###### Abstract
They found that even the fire of a small BEV in an enclosed space, such as an underground garage, released an amount of HF that might pose a threat to the health of people in the structure, even in the early phase of the fire. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [15] set up CFD models