EV Car Fire Suppression: Three Independent Tests, Reviewed
- ngrant14
- Jul 18
- 8 min read
Equipro Ltd | Blog draft | equiprofire.com
Most claims about EV car park fire protection are exactly that — claims. No published methodology, no third-party lab, no numbers you can check.
This post is the opposite. It reviews three separate, independently conducted test reports covering the three EQUINOX systems relevant to a car park: the floor-mounted automatic suppression unit, the overhead automatic sprinkler system, and the Cold Fire-dosed hose reel used for manual intervention. Each was tested on different equipment, by different accredited bodies, on different dates — and each is referenced here by its own report number, so nothing below is a single result stretched to look like three.
If you manage risk in a building with EVs under it, the question isn't whether you need a view on this. It's whether the systems you're looking at have ever actually been set on fire and measured — and whether you can tell which result came from which test.
Why EV Car Fire Suppression Testing Matters Now
Car parks were designed around a known, predictable risk: petrol and diesel fires with well-documented heat release rates. Sprinkler design for that risk has sat comfortably in the Ordinary Hazard Group 2 (OH2) category for decades.
Lithium-ion battery fires don't follow the same rules. Thermal runaway is a self-sustaining chemical reaction, not a fuel-fed fire — it can release significantly more heat than an ICE vehicle fire, produce flammable off-gas capable of a vapour cloud event, and re-ignite hours after crews believe it's out.
That's why regulators and insurers are increasingly pushing car park design toward OH3 water demand — oversized tanks, oversized pump rooms, and a lot more infrastructure cost, before a single sprinkler head is fitted. See the full EV car park fire protection range.
The practical question for anyone specifying protection is simple: does a lower-infrastructure, technology-led alternative actually perform under real fire conditions? That's what these three tests were designed to answer.
Three Systems, Three Independent Tests
It's worth being precise about what was tested where, because these are genuinely different evaluations — not one test reported three ways.
| Test 1: Floor System + Hose Reel | Test 2: Ceiling Sprinkler | Test 3: Hose Reel (Pallet Truck) |
System | EQUINOX AS-FM (floor-mounted, marketed as EV-CarSafe / EV FirePro) + EQUINOX FR-25 hose reel | EQUINOX automatic sprinkler (TYCO TY323 heads, 68°C bulb, 10.5m² coverage per head) | EQUINOX hose reel, 25mm semi-rigid, 3% Cold Fire |
Test rig | Real vehicle: Renault Zoe, 40 kWh battery, 98% state of charge | Purpose-built rig: 60 kWh NMC battery pack (10 modules), ≥85% state of charge | Electric pallet truck: NMC battery (11 modules), >85% state of charge |
Testing body | SCI Servicios de Control e Inspección, S.A. | LGAI Technological Center S.A. (APPLUS+) | LGAI Technological Center S.A. (APPLUS+) |
Report reference | 260050IRGBAR-OT01-IF01 rev.0, dated 19 February 2026 | 25/32303489, test conducted 30 January 2025; certified as ETI-2150 | 25/32302576, dated June 2025 |
Location | Madrid | Bellaterra, Barcelona (3-container test enclosure) | Bellaterra, Barcelona |
Test 1: EQUINOX EV Car Safe floor mounted EV Car Fire Protection System + FR-25 EQUINOX Hose Reel, on a real EV
A Renault Zoe with a 40 kWh battery at 98% state of charge was placed inside an enclosed container built to represent covered parking. Thermal runaway was triggered by a remote-induced short circuit, and accelerant was applied to the underside of the vehicle to force faster, more severe fire development than a battery-only fire would typically produce — a deliberately conservative test condition.
The floor-mounted AS-FM system, installed directly beneath the battery zone with linear heat detection at a 68°C threshold, reached activation temperature within roughly 10 seconds of confirmed thermal runaway. System activation was then deliberately held back for a further 10 minutes — a harder scenario than an immediate automatic response — before laminar water discharge was released upward onto the battery pack from below.
