D4a: Lithium ion cell exposure to an on-board external fire: Test results V0.

SABATAIR
Task4:
Lithium ion cell exposure to an on-board external fire:
Test Program
Characterisation of on-board fire-protection facilities; assessment of
Task 4 their contribution to the effectiveness of the proposed packaging
solutions

1|Page
 D4a: Lithium ion cell exposure to an on-board external fire: Test results V0.2

Table of Contents
List of Figures 3

Summary 4

I. Introduction 5

I.1. Aircraft Fire Protection: Detection and Suppression 5

II. Test Chamber 6

II.1. Test Chamber Layout 6

II.2. Test Chamber Temperature measurement instrumentation 7

II.3. Test Chamber Oxygen Concentration and Pressure Measurement

instrumentation 7

II.4. Test Chamber Halon Concentration Measurement instrumentation 9

II.5. Test Chamber Fire suppression system 9

II.6. Discharge Nozzles 9

II.7. Test Chamber video instrumentation 10

III. Fire load 11

III.1. Cardboard boxes 11

III.2. Ignition process 11

III.3. Cardboard Box arrangement 12

IV. Test specimen 13

IV.1. Lithium ion cells 13

IV.2. Manufacturer 1 cells packaging 13

IV.3. Manufacturer 2 cells packaging 13

IV.4. Pallets and Fire Containment Covers 14

V. Test Program, specific instrumentation and results 15

V.1. Test sequence 15

2|Page
 D4a: Lithium ion cell exposure to an on-board external fire: Test results V0.2

List of Figures
Figure 1: On the left a sketch of the fire test chamber and on the right a photograph of the fire
test chamber ....................................................................................................................................6
Figure 2. In-flight Leakage Simulation ..............................................................................................6
Figure 3. Thermocouple Position ......................................................................................................7
Figure 4. Position of Pressure Sensor and Gas Sample Points .........................................................8
Figure 5: Halon Sensor location .......................................................................................................9
Figure 6: Schematic of the Halon Discharge system of the test chamber .......................................9
Figure 7: Position of Discharge Nozzles, Leakage Port, and Pressure Equalization Valve ............ 10
Figure 8: Video Camera instrumentation including field of view ................................................. 10
Figure 9: Cardboard Box filled with shredded paper .................................................................... 11
Figure 10: Ignition Box .................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 11: Arrangement of Cardboard Boxes as fire load for the Bulk load fire test of the
Minimum Performance Standard for Aircraft Cargo Compartment Halon Replacement Fire
Suppression Systems [2] ............................................................................................................... 12
Figure 12: Manufacturer 1 cells packaging (the missing cells were taken to do some voltage
checks) ........................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 13: Manufacturer 2 cells packaging. .................................................................................. 14
Figure 14: FCC mounted on PMC pallet ........................................................................................ 14
Figure 15: Test sequence for the Full scale test campaign. .......................................................... 15

3|Page
 D4a: Lithium ion cell exposure to an on-board external fire: Test results V0.2

Summary
This document describes the test program for the full-scale Lithium battery external fire tests
which took place in the context of Task 4 of the Sabatair research project, which is funded by the
European Commission DG MOVE.
Two main conclusions are derived from the test results:
 The Aircraft built-in fire suppression system inhibits propagation of thermal runaways for
the tested cell configuration and SoC conditions
 For the tested scenario, a Fire Containment Cover provides appreciable protection
against the threats of an external fire event.
One of the objectives of the Sabatair project is to identify mitigating measures that could be put
in place to ensure that the severity of lithium battery fire could be reduced to a level that could
be within the capability of the aircraft’s onboard fire suppression system. This involves the
evaluation of the following battery fire scenarios:
 a thermal runaway initiated from inside this package (internal fire)
 a lithium battery fire which does not originate but eventually involves transported
cells/batteries (external fire)

4|Page
 D4a: Lithium ion cell exposure to an on-board external fire: Test results V0.2

