10/22
3. Review of current research results
 Test Result
Compare Component test vs Vehicle test
 Internal temperature comparison test (PRIUS REESS Case)
Vehicle
Component
LPG burner fire
Gasoline pool fire
Measurement
LPG
Gasoline
150 sec
130 sec
- REESS Inside
557 ℃
678 ℃
- REESS Bottom
838 ℃
690 ℃
939 ℃
887 ℃
 Avg. Temp.
 Max. Temp.
Measurement
LPG
 Avg. Temp.
150 sec
- REESS Inside
109 ℃
- REESS Bottom
122 ℃
- Body inside
141 ℃
- Body Bottom(High) 693 ℃
- Body Bottom(Low) 872 ℃
 Max. Temp.
976 ℃
Gasoline
130 sec
37 ℃
38 ℃
35 ℃
570 ℃
537 ℃
887 ℃
11/22
3. Review of current research results
 Test Result
 Comment
 At the component based test, when we compared the LPG and Gasoline, the temperature of Gasoline is
100~200 ℃ higher than LPG difference of thermal energy.
 It is possible to perform vehicle based test with LPG burner, but some area at the bottom couldn’t
make the same condition as component level since the shape of underneath vehicle body. If we apply
LPG burner to the vehicle based test, we have to consider to change the parameter of temperature lower
than 800 ℃
 Vehicle based test may be more realistic than component based test for simulating exposure to fire from
outside of the vehicle due to a fuel spill from a vehicle which is written in purpose of current GTR draft. But
vehicle based test could not represent all real fire situation perfectly. Because the test procedure requires
to remove a combustible material in a vehicle and even apply the flame just to the size of the REESS not the
whole size of vehicle.
 According to the test result, there is a significant difference in temperature between component
and vehicle based test. If performing vehicle based test with REESS, it may not be damaged as low
temperature.
12/22
3. Review of current research results
 Canada Research Result
 No vehicle showed a catastrophic explosion,
although numerous pops, flares and fire jets
were expelled during the test indicative of
a reactive fire, which includes tires, shocks
and air bags.
 Transport Canada proposal:
• No test at the vehicle level
 If a fire testing is to be performed
at the component level;
• SOC should be at highest level that
the vehicle can charge the REESS
• 2 minutes is not sufficient to initiate
reactions within the REESS
• Suggestion is to follow/perform a test
similar to the UL 2580(min 590°C; 20 minutes;
pass criteria: no explosion) or a test similar to
the one specified in GTR 13 to assure
that the REESS case can contain cell venting
and explosion without affecting its structure.
13/22
4. Review of test purpose
 Purpose of Fire resistance test
 The purpose of this test is to verify the resistance of the REESS, against exposure to fire from outside of
the vehicle due to e.g. a fuel spill from a vehicle (either the vehicle itself or a nearby vehicle).
This situation should leave the driver and passengers with enough time to evacuate.
 Review of the purpose
 The situation described in current purpose represent too limited scope.
 Need to consider the purpose in terms of causes and status of real fire accident on vehicle.
 Analyzed the regular pattern of real vehicle fire based on a data from National Fire Data System,
Ministry of Public Safety and Security, Korea.
 A limitation of the data
∙ The cases include fire reported from the fire station and insurance company, there might be no missing
and overlap.
∙ xEV account for 0.75%(150,000 cars) among all vehicles(20 million cars) currently in Korea.
The data doesn’t show up xEV separately.
∙ The scale of fire and an event about a diffusion from other vehicles are not stated in the data.
14/22
4. Review of test purpose
 Annual Status of the entire fire
 The fire in Korea occurs annually 45,000 cases on average, building(residential) is 25%, building(non-
residential) is 36%, the vehicle is about 5,700 cases and 13%, hazardous materials and the gasworks 0.1%,
railways, aircraft and ships 0.3%, forest land 7%, and others 19%.
 Personal injury due to fire is about 2,000 people annually on average, the injury due to vehicle fire
accounts for approximately 160 people and 7%, that is relatively lower than percentage of fire cases
occurred due to vehicle.
<Annual status of the entire fire>
Building(resident)
Building(non-resident)
Vehicle
<Annual status of personal injury due to fire>
Hazardous materials,
Railway, ship,
Gasworks etc.
Aircraft etc.
<Source : National Fire Data System, Ministry of Public Safety and Security, Republic of Korea>
Forest land
Others
15/22
4. Review of test purpose
 Analysis on causes of vehicle fire in 2014
 In 2014, there was 4,462 cases of fire due to vehicle, result in 24 people dead, 94 people injured, and $ 18
million of property loss.
