Review of Design Fire Heat Release Rate for Tunnels with

Fire Suppression Systems

Yunlong Liu, Sean Cassady, Eric Jones, Petr Pospisil

HNTB Corporation, USA
E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Heat release rate (HRR) is one of the major components when developing design fire for fire
engineering design. Though numerous efforts have been taken during the past decades, there is no
consensus on nomination of a peak heat release rate when considering fire suppression effects for
various type of fire loads, such as flammable liquid cargo (FLC) tankers, heavy goods vehicles (HGV),
battery electric (BE) and hybrid drive cars, etc. The purpose of this paper is to initiate an open discussion
to develop credible design fire HRR, which may help engineers in designing tunnel fire & life safety
systems and structural fire engineering solutions.

KEYWORDS: Design fire, Fixed Fire Suppression, Fire Control, Shielded Fire, Heat release rate,
Tunnels

INTRODUCTION

Control of combustion processes developed during emergency fire scenarios using water-based
suppression agent including foam is a subject with many ongoing and active developments.
Effectiveness of the system configurations for fire control and/or suppression is influenced by several
parameters that need to be evaluated through testing and analysis. The designer of the tunnel system
requires to know the maximum heat release rate (HRR) if the tunnel will be provided with
suppression system. However, there is still no consensus on the design fire heat release rate for
design purpose. Peak HRR can be significantly reduced when fire suppression systems perform to
expectations for each type of tunnel fire loads, such as internal combustion engine (ICE) cars, battery
electric (BE) and hybrid drive cars, buses with ICE or BE / hybrid drives, heavy goods vehicles
(HGV) with ICE, BE or hydrogen powered fuel cells, Flammable Liquid Cargo (FLC) tankers,
hazardous goods, etc.

Previous work has ranged from component performance tests of spray nozzles to determine droplet
size and spray characterization to full scale gallery tests of overhead multiple sprinkler spray head
arrays on defined solid and liquid fuel packages. F. Tarada et al had recommended that heavy goods
vehicles fire peak heat release rate can be reduced by around 35% with the deluge operation [ISAVFT
15]. Ingason and Maevski have contributed significant efforts on road tunnel vehicles fires, based on
which NFPA 502 recommended some peak HRR values under fixed firefighting system (FFFS) for
several type of vehicles in tunnel. There is also extensive practical experience with the application of
deluge FFFS, particularly from Japan and Australia where such systems had been in operation for
decades. However, there is no widely accepted conclusions on the maximum fire heat release rate
which should be capped at for various type of vehicle fire scenarios when a suitable type of
suppression system is in full operation.

The main objective of this paper is to summarize the fire growth rate, peak heat release and the peak
1
temperature of different types of vehicles with a suitable type of fire suppression system
corresponding to its type of fire load. This work may serve as a start point for developing design fire
parameters for tunnel fire-life safety and structural fire durability design.

FREE BURN FIRE HRR WITHOUT FIRE SUPPRESSION

Free burn of fire without any suppression will develop a heat release rate controlled by ventilation and
the fuel, and its HRR is usually higher than the case with suppression system. In this paper, the free
burn fire will serve as the base cases to understand the suppression effects of various of fire
suppression systems.

Igor Maevski [1,2] has completed a comprehensive review of highway tunnel fires and published a
NCHRP Synthesis 415 in 2011. Based on tunnel fire incidents from 1949 to 2011, the review includes
45 tunnel fires where fire temperature of more than 1000 °C were achieved. PIARC Design Fire
Characteristics For Road Tunnels[29] also summarized the heat release rates for various type of
vehicles. Based on PIARC [21] as shown in the Table below that there are 8 truck fires happens for
every 100 million driven kilometres, and at least one of them involves damages to the tunnel.

Table 2.3.3 of PIARC Fire and Smoke Control in Tunnels 05.05B, La Defense, France, 1999 [21].

Since fire characteristics of each type of vehicle fire are different, fire HRR of each type of vehicles
are discussed separately.