I. Introduction
One of the objectives of the Sabatair project is to identify mitigating measures that could be put
in place to ensure that the severity of lithium battery fire could be reduced to a level that could
be within the capability of the aircraft’s onboard fire suppression system. This involves the
evaluation of the following battery fire scenarios:
 a thermal runaway initiated from inside this package (internal fire)
 a lithium battery fire which does not originate but eventually involves transported
cells/batteries (external fire)
The objective of Task 4 of the Sabatair project is to study the external fire threat considering
different level of protection for the packaging of lithium batteries at different state of change,
taking also into account the expected typical performance of cargo compartment fire protection
systems installed on large aeroplanes.
The detailed description of the test plan is included in deliverable D4a.
The tests were performed in an 1:1 aircraft cargo compartment mock-up made of steel with an
operable aircraft fire suppression system. In a 3-step approach, the external fire scenario was
assessed:
 Without the aircraft fire protection system operating
 With the aircraft fire protection system operating
 With the aircraft fire protection system operating and a fire containment cover (FCC)
for additional fire protection
I.1. Aircraft Fire Protection: Detection and Suppression
Fire detection systems are designed to alert flight crew on the cockpit within 1 minute of a fire
starting. Based on the information provided by the detection warnings, flight crew initiate the
suppression of any fire by discharge of Halon gas into the affected cargo compartments.
Halon is a very effective suppression agent which operates by chemically reacting with the radicals
generated by a fire, to inhibit the reaction. To achieve the extinguishing effect, sufficient Halon
needs to be released to achieve a volumetric concentration of 5% of the compartment air as a
first shot, for a fire knock-down effect. Following this, a concentration of 3% must be continuously
maintained for the rest of flight.
With this approach, lower deck cargo compartment fires can be suppressed for up to 360 minutes
on wide-body aircraft. Nevertheless, maintaining the concentration of Halon is crucial to the
effectiveness of the system, and therefore it is essential that the cargo compartment remains air-
tight
The phenomenon of thermal runaway of lithium batteries in an aircraft environment can be
catastrophic [1]. At the least it can range from limited degradation of personal equipment, or
minor damage to the overhead storage compartment. In the case worst situation, thermal
runaway in high density package of Lithium batteries can result - and has been implicated - in hull
losses.
FAA tests show that even a small number of overheating batteries emit gases that can cause
explosions and fires that cannot be prevented by traditional fire suppression systems. In view of
the possible consequences, Lithium batteries are classified as hazardous materials, therefore
particular care and consideration must be taken to ensure safe operations in relation to use and
transport of Lithium batteries (or devices containing Lithium batteries) when in an aircraft
environment.

5|Page
 D4a: Lithium ion cell exposure to an on-board external fire: Test results V0.2

II. Test Chamber

II.1. Test Chamber Layout
All tests were carried out in a mock-up of a wide-body lower deck cargo hold (see Figure 1 for
more details on the dimensions). The cross section of the test rig was comparable to the cross
section of a lower deck cargo hold of an A330 family aircraft. The length was reduced to 8.4m to
meet the requirements of the Minimum Performance Standard for Aircraft Cargo Compartment
Halon Replacement Fire Suppression Systems [2]. The total volume of the test compartment was
56.6m3.

Figure 1: On the left a sketch of the fire test chamber and on the right a photograph of the fire test
chamber

The inner structure (compartment walls and floor) were made from mild steel sheeting in order
to preserve the article for multiple testing.
The compartment was equipped with multiple sensors to record temperature, oxygen
concentrations, and pressure.
The compartment was configured to have a leakage rate representative for an in-flight leakage
rate of an average Airbus aircraft.
The leakage from the compartment was configured to simulate the U-shape of the cargo door
seals that are on a real aircraft. Perforated ducts were installed inside the compartment in the
shape of the perimeter of a cargo door. The ducts were vented to the outside of the test article
using a single connection to the constant speed pump (see Figure 2).
A constant speed pump was installed in the exit of the duct for drawing air out of the
compartment to simulate an in-flight leakage rate.

Figure 2. In-flight Leakage Simulation

6|Page
 D4a: Lithium ion cell exposure to an on-board external fire: Test results V0.2

The test article was outfitted with a pressure equalization valve that is used onboard Airbus
aircraft to compensate pressure differentials between the cargo hold and adjacent areas. The
valve was installed in the end wall of the test compartment. This installation position is
representative to the installation position of the valve onboard Airbus aircraft.

II.2. Test Chamber Temperature measurement instrumentation

Temperature measurements were taken throughout the compartment at ceiling and sidewall
level. Temperature sensors type K thermocouples (NiCr-Ni) were used. Figure 3 shows a top view
of the test compartment and illustrates the position of the thermocouples on the ceiling and on
the sidewall.

