Progress report of TFG 7 “Fire resistance test” June 5, 2015 Korea Transportation Safty Authority (TS) Korea Automobile Testing & Research Institute (KATRI) Seul-ki Lee, Senior Researcher UN ECE / WP29 / GRSP/ 8 th EVS Informal Meeting in Washington D.C

4 th face to face meeting (Washington D.C, 2 nd Jun.2015) OICA commented that Korea need to provide the justification of LPG burner. Korea will submit the justification after complete the GTR draft Korea commented that the exemption for REESS positioned over 1.5m could be considered. OICA suggested to keep the exemption unless there was a strong justification Scania mentioned that the risk of melting plastic blocking the nozzle could affect the test. Korea replied that this is not an issue in the 2 min test Korea proposed re-ordering the fire test elements of GTR draft. OICA tentatively agreed to change it as long as no information is missed in process. OICA proposed that vehicle based-gasoline pool fire test should be a final compliance test as a preferential option in GTR draft. Korea suggested that every each option can be a compliance test and it is not necessary to be described in GTR. 1

4 th face to face meeting US questioned why both pool fire and LPG burner was required. OICA referred to R34 and R100 and explained that the equivalency of the pool fire and LPG test is not verified. US suggested that the temperature curve should be defined. OICA commented that the starting temperature profile was discussed as well as where to measure 800℃ to confirm starting point of the test. OICA made point that energy input to REESS is as more important as the actual temperature. Need to discuss further. OICA proposed that the position of thermo sensors to be measured should be clarified clearly on GTR draft. OICA proposed that the position should be defined in terms of the burner matrix, not the REESS. Korea’s proposal intended to measure the flame around the REESS. Need to discuss further. 2

4 th face to face meeting US asked how to justify performing the vehicle test on a mock up structure with the combustible materials removed. The TF agreed that SOC requirements should be set by TF6 Korea reported on test facilities for different countries. US, Canada, and Sweden have a capability to perform LPG burner test. Some of their burner type is different from Koreans. Both are OK to perform it. China is improving their equipment to satisfy the requirement of LPG burner test. Japan insisted that measuring a heat flux is more important rather than temperature to compare gasoline vs LPG fire test. Korea provided specification of test equipment in GTR tentatively as OICA requested, but still need to consider whether to define test equipment in GTR or not. US and Canada suggested that it is not necessary to define the test equipment. 3

4 th face to face meeting Canada presented a comparative study of ICE vs xEV. They concluded that only component level long term test is required for safety assessment. OICA argued that long duration component test adds nothing to vehicle safety, because combustion of the rest of the vehicle is the safety critical event. US consider a justification for a longer duration test separately 4

5 Open issues & Future work Part 1. Short Duration Fire Resistance Test 1.Gasoline pool test vs. LPG burner test – equivalency etc. 2.Necessity to define a single or multiple test methods 3.Necessity to provide temperature profile regarding to starting condition 4.How to define the temperature sensor location 5.Need to measure heat flux of LPG burner test 6.Necessity to define a specification of test equipment 7.How to justify performing the vehicle test on a mock up structure with the combustible materials removed. Part 2. Long Duration Fire Resistance Test 1.Define the proper test method for long duration test 2.Basic issues of the fire resistance test such as purpose, definition of long term, exposure time, etc. 3.Detailed working plan and timeline by US and Canada

Thank you!