Heavy Goods vehicles (HGV)

The most known fire tests which represent heavy goods vehicles is Ingason’s tunnel vehicle fire
tests[3], which recorded a peak fire heat release rate of 203 MW. HRR grew approximately at a t-
squared ultra-fast rate. Tunnel gas temperature reached 1365 °C. Figure 1 shows the 2003 Runehamar
tunnel fire HRR development curve of HGV tests [28].

2
Figure 1: Tunnel fire HRR curves of HGV tests by Lemaire et al. [28]

Flammable Liquid Cargo (FLC)

Fire growth rate of Flammable Liquid Cargo (FLC) fire can be very fast, peak HRR of 300 MW can
be reached within 90 seconds to 120 seconds after fire ignition [4, 30]. Its HRR growth rate can be as
high as 165 MW/min linearly for a fully developed flammable liquid pool. Tunnel gas temperature
can be as high as 1200 °C.

Battery Energy Vehicle (BEV) Car

The battery electric vehicle (BEV) uses an electric motor and relies on electric power for propulsion.
The involvement of batteries in the fire may result in different toxic species, special consideration
should be given to the design fire HRR and smoke species for analysing the fire ventilation for life
safety in underground spaces. Based on a review of the recent publications on electrical vehicle (EV)
fires, it is widely agreed that the fire heat release rate will not be higher than that for a conventional
vehicle, which is around 7 MW [2, 5, 31]. In general, most of the EV fire accidents are caused by the
thermal runaway of Li-ion battery (LIB), resulting for instance from mechanical damage after a
collision. During the burning of LIBs, the generation of flammable/explosive gases and toxic smokes,
such as hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrogen fluoride (HF), can
pose a threat to those involved. According to the fire test on EV [6-10], HRR growth rate roughly
follows the standard t-squared medium growth curve. Peak HRR of 6 to 7 MW can be reached at 500
-700 seconds after fire ignition[31].

3
Figure 1: a Renault-Samsung electric vehicle model ‘SM3.Z.E’ fire while driving 2016 Korea [10]

Multiple ICE Cars

Cecilia Lam et al [5] published test results for Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) Vehicles at the 5th Int
conference on Fire in Vehicle in 2016. It recorded a time of 6-8 minutes to the peak heat release rate
of approximately 7 MW to 10 MW, with a peak gas temperature of approximately 800 – 900°C. Peak
hear release rate of two internal combustion cars can be as high as 10-20 MW [10, 21]. HRR growth rate
roughly follows t-squared medium growth curve [7].

ICE Buses
According to statistics [11] in the United Kingdom, there are 3 to 7 bus fires per 1000 vehicles during
the period of 1964 and 2013. As shown in Figure 3, bus fire peak HRR can be as high as 20-36 MW
[12]
and its HRR growth rate can be approximated with ultra-fast t-squared curve [25]. Gas temperature
can reach 700°C according to PIARC [21].

Figure 3: HRRs for buses in tunnel [25] (Source: Ingason & Li “Tunnel Fire Dynamics” Page 98)

Train Cars
Xavier Ponticq, Joel Guivarch et al [13] and Niclas Åhnberg, Axel Jönsson, et al [14] published their test
and research data, which suggested that train fire peak HRR would mainly be in the range of 10 MW
to 40MW. It was reported [14] that the design fires used in Swedish railway tunnels are 12 MW to 20
MW with a t-squared medium to fast growth rate. White [16] reported that Queensland train fire tests
4
recorded a gas temperature of around 1100 °C.

Based on NFPA 72, If HRR is assumed to grow following a t-squared curve, the fire growth
classification is given in Table-1 with coefficient α as shown in equation HRR = αt2. Table-2 shows
the peak HRR, fire growth rate as well the gas temperature that can be reached for structural fire
durability design.