Figure 3. Thermocouple Position

II.3. Test Chamber Oxygen Concentration and Pressure
Measurement instrumentation
Oxygen volumetric concentrations were measured inside the cargo compartment at six different
locations during test execution. The oxygen analyzers used paramagnetic oxygen analysis
technique to measure the oxygen concentration.
A pressure transducer was installed to monitor the overpressure mainly during the early phases
of the test. The pressure transducer had a pressure range from 0 to 20 hPa. Figure 4 shows a top
view of the test compartment and gives the position for the oxygen sample probes and the
pressure transducer.

7|Page
 D4a: Lithium ion cell exposure to an on-board external fire: Test results V0.2

Figure 4. Position of Pressure Sensor and Gas Sample Points

8|Page
 D4a: Lithium ion cell exposure to an on-board external fire: Test results V0.2

II.4. Test Chamber Halon Concentration Measurement

instrumentation
12 Halon Sensors were evenly distributed within the test chamber. Halon measurement was
based on NDIR (Non-Dispersive Infrared) spectroscopy.
The Halon sensors were located in a setup comparable to the sensor location typically used for
aircraft flight testing (see Figure 5). 8 Sensors were located 20 cm below the ceiling in order to
estimate the distribution on this level. Additionally, 20 cm distance from the sidewalls was kept.
4 Halon Sensors were located 20 cm above the floor. The sensor calibration was executed
according to the specification of the Halon sensor manufacturer.

Figure 5: Halon Sensor location

II.5. Test Chamber Fire suppression system

The test chamber was equipped with a Halon 1301 fire suppression system representative of the
aircraft system architecture. The fire suppression system comprised a high-rated discharge
container and a flow-metered container (see Figure 6). The fire suppression system delivered a
halon mass equal to a commercial aircraft of comparable cargo compartment volume.
For the test, the fire suppression system was triggered manually. The weight of Halon Bottle 1
and Halon Bottle 2 was continuously monitored during the tests.

Figure 6: Schematic of the Halon Discharge system of the test chamber

II.6. Discharge Nozzles

Three standard Halon discharge nozzles were installed in the compartment ceiling. Figure 7
provides a top view of the test compartment and gives the position of the
discharge nozzles. The nozzles were accommodated in cavities ensuring that the nozzles did not
9|Page
 D4a: Lithium ion cell exposure to an on-board external fire: Test results V0.2

protrude into the test compartment. The discharge nozzles were not evenly distributed in the
compartment ceiling as the construction of the test article did not allow an even spacing of the
nozzles.
Figure 7 also shows the location of the pressure equalization valve and the location of the vent
port for the in-flight leakage simulation.

Figure 7: Position of Discharge Nozzles, Leakage Port, and Pressure Equalization Valve

II.7. Test Chamber video instrumentation

Two video cameras were located in the compartment in a way that an optimum view to the
ignition box and the cells boxes was provided (see Figure 8: Video Camera instrumentation
including field of viewFigure 8).

Figure 8: Video Camera instrumentation including field of view

10 | P a g e
 D4a: Lithium ion cell exposure to an on-board external fire: Test results V0.2

III. Fire load

III.1. Cardboard boxes
The fire load for this scenario consists of single-wall corrugated cardboard boxes, with nominal
dimensions of 45.7 by 45.7 by 45.7 cm. The weight per unit area of the cardboard is 0.5417 kg/m2.
The boxes are filled with 1.1 kg of loosely packed standard weight office paper shredded into
strips (not confetti), see Figure 9. The final weight of the box and shredded paper is 2.0 ±0.2 kg.
The boxes are conditioned to room standard conditions. The flaps of the boxes are tucked under
each other without using staples or tape.

Figure 9: Cardboard Box filled with shredded paper

III.2. Ignition process

An ignition box shall be prepared as shown in Figure 10, refer also to [2].

