Korea opinion for

“Fire resistance test”

Sep. 15, 2015

Korea Transportation Safety Authority (TS)

Korea Automobile Testing & Research Institute (KATRI)

Seulki Lee Senior Researcher

UN ECE / WP29 / GRSP/ 9th EVS Informal Meeting in Changchun China (5th TFG-7 F2F Meeting)

EVS TF-04-XXe

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’

Open issues( EVS-08-22e)

1. Open issues of TF-7

Part 1. Short Duration Fire Resistance Test1. Gasoline pool test vs. LPG burner test – equivalency etc.2. Necessity to define a single or multiple test methods3. Necessity to provide temperature profile regarding to starting condition4. How to define the temperature sensor location5. Need to measure heat flux of LPG burner test6. Necessity to define a specification of test equipment7. 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 8. Define the proper test method for long duration test9. Basic issues of the fire resistance test such as purpose, definition of long

term, exposure time, etc.10.Detailed working plan and timeline by US and Canada

1/22

Main issue

1. Open issues of TF-7

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.

2/22

Test method

Gasoline pool fire test LPG burner fire test Remark

Component based test

• 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

Vehicle based test

• 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- • It is possible to make thermal energy

equivalency with gasoline test if expo-sure time is extended.

The purpose of 1998 Agreement

2. Review of TOR

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 ef-ficiency, 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 per-formance within the global community, and to ensure that actions under this Agreement do not pro-mote, 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 ac-tivities 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 institu-tional autonomy of either Agreement.

3/22

TOR of EVS IWG

2. Review of TOR

Terms of Reference for the informal group on Electric Vehicle Safety (EVS)

2. OBJECTIVE OF THE PROPOSALThe 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 re-quirements 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 in-lets, 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

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 ap-

proved.

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

CountryMost of countries (EU, China, Japan, Australia

etc.) Korea, Canada, USA

Post Manage-ment

COP(Conformity of Product)Compliance test

Recall

2. Review of TOR

5/22

Com-ment 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.

6/22

Comparison flame temperatures

LPG burning with small mockupGasoline free burning (small

pool)Gasoline burning with small

mockup

LPG burning with large mockupGasoline 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.

3. Review of current research results

Compare LPG burner with Gasoline pool fire test

Canada Research Result

TC Tree- Calibration

Time (s)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Te

mp

era

ture

(°C

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

TC 1TC 2TC 3TC 4TC 5TC 6TC 7

A1-003760 Fuel Fire Thermocouple 1-7( tree)

Time (s)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300T

em

pe

ratu

re (

°C)

0

200

400

600

800

1000TC 1 TC 2 TC 3 TC 4 TC 5 TC 5 TC 6 TC 7

25

L G

asolin

eP

rop

an

e

Gasoline Fire Heat Release Rate

Time (s)

0 100 200 300

Hea

t Rel

ease

Rat

e (k

W)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000Heat Release Rate

Heat Release Rate - Calibration

Time (s)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Hea

t R

elea

se R

ate

(kW

)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Heat Release Rate

Heat Release Rate Flame Temperature

Flame temperature in Canada test result using propane sand burner shows sim-ilar 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

8/22

LPG Direct exposure, 120[s] Pre-heating30[s]Direct expo-sure expand

30[s]SUM

ParameterHeat Flux[kW/m2]

Thermal En-ergy

[kJ/m2]

Thermal Energy[kJ/m2]

Total Energy[kJ/m2]

Total Energy[kJ/m2]

Small Mockup 275 32,992 4,124 8,248 37,116 (45,364)

Large Mockup 118 14,158 1,770 3,54015,928 (19,468)

Total Energy per unit area by CFD simulation

Gasoline Phase B, 70[s] Phase C, 60[s] SUM

ParameterHeat Flux[kW/m2]

Thermal En-ergy

[kJ/m2]

Heat Flux[kW/m2]

Thermal En-ergy

[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.