Table-1: Fire intensity coefficients (kW/s2) for t-squared fire growth rate based on NFPA 72
α 0.00293 0.01172 0.0469 0.1876
HRR growth Slow Medium Fast Ultra-fast

Table-2: Peak HRR (MW) growth rate and gas temperature (°C) in tunnel without fire suppression
Type of Fire HRR Peak HRR Linear HRR t squared HRR Peak
Load growth without fire growth coeff. growth coeff. α2 Temperature
rate suppress α1 (MW/min) (kW/sec2) (°C)
HGV Ultra-fast 200 [1, 3] --- 0.1876 1365°C [1, 3]
[1, 4]
FLC Linear 300 165MW/min --- 1200°C [20]
BEV Medium 7 [5-7] --- 0.01172 1000°C [27]
Multiple ICE Medium 10 – 20 [1] --- 0.01172 700°C [10,20]
Cars
ICE Bus Ultra-fast 34 [11-12] --- 0.1876 700°C [20]
Train Medium 10 – 35 [13-16] --- 0.01172 1100°C [16]

SUPPRESSION SYSTEM VS VEHICLE FIRE

Till now there is no widely accepted design fire heat release rate (HRR) curve for tunnel fires where
fire suppression system is considered. Especially with the new energy vehicles, which add to the
complexity for tunnel fire control. This paper only attempts to propose a set of design fires for tunnels
assuming properly designed suppression system to accommodate various type of vehicles, and to
recommend design fire curves under fire suppression conditions, which can serve as a start point for
proposing reference HRR curves for tunnel system design.

Fires that involve different types of vehicles call for different type of suppression system to control
the fire efficiently. For example, a deluge system is less effective for flammable liquid cargo pool
fires than an aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) which can generate a banket on top of the fuel and
isolate the oxygen from the fuel. A deluge system is less effective for buses or trains as these vehicles
are shielded and the water is inaccessible to the fire seat inside the vehicle. An in-car water mist
system would be more effective, though deluge system applied water can reduce the temperature of
the released gases and can avoid the ignition of the neighbourhood vehicles. Table-3 summarizes fire
suppression systems which is applicable for suppression of different types of vehicle fires.

Table-3: Applicable and effective fire suppression system vs vehicle types

Type of HGV FLC BEV Car/Bus Multiple ICE Train Car
Fire load Cars or Buses
Deluge A NR A A A
Foam A A Questionable Questionable Questionable
Water mist A A A A Questionable
In-car mist A NA A A A
A – Applicable, NR – Not Recommended, NA – Not Applicable, Questionable – effectiveness of fire

5
suppression depends on the design of the fire suppression system and fire origin

Some tunnels may not have restrictions on vehicle usage, some may prohibit certain type of vehicles
to use it. Fire safety design should consider the vehicle fire which demands the most sophisticated
system for the subject tunnel. Fire suppression systems can be ranked from the simple to the
sophisticated in the order of “no suppression”, “FFFS deluge”, “AFFF (foam)”, “water mist”, “in-car
mist”, etc. Apart from the traditional cars, HGV and buses, flammable liquid cargo (FLC) fires and
new energy fuel vehicles exhibit specific features and requires different fire suppression system for
solid or cellulosic fuelled fires. Furthermore, the shielding effects is also an important factor to be
considered, since most of HGVs are shielded and the response of fire suppression is different than
these fires that are unshielded.

SHIELD VS UNSHIELDED FIRE

The impact of fire shielding should be factored in when considering the suppression effectiveness of
water-based fixed fire suppression systems. Many existing studies observing effectiveness of FFFS
utilize conditions where fire events are not shielded by freight cargo infrastructure. United States
freight statistics indicate this approach may not best represent the current condition of freight
operational characteristics for the nation’s truck population.