Test 2: EQUINOX automatic sprinkler system, full-scale garage test This is a different system entirely: a ceiling-mounted network of ordinary automatic sprinklers (TYCO TY323 heads, 68°C glass-bulb activation, each covering 10.5m²), evaluated against a purpose-built 60 kWh NMC battery rig at ≥85% state of charge inside a three-container enclosure at 10°C ambient temperature.
Ignition began at t=0. Thermal runaway followed roughly 25 minutes later. The first sprinkler head reached its 68°C activation threshold around 53 minutes after ignition — noticeably slower than the floor system's ~10-second response, which is expected: a ceiling sprinkler bulb has to wait for heat to rise and accumulate at ceiling level across a coverage area, where the floor system sits directly under the source. Four sprinkler heads activated in total between 53:06 and 59:41, and the system discharged for 48 minutes.
Assessment of the temperature and radiation criteria was taken from 120 seconds after discharge began through to the end of the test — not from the moment of ignition — which is the standard basis for judging suppression performance rather than pre-activation fire growth.
Test 3: EQUINOX hose reel, on an electric pallet truck
A third, separate test evaluated the same hose reel technology against a different hazard: an electric pallet truck with an 11-module NMC battery pack at >85% state of charge. Thermal runaway developed roughly 20 minutes after ignition, and the fire was allowed to reach a fully developed state by minute 43 before manual extinguishment began — again, a deliberately advanced-fire scenario rather than an early intervention.
The Results
Test 1 — AS-FM floor system + FR-25 hose reel (Renault Zoe)
Metric | Result |
Detection time after confirmed thermal runaway | ~10 seconds (68°C linear heat detection threshold) |
Deliberate delay before automatic suppression activated | ~10 minutes (worst-case test condition, not a system limitation) |
Automatic suppression run time | 24 minutes |
Re-ignition after automatic suppression | None within 72 hours |
Manual hose reel (FR-25) — time to full extinguishment | 5 minutes (flame knockdown within ~2 minutes) |
Hose reel additive consumption | 14.25 litres |
Hose reel average flow rate | 95 litres/minute |
Ceiling temperature during test | Did not exceed 200°C |
Vehicle and enclosure structural integrity | Preserved — vehicle removable after 2-hour cooling period |
Test 2 — Automatic sprinkler system (60 kWh rig, 4 heads)
Metric | Result |
Fire spread to adjacent vehicle (0.75m away) | None — glass, indicators, mirrors, tyres, upholstery unaffected |
Ambient temperature at 2m / 1.6m height (post-activation) | Below 60°C |
Radiant heat flux at 2m / 1.6m height (post-activation) | Below 2.5 kW/m² |
Slab/structural temperature | Did not exceed 200°C (peaked ~150–200°C pre-cooling, stabilised 30–60°C) |
Sprinkler heads activated | 4 |
System flow rate | 470 litres/minute at minimum 2.1 bar |
Cold Fire additive used | 688 kg |
Total system discharge time | 48 minutes |
Regulatory outcome | Certified ETI-2150 (APPLUS+), compliant with Spain/EU Royal Decree 513/2017 (RIPCI), valid to 1 August 2030 |
Test 3 — Hose reel on electric pallet truck
Metric | Result |
Time to full extinguishment (manual intervention) | 2 minutes 12 seconds |
Re-ignition | None observed in 20-minute post-extinguishment monitoring; no battery temperature increase |
Ambient temperature at 2m | ≤60°C |
Radiant heat flux at 2m | ≤2.5 kW/m² |
Flow rate | 69 litres/minute |
Total extinguishing agent used (water + Cold Fire) | 151.8 litres |
Cold Fire additive consumption | ~4.97 kg |
What the pattern across three tests actually shows
No single result here is the headline — the consistency across three independently conducted tests is. Every test that measured evacuation-distance conditions (Tests 2 and 3, both at 2m) landed at the same thresholds: below 60°C, below 2.5 kW/m². Every test that monitored for re-ignition found none, across timeframes from 20 minutes up to 72 hours. And the one test that measured detection speed on a real vehicle (Test 1) showed the floor-mounted system responding in seconds, precisely because it sits directly beneath the hazard rather than waiting for heat to reach a ceiling-level sensor. That's the honest way to read this data: three different systems, doing three different jobs, each independently shown to hit the same safety thresholds under conservative, delayed-intervention test conditions.
