Luton, United Kingdom
An accidental ignition inside a vehicle parked at London Luton Airport Terminal Car Park 2 on Oct. 10, 2023, led to the catastrophic fire during which part of the multi-level structure collapsed. The incident is recent enough at this writing in February 2024 that formal findings remain pending. But a principal criticism that emerged in the immediate aftermath was that Terminal Car Park 2 had no fire suppression sprinklers. The frenzied claim on social media that an electric vehicle (EV) was the source of the fire was false. But even though an EV battery thermal runaway did not cause the event, EVs were parked inside the structure, and some fueled the blaze. Law firm Browne Jacobson that it takes more than twice the amount of water to douse an EV battery fire compared to a traditional vehicle fire. In fact, firefighters ordinarily elect not to fight battery fires at all because it’s safer for everyone. They only initiate a firefight to contain some more catastrophic risk. EV market penetration will only grow. There will never be fewer of them in parking structures than there are right now. Fortunately, no one died in the fire, although some firefighters and an airport employee suffered smoke inhalation. But the cost of the Luton disaster will still be mighty, mostly to insurers. The Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service Fire said in late 2023 it’s unlikely that any of the 1,405 cars they knew to be in the car park at the time of the fire would be usable after what remains of the car park is demolished.Stavanger, Norway
Much more is known about the fire, first response, and aftermath of the Jan. 7, 2020 car park fire at Stavanger Airport Parking Building 3. The fire resulted in a partial collapse of the multi-level parking structure and the destruction of hundreds of vehicles. A establishes key facts which are crucial to any discussion of modern fire loads and the adequacy of legacy material response test methods. One is that there were no fire suppression sprinklers, same as Luton. Another is that the fire originated in a parked car in an upper level, a location which fire service personnel reported was difficult to access with their large apparatus. The report also indicated firefighters initially had difficulty locating fire hydrants, delaying their firefight. Next, the portion of the parking structure that collapsed was a newer build, utilizing different materials not considered in older fire safety designs which were repurposed for its construction. Newer designs existed but their changes compared to older designs were not adequately emphasized, according to the report. Also noteworthy is the fire development timeline. For the first 15 or so minutes from ignition, the fire was apparently contained to a single vehicle. But then, witnesses reported hearing a “bang” from an electric vehicle parked near the burning car (the EV, to be clear, was not the cause of the fire). Just a minute after the bang, witnesses observed flames, heard more bangs, and saw several more cars on fire. After only 18 minutes and 17 seconds, 10 cars were burning. The first fire trucks were not deployed until 19 minutes after ignition. Crews fought the fire for little more than an hour before evacuating ahead of the structure’s imminent collapse. No fire service response can be instantaneous or perfect. But keep Stavanger in mind as you consider that structural steel loses half its load-bearing integrity once it reaches 1,000°F (538°C), and that an EV battery can reach 1,832°F (1,000°C) in as little as five seconds in a thermal runaway event. As EVs proliferate, it is urgent that stakeholders scrutinize trends in construction materials, the performance of passive fire protection (PFP) products, and operative thermal response test methods—and to say so frankly if these all fall short against modern fire loads.Liverpool, United Kingdom
The fire that destroyed the King’s Dock car park in Liverpool on New Year’s Eve 2017 also began in a parked combustion-engine car. The Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service published in the aftermath details the convergence of factors that made this as bad as it was. For one example, the Service’s evidence strongly refuted a decades-old assertion that fires in multi-story, reinforced concrete parking structures tend not to spread from floor to floor. In the early stage of the King’s Dock fire, intense heat melted plastic and aluminum drainage infrastructure above the burning vehicle which provided a vector for its spread to the floor above. Another serious hazard was plastic petrol tanks in most of the parked cars. Investigators reported that as tank after tank failed, an intense running fuel fire developed. Further, there was clear evidence of widespread heat-induced failure of the structure’s concrete floor slabs which aided the spread of the fire from level to level. It could have been far worse. The King’s Dock car park was adjacent to the Arena Convention Center of Liverpool, where the Liverpool International Horse Show was in progress at the time of the fire. Thousands of spectators were safely evacuated. Also evacuated were the residents of two apartment buildings erected just beside the car park.Firefighters noted that the location of these residential structures prevented them from deploying aerial firefighting appliances in ideal positions. Fortunately, those apartment buildings and their occupants survived the fire. Minor injuries were reported, most of them smoke inhalation.