Of the five major modes of infrastructure freight transportation monitored in the US (Roadway, Rail,
Inland Waterways, Airways, and Pipelines); Trucks on roadway account for roughly 73% of all
domestic freight transportation based on freight by weight [19]. Of the 73% roadway truck freight in
the US, majority is transported via ‘dry van’, or more typically known as trailers/containers. Other
freight transport methods not used as often include:

• Open-top container (used for raw mining materials, pipes, tools, cable spools, construction
supplies, bulk cargo, scrap metal)
• Flatbed (typically used for oversized or large pieces of equipment, construction equipment,
building supplies)
•
For purposes of this study, the following ‘dry van’ transport container are considered to have steel
construction on top of the container:

• Tunnel Container
• Open or curtain sided storage container
• Insulated/Thermal, or refrigerated container
• Special purpose
• Intermodal
• Car Carriers
• Tankers (liquid storage)

The latest available data for physical and operational characteristics of various goods transport on
freight trucks in the United States is based on a study in 2002 which shows that roadway freight cargo
make up roughly 4.5% of freight traffic [20]. This is representative of open-top containers, and
partially for freight covered by a tarpaulin. If flatbed cargo was also considered (which likely
includes material not considered susceptible to immediate combustion or fast or medium growth fire
curves), then this percentage increases to only 18%. The remaining roughly 82% of freight cargo
transported on roadways at the time of these studies are container vehicles which may result in a
shielded fire condition for any such emergency event. This representative percentage of shielded
cargo loads on the US roadways is expected to increase when new data is issued in 2023.

This data would suggest that using open-top or flatbed containers as a basis to measure the
6
performance of FFFS may not be the most plausible. Though these fire scenarios should be
considered; a more useful and practical approach would be to use shielded fire conditions as a
measure of FFFS effectiveness.

DESIGN FIRE HRR WITH FIRE SUPPRESSION

It is hard to accurately estimate the reduced HRR caused by the intervention of the fire suppression
systems, and the design principle is to take a conservative approach. For different types of vehicle
fires, fire control effectiveness varies with different type of suppression systems. Fire safety design
should also consider a mitigation approach for the most severe scenarios, including failure of fire
suppression system.

Apart from the type of fire suppression system, the peak fire HRR with the fire suppression operation
will be influenced by various other parameters such as fire detection time, fire growth rate, location of
fire origin, fire suppression system activation time, ventilation and the type of vehicles involved in the
fire, etc. Major influencing factors of the peak HRR would be the type of fire suppression system and
the time when fire suppression system is in full operation.

For fire suppression system activation time, it is determined by the fire detection time, positive alarm
sequence, tunnel management control which determine the delay time to operate the fire suppression
system. For example, the 2020 edition of NFPA 502 -2020 [6] Clause E4.2 stated that the maximum
delay time to operate deluge system should not exceed three minutes.

For a given tunnel, fire can be detected if gas temperature rises quickly, or reach a threshold value,
i.e., 68°C, if we assumed a delay time of three minutes for a dry FFFS operation, assuming HRR will
be peaked within 20 seconds after FFFS operation for each type of fire with various type of fire load,
based on the tested fire HRR growth, Table-4 summarizes peak fire HRR and fire detection time, fire
suppression operation time, and the time when fire HRR is peaked.

To provide a overview of the maximum heat release rate that can be achieved in tunnels environment
under low pressure deluge, high pressure water mist and foam systems, with the selected suppression
systems that are applicable for different vehicle types as listed in Table-3, the peak fire HRR for
HGV, FLC, BEV, ICE cars, ICE Bus, passenger train, etc. will be addressed separately.

Heavy Goods vehicles (HGV)

A heavy goods vehicle is a goods vehicle which exceeds 7.5 tonnes, permissible maximum weight
according to definition. Ingason and Li et al [22-24] reported that HRR under deluge suppression can be
as high as 20 - 40 MW, and all the fire suppression tests at Runehamar showed that fire HRR has been
controlled at no more than 40MW, and stated that “after activation of the system the maximum
temperatures at the ceiling were never higher than 400°C to 800°C” [23, 26]. Foam and water mist
systems are both effective for HGV fires though these systems are more expansive to install or
operative than the deluge system.