 Causes by vehicle defects such as electric and mechanical factor etc. are about 2,500 cases account for
57%, causes by accident are about 500 cases account for 11%, and causes by arson and suspected
arson are 230 cases account for 5%.
< Causes of fire in 2014 >
<Source : National Fire Data System, Ministry of Public Safety and Security, Republic of Korea >
16/22
4. Review of test purpose
 In case of vehicle fire, the ignition part of automobile is mainly electric wiring(25%), engine(24%), brake(8%),
battery(6%). The causes of ignition are mainly from vehicle defect(78%) such as electric, mechanical, chemical,
gas leak, and then accident (11%), inattention(3%), others(17%), arson(1%), unknown(6%)
< The ignition part of automobile for vehicle fire in 2014 >
<Source : National Fire Data System, Ministry of Public Safety and Security, Republic of Korea >
17/22
4. Review of test purpose
 The fire accident due to fuel leaking from fuel tank and line is 15 cases and can be accounted for about
only 0.7% among all fire accident(2,045 cases).
☞ The fire potential occurred by a diffusion of nearby vehicle’s fuel leakage gets even fewer.
< The ignition part of automobile for vehicle fire in 2014 >
Source : National Fire Data System, Ministry of Public Safety and Security
<Source : National Fire Data System, Ministry of Public Safety and Security, Republic of Korea >
18/22
4. Review of test purpose
 Comment
 In case of Korea, fire caused by vehicle happened about 5,700 times yearly which account for 13%
among all fire. As xEV market is getting bigger, verification of the safety for REESS fire resistance is essential.
 In vehicle fires, main causes were vehicle defects(57%) and secondly, car accidents(11%).
These figures is expected to be similar in terms of xEV. Some of parts caused fire would be
changed in xEV.(e.g Engine ☞ Electric motor, inverter etc.)
 A fire caused by gasoline spill from a nearby vehicle rarely happen. So, it is necessary to
redefine the appropriate purpose of fire resistance test and make a test procedure corresponds
to a new purpose.
☞ Need to analysis on status and causes of vehicle fire in other countries additionally.
 The purpose of this test is to verify the resistance of the REESS, against exposure to fire from outside
of the vehicle due to e.g. a fuel spill from a vehicle (either the vehicle itself or a nearby vehicle).
This situation should leave the driver and passengers with enough time to evacuate.
 The purpose of this test is to verify the resistance of the REESS in case of the vehicle fire.
This situation should leave the driver and passengers with enough time to evacuate.
19/22
5. Review of other regulations
 GTR 13. (Hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles)
< Ⅰ.E.1.(d) 67. Rationale for paragraphs 5.1.4. and 6.2.5. verification test for service-terminating performance in fire >
LPG is a suitable resource
to get high response and
controllability.
( 7min @ 600℃ +800 ℃ )
 UN R110 (CNG vehicles)
< Annex 3 – Appendix A TEST METHODS >
( 5min @ 590℃ )
Any fuel can be used but,
should consider air
pollution cencerns and
reproducibility.
20/22
5. Review of other regulations
 FMVSS 304 (CNG Fuel Container Integrity) TP 304-03 Dec. 8, 2003
< 12. Compliance test execution >
Diesel fuel or any other
fuel can be used as long
as that can maintain
required temperature.
( 20min @ 430℃ )
 Comment
 In other regulations, there are examples that shows LPG, diesel, or unspecified fuel is used in fire
test for gas container.
 Most of regulations specify the terms of temperature.
 The temperature is more confident controllable factor to reproduce same condition regardless of fuel.
21/22
6. Korea opinion for ‘Fire resistance test’
 Reproducibility is one of the important factor for compliance test in self-certification system.
 It is possible to make thermal energy equivalency of gasoline and LPG burner if direct
exposure time of LPG burner fire test is extended 30 seconds more.
 According to the test result, there is a significant difference in temperature condition between
component and vehicle based test.
 Vehicle based test could not represent all real fire situation perfectly because of a removal
of combustible materials and a small size of fire flame.
 According to the analysis of real vehicle fire based on a data from National Fire Data System
in Korea, a fire caused by gasoline spill from a nearby vehicle rarely happen.
 So it is necessary to redefine the appropriate purpose of fire resistance test and make
a test procedure corresponds to a changed purpose of fire resistance test.
 The purpose of this test is to verify the resistance of the REESS in case of the vehicle fire.
This situation should leave the driver and passengers with enough time to evacuate.
 In other regulations, there are examples that shows LPG, diesel, or unspecified fuel is used
in fire test for gas container. Most of regulations specify the terms of temperature.
22/22
Thank you!