800 ℃ Reaching Time

Comparison thermal energy

3. Review of current research results

9/22

Test Result

< LPG >

Comparison component based test (PRIUS REESS)

Temp. distribution

- Avg. Temp. (150 sec from igni-

tion)

ㆍ Inside : 287 ℃

ㆍ Bottom : 800 ℃

- Avg. Temp. (40 min from ignition)

ㆍ Inside : 159 ℃

- Max. Temp. : 887 ℃

Temp. distribution

- Avg. Temp. (150 sec from igni-

tion)

ㆍ Inside : 408 ℃

ㆍ Bottom : 755 ℃

- Avg. Temp.(40 min from igni-

tion)

ㆍ Inside : 154 ℃

- Max. Temp. : 872 ℃< LPG burner test>

< Gasoline pool fire test >

< Gasoline >

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 tem-perature trend

until they burn out eventually.

Comment

3. Review of current research results

10/22

Test Result

Inside appearance after test

Gasoline pool fire testLPG burner 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.

3. Review of current research results

11/22

Test Result

Internal temperature comparison test (PRIUS REESS Case)

Measurement LPG Gasoline

Avg. Temp. 150 sec 130 sec

- REESS Inside 557 ℃ 678 ℃

- REESS Bot-tom

838 ℃ 690 ℃

Max. Temp. 939 ℃ 887 ℃

LPG burner fire Gasoline pool fire

Measurement LPG Gasoline Avg. Temp. 150 sec 130 sec - REESS Inside 109 ℃ 37 ℃ - REESS Bot-tom

122 ℃ 38 ℃

- Body inside 141 ℃ 35 ℃ - Body Bottom(High)

693 ℃ 570 ℃

- Body Bottom(Low)

872 ℃ 537 ℃

Max. Temp. 976 ℃ 887 ℃

Ve

hic

le

Compare Component test vs Vehicle test

Co

mp

o-

ne

nt

3. Review of current research results

12/22

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 temper-

ature 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 proce-

dure 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 compo-

nent

and vehicle based test. If performing vehicle based test with REESS, it may not be damaged as

low

temperature.

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

3. Review of current research results

4. Review of test purpose

14/22

Purpose of Fire resis-tance 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 vehi-

cle).

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 Sys-

tem,

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.

15/22

<Source : National Fire Data System, Ministry of Public Safety and Security, Republic of Korea>

Annual Status of the en-tire 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 ma-terials 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 ve-hicle fire accounts for approximately 160 people and 7%, that is relatively lower than per-centage of fire cases occurred due to vehicle.<Annual status of the entire fire> <Annual status of personal injury due to

fire>

Building(resident) Building(non-resident) Vehicle Hazardous materials, Railway, ship, Forest land Others Gasworks etc. Aircraft etc.

4. Review of test purpose

16/22

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 in-

jured, 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 >

4. Review of test purpose

17/22

<Source : National Fire Data System, Ministry of Public Safety and Security, Republic of Korea >

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, me-

chanical, 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 >

4. Review of test purpose

18/22

Source : National Fire Data System, Ministry of Public Safety and Security

The fire accident due to fuel leaking from fuel tank and line is 15 cases and can be ac-counted 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.

<Source : National Fire Data System, Ministry of Public Safety and Security, Republic of Korea >

< The ignition part of automobile for vehicle fire in 2014 >

4. Review of test purpose

19/22

Comment

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.

In case of Korea, fire caused by vehicle happened about 5,700 times yearly which ac-

count for 13%

among all fire. As xEV market is getting bigger, verification of the safety for REESS fire resis-

tance is essential. In vehicle fires, main causes were vehicle defects(57%) and secondly, car acci-

dents(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 neces-

sary 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.

4. Review of test purpose

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 per-

formance in fire >

< Annex 3 – Appendix A TEST METHODS >

UN R110 (CNG vehicles)

LPG is a suitable re-source to get high re-sponse and controllabil-ity.

Any fuel can be used but, should consider air pollution cencerns and reproducibility.

5. Review of other regulations

20/22

( 7min @ 600℃ +800 ℃ )

( 5min @ 590℃ )

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℃ )

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.

Comment

21/22

5. Review of other regulations

6. Korea opinion for ‘Fire resistance test’

22/22

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 be-tween

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.

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 purpose of this test is to verify the resistance of the REESS in case of the vehi-cle fire.

This situation should leave the driver and passengers with enough time to evacuate.

Thank you!