Flammable Liquid Cargo (FLC)

Fire HRR growth is very fast, according to the tests, its growth rate follows a bi-linear curve [4], based
on a detection time of approximately 30 sec, the fire HRR peaked at 200 MW at 100 seconds under
water mist suppression which started operation at approximately 60 second after detection. Gas
temperature near the ceiling reach 1000°C. As shown in Figure 4, performance of AFFF behaves
similar to that of the pure water mist according to Lakkonen [18]. Deluge system for FLC pool fire is
not effective, and it is not recommended. M. Lakkonen et al [4, 17] compared the performance of high-
pressure water mist and deluge system and suggested that high pressure water mist system is effective
for FLC fires.

7
Figure 4: Measured HRR for all tests with fine droplet spray mist with and without AFFF [18]

Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) Car

Battery energy vehicle (BEV) is powered by batteries, and fire maybe caused by short circuit, etc, and
fire may restart even after the car has been dumped, which means fire may restart on the next day
after the initial car fire appears to have been extinguished. The suitable fire suppression system would
be deluge, water mist or foam. HRR under suppression [27] would be peaked at the time when fire
suppression is in full operation. Gas temperature can be as high as 900°C.

Multiple ICE Cars

For traditional Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) cars, deluge water can cool the surrounding gases
and avoid the ignition of neighbourhood vehicles. HRR under suppression operation could be capped
at 10 - 15MW, its fire growth rate can be represented with t-squared medium curve. Gas temperature
would not exceed 700°C.

ICE Buses
Because of it shield nature of buses, deluge is not an effective type of suppression system for ICE bus
fires. Based on ultra-fast HRR growth rate [26], fire can be detected at 1.5 minutes, considering a
maximum positive alarm sequences of 3 minutes which delays the application of suppression system,
HRR will be controlled at 15-20 MW under FFFS suppression system, gas temperature can be
controlled at 700°C though deluge water is inaccessible to the seat of the fire inside the bus. The most
effective approach is to employ an in-car water mist system to extinguish the fire originated from the
inside of the bus.

Train Cars
The best train fire suppression approach is in-car fire suppression, HRR under properly designed
suppression system can be controlled at 2 – 12 MW based on medium fire growth rate and its
detection time of 4.6 seconds. A worst scenario would see a maximum gas temperature of 600-800°C
[4, 15]
. Trains are similar to the buses or HGVs which are shielded, and deluge water may not directly
access the seat of the fire and effectively suppress the fire inside the carriage, though it is effective for
cooling the air external of the bus.

Fire can be controlled within 2 minutes after suppression system is in full operation [17]. Table-5 and
8
Table-6 compares the peak HRR and the maximum gas temperature that can be reached with and
without fire suppression, respectively. With a properly design fire suppression system, peak heat
release rate can be reduced by around 25 – 75%, and maximum gas temperature can be reduced by 10
– 45%. For cars or buses, the cooling effects of the fire suppression system can reduce the chance of
ignition of neighbouring vehicles.

Table-4: Fire peak HRR with properly designed and operated fire suppression involving different type
of vehicles
Type of Growth Type of Peak HRR Maximum tD (min) tS (min) tmax
Fire load Rate suppression Qmax (MW) tempera- (min)
ture (°C)
HGV Ultra-fast Deluge 15- 50 400-800 1.5 4.5 4.8
[22,25]

FLC Linear mist/foam 200 800 [18] 0.5 3.5 3.9

BEV car Medium deluge/mist 3 - 7 800 4.6 7.6 7.9
ICE Cars Medium deluge/mist 10 - 15 700 4.6 7.6 7.9
[26]
ICE Bus Ultra-fast In-car mist 15 - 20 <700 1.5 4.5 4.8
[15]
Train Medium In-car mist 10 - 12 <600 4.6 7.6 7.9
Qmax – the maximum total heat release rate, tmax – time when maximum HRR is reached, tD – fire
detection time, tS – suppression system discharge time