Layered Protection: Three Tools, Not One Test Stretched Three Ways
These systems are designed to work together rather than as alternatives to each other. The floor-mounted AS-FM system provides the fastest possible response because it's positioned directly under the battery. The overhead sprinkler system protects the wider structure and any vehicle without underfloor protection fitted. The hose reel is the manual backup — proven separately on both a passenger EV and an electric pallet truck — for fire crews or trained personnel to finish the job once automatic systems have stabilised the event.
That's the same layered model used across the EQUINOX range, including the portable extinguishers that carry their own separate APPLUS+ certification. Explore EQUINOX thermal runaway suppression systems.
What This Means for Car Park Owners, Developers and Insurers
If you're responsible for a car park with EV charging — new build or retrofit — this data is directly relevant to three decisions:
● Design classification. Three independently tested systems, each shown to control fire spread, heat, and radiant exposure at evacuation distances, give fire engineers a documented, test-based alternative to defaulting straight to OH3 water demand and its associated infrastructure cost, reducing water consumption requirements versus a full OH3 tank and pump specification.
● Regulatory compliance. The sprinkler configuration has been formally assessed as compliant with Spain/EU Royal Decree 513/2017 (RIPCI) by APPLUS+, an accredited third-party testing body — not a self-certified manufacturer claim.
● Insurance and risk transfer. Underwriters increasingly ask for evidence, not assurances, when pricing EV-related fire risk in enclosed structures. Three dated, numbered test reports from accredited labs is what that conversation actually runs on.
None of this replaces a project-specific fire risk assessment. Every car park is different, and the right protection strategy depends on structure, ventilation, EV density, and local regulation.
Speak to Equipro's fire safety consultancy. What this data does is give you a documented starting point instead of a sales pitch.
FAQ
What is EQUINOX and how is it different from a standard car park sprinkler?
EQUINOX is a family of Cold Fire-dosed suppression systems — a floor-mounted automatic unit, an overhead automatic sprinkler network, a manual hose reel, and portable extinguishers — engineered for lithium-ion battery fires rather than conventional fuel-fed fires. All use a 3% Cold Fire additive to improve heat absorption and off-gas encapsulation compared with plain water.
Has EQUINOX been independently tested, or is this a manufacturer claim?
Yes, across three separate reports. The floor-mounted system and hose reel were tested on a real EV by SCI Servicios de Control e Inspección, S.A. (report 260050IRGBAR-OT01-IF01, 19 February 2026). The automatic sprinkler system was tested and certified by APPLUS+/LGAI Technological Center S.A. (report 25/32303489, certificate ETI-2150). The hose reel was separately tested on an EV by SCI Servicios de Control e Inspección, S.A. (report 260050IRGBAR-OT01-IF01, 19 February 2026).and an electric pallet truck, also by APPLUS+ (report 25/32302576). None of these are manufacturer self-certifications.
Does EQUINOX prevent EV battery re-ignition?
Across the tests that monitored for it, no re-ignition was recorded — 72 hours in the real-vehicle floor system test, and 20 minutes in the pallet truck hose reel test. Re-ignition risk in lithium-ion fires depends on the specific battery, state of charge, and fire severity, so these results reflect the tested scenarios rather than a universal guarantee. Can EQUINOX help avoid an OH3 water demand classification? EQUINOX is designed as a technical alternative to the infrastructure overhead of an OH3 upgrade, using engineered suppression performance rather than oversized water storage. Whether a specific project can remain at OH2 or an equivalent design basis is a decision for the project's fire engineer or approving authority, based on the full risk assessment.
Where can I see the full test reports?
All three reports are available on request: the SCI floor system/hose reel report (260050IRGBAR-OT01-IF01), the APPLUS+ sprinkler report and ETI-2150 certificate (25/32303489), and the APPLUS+ pallet truck hose reel report (25/32302576). Request the full test reports.
Get the Full Test Reports
The tables above are a fraction of what's in the underlying reports — full instrumentation data, thermocouple positions, thermal imaging, and test annexes included. If you're specifying fire protection for a car park with EV charging, talk to our engineering team or explore the full EQUINOX car park range.
Comments