Figure 10: Ignition Box

The fire inside the ignition box is started by applying 115 volts alternating current (VAC) to a 2.1m
length of nichrome wire. The wire is wrapped around four folded (in half) paper towels. The
resistance of the nichrome igniter coil is approximately 7 ohms. The igniter is placed into the

11 | P a g e
 D4a: Lithium ion cell exposure to an on-board external fire: Test results V0.2

center of a box on the bottom outside row of the stacked boxes. Several ventilation holes are
placed in the side of the box to ensure that the fire does not self-extinguish.
The configuration of the cardboard boxes and the position of the ignition box shall be adopted to
the needs of this test.
III.3. Cardboard Box arrangement
The boxes are stacked in two layers in the cargo compartment in a quantity representing 30% of
the cargo compartment empty volume. For a 56.6m3 compartment, this requires 178 boxes (see
Figure 11). The boxes touch each other to prevent any significant air gaps between them.

Figure 11: Arrangement of Cardboard Boxes as fire load for the Bulk load fire test of the Minimum
Performance Standard for Aircraft Cargo Compartment Halon Replacement Fire Suppression Systems [2]

12 | P a g e
 D4a: Lithium ion cell exposure to an on-board external fire: Test results V0.2

IV. Test specimen

IV.1. Lithium ion cells
The cells to be tested are standard 18650 Lithium Ion rechargeable batteries. More details related
to the cell selection are available in the deliverable D2a.
Two different cell brands (Manufacturer 1 and Manufacturer 2) have been selected to represent
a random mix. The cells underwent successfully the UN38.3 tests. The technical specification of
the batteries are as follows:
Brand Manufacturer 1 Manufacturer 2
Nominal Capacity 3500mAh 3500mAh
Chemistry LiNiCoMnO2 LiNiCoAlO2
Dimensions 18650 18650
SOC 50% 50%

IV.2. Manufacturer 1 cells packaging

The Manufacturer 1 cells were packed in cardboard boxes of 100 cells each. In an arrangement of
10x10 (see Figure 12). In the picture some cells were missing because they were taken out for
some voltage checks. Every cell is isolated The separators between the cells are made out of a
thin cardboard paper. 2 of these boxes are stacked on top of each other in one outer box made
of corrugated cardboard. This outer box contains the hazardous materials labeling. The two inner
boxes didn’t contain any label

Figure 12: Manufacturer 1 cells packaging (the missing cells were taken to do some voltage checks)

IV.3. Manufacturer 2 cells packaging

Manufacturer 2 cells were packed in cardboard boxes of 100 cells each (see Figure 13). The cell
rows are separated in one direction by a thick corrugated cardboard and in the perpendicular
direction the cells are separated two by two by a thinner cardboard.
2 of these boxes are stacked next to each other in one outer box made of corrugated cardboard.
Only this outer box contains the hazardous materials labelling.

13 | P a g e
 D4a: Lithium ion cell exposure to an on-board external fire: Test results V0.2

Figure 13: Manufacturer 2 cells packaging.

IV.4. Pallets and Fire Containment Covers

A standard PMC pallet (dimensions: 243.8cm – 125in/317.5cm) shall be used. The fire
containment cover shall have a height of 162.56cm (64in). The fire containment cover (FCC) shall
be fixed to the pallet during the test as shown in Figure 14.
Refer to [3] for a technical data sheet of the FCC.

Figure 14: FCC mounted on PMC pallet

14 | P a g e
 D4a: Lithium ion cell exposure to an on-board external fire: Test results V0.2

V. Test Program, specific instrumentation and results

V.1. Test sequence
The Test sequence is depicted in Figure 15. It reflects in principle the test plan outlined in
deliverable D4a but also deviations from the test plan that were deemed necessary by the
Consortium after coordination with EASA.

Figure 15: Test sequence for the Full scale test campaign.

Before starting the actual full scale test campaign, 2 pre-tests were performed. A cold test
(without initiating fire) was performed to verify that the Halon concentration at every discharge
point was higher than 3% which is the required concentration for Halon effectiveness in the
aircraft.
The objective of the commissioning test which followed the cold test is to determine the
minimum duration of the flame exposure to initiate some heat generation inside the box filled
with cells. The commissioning test was performed with a reduced number of cardboard boxes
and cells to identify the optimum test setup.
The objective of the baseline test is to assess the effectiveness of the Halon suppression system
to suppress a battery cell fire initiated with an external flame. A further objective is to investigate
the thermal behaviour of the cells after the fire suppression.
The objective of the final full scale test is to assess the effectiveness of both the Halon suppression
system and the Fire Containment Cover. A further objective is to investigate the thermal
behaviour of the cells inside the boxes.

15 | P a g e