Table-5: Peak HRR (MW) with a properly designed suppression system* for different types of
vehicles
Type of fire HGV FLC BEV Car Multiple ICE ICE Bus Train Car
load Cars
Free burning 200 300 7 10 –20 [1, 20] 34 [11-12] 10 – 35[13-16]
Under fire 15–50 [22,25] 200 3-7 10 – 15 15 - 20 2 –12
suppression
Suppression 75% 33% 50% 25% 70% 65%
effect
* Properly designed suppression system refers to the system listed on Table-3 and Table-4

Table-6: Maximum gas temperature (°C) with properly designed suppression system* for fires
involving different types of vehicles
Type of Fire HGV FLC BEV Car Multiple ICE Buses Train Car
load ICE Cars
Free burning 1365°C 1200°C 1000°C [27] 700°C 700°C 1100°C
[22-24]

With fire 400-800 800°C 900°C 700°C < 700°C [26] < 600°C [15]
[18]
suppression °C
Suppression 41% 41% 10% avoid fire avoid fire 45%
effect propagation propagation

*Properly designed suppression system refers to the system listed on Table-3 and Table 4

SUMMARY
Suppression of different type of vehicle fire requires selection of the most effective type of fire
suppression system. Deluge system is effective for unshielded vehicle fires and can significantly
reduce its design fire HRR. For shield type of vehicle fire, such as train or buses, in-car mist system is
9
more effective than a deluge system. For FLC fire AFFF foam or water mist system are equivalently
effective, but deluge system would not be effective for FLC fires.
If the suppression system operates as design expected, the maximum gas temperature for tunnel
structural fire durability design would not exceed 800°C. The peak heat release rate would be reduced
by approximately 25 - 75%, and the gas temperature maybe reduced by 10 – 45%. However, there is a
probability of failure of the suppression operation which should be considered in the design.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Igor Maevski of Jacobs for the discussion on design fires HRR with
FFFS. The author also would like to thank Max Lakkonen for the valuable comments on water mist
system fire suppression, a final review and discussion with Dave Parker of HNTB are kindly
acknowledged.

REFERENCES
1. Igor Maevski, “Guidelines for Emergency Ventilation Smoke Control in Roadway Tunnels”,
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP Report 836, 2017
2. Igor Maevski, “Design Fires in Roadway Tunnels, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program”, NCHRP Synthesis 415, 2011
3. Ingason and Lönnermark, “Heat Release in Tunnel Fires: A Summary,” Handbook of Tunnel
Fire Safety, 2nd edition, 2012
4. Yunlong Liu, Sean Cassady, et al, “Design fire heat release rate curve of flammable liquid
fires under water mist fire suppression in a tunnel”, ISTSS conference, Stavanger, Norway,
April 2023.
5. Cecilia Lam, Dean MacNeil, et al, “Full-scale Fire Testing of Electrical and Internal
Combustion Engine Vehicles”, Proceedings of the 4th Int conference on Fire in Vehicle in
2016, p95-106
6. NFPA 13 – 2020, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, Massachusetts, USA 02169-7471
7. Hasan Raza, Matt Bilson, Silas Li, “Analysis of fire-life safety with battery electric vehicles
in highway tunnels” 2022 ISAVFT19, page 762
8. Macneil DD, Lougheed G, Lam C, Carbonneau G, Kroeker R, Edwards D, et al.” Electric
Vehicle Fire Testing”. 8th EVS-GTR Meeting, Washington, USA June 1-5, 2015, 2015.
9. P. Sun, R. Bisschop, H. Niu, X. Huang* (2020), “A Review of Battery Fires in Electric
Vehicles, Fire Technology”, p56.
10. Moon G. Renault-Samsung’s Electric Vehicle Catches Fire Due to Ignition from Bonnet.
ETRC·KGTLAB, 2016. http://www.ipnomics.net/?p=14858.
11. Virginia Alonso & Guillermo Rein, “Analysis of Fire Protection of UK Buses from 1964 to
2013”, Fourth International Conference on Fire in Vehicles, October 5-6, 2016, Baltimore,
USA
12. Yoon Ko, “A Study of the HRR of tunnel fire and interaction between suppression and
longitudinal air flow in tunnels”, PhD dissertation, Carleton University, April 2011
13. Xavier Ponticq, Joel Guivarch, “Design fire for railway and metro Tunnels”, Proceedings of
the 4th Int conference on Fire in Vehicle in 2016, p117-126
14. Niclas Åhnberg, Axel Jönsson, et al, “Design fires in Swedish Railway Tunnels”, Proceedings
of the 4th Int conference on Fire in Vehicle in 2016, p127-138
15. Yunlong Liu, Vivek Apte, Nathan White and David Yung, “Water mist fire suppression of a
train fire”, Fire Safety - Sea Road Rail Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 2-4 November
2005
16. Nathan White, “Fire development in passenger trains”, thesis for the Master of Engineering at
the Victoria University, Australia, 2010.
17. Max Lakkonen, D. Sprakel and A. Feltmann, “Comparison of deluge and water mist systems
from a performance and practical point of view”, FOGTEC Fire Protection, 7th International
10
 Conference ‘Tunnel Safety and Ventilation’ 2014, Graz
18. Max Lakkonen, Armin Feltmann, Dirk Sprakel, “Impact of AFFF to the Performance of
Fixed Fire Fighting Systems in Tunnels”, Seventh International Symposium on Tunnel Safety
and Security, Montréal, Canada, March 16-18, 2016, page 271 - 280
19. Freight Facts and Figures, 2017. US Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics.
20. 2002 Economic Census, Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS). US Department of
Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau. Issued 12/2004.
21. PIARC Fire and Smoke Control in Tunnels 05.05B, La Defense, France, 1999
22. Ingason Haukur, “Design fires in tunnels”, Safe and Reliable Tunnels, Innovative European
Achievements, Second International Symposium, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2006.
23. Ingason H, Li Y.Z, Bobert M., “Large scale fire tests with different types of fixed firefighting
system in the Runehammer tunnel”, SP Report 1026:76, SP Technical Research Institute of
Sweden: Boras, Sweden.
24. Anders Lonnermark, Johan Lindström, Yingzhen Li & Haukur Ingason, “Large-scale
Commuter Train Fire Tests – Results from the METRO Project”, Fifth International
Symposium on Tunnel Safety and Security, New York, USA, March 14-16, 2012, p447 – 456
25. Haukur Ingason, Yingzhen Li, Anders Lonnermark, "Tunnel fire dynamics”, ISBN 978-1-
4939-2199-7 (eBook), Springer New York, 2015.
26. Yingzhen Li, Haukur Ingason, “Use of water-based Fixed Fire Fighting Systems in Tunnels”,
Fire protection engineering, magazine.sfpe.org, Q2 2019, Page 18 - 22
27. Andreas Sater Boe, Nina K. Reitan, “Full Scale Fire test of Electrical Vehicle”, Fifth
International Conference on Fires in Vehicles, October 3-4, 2018. P71-82
28. Ingason, H. and Lönnermark, A., “Heat Release Rates from Heavy Goods Vehicles Trailers in
Tunnels,” Fire Safety Journal. 1 October 2005
29. PIARC Design fire characteristics for road tunnels, ISBN 987-2-84060-471-6, 2017R01EN,
www.piarc.org.
30. Kristen Opstad, Thai Trung Mai, Real-scale tests of Aquasys Water Mist Fire Suppression
System in Runehamar Test Tunnel, Norway 2008. SINTEF NBL Report No. NBL F08113.
31. IFAB, Fire Protection Guideline for carparks, https://www.suveren-nec.info/wp-
content/uploads/2023/02/Guidance_BS-car_parks_2.0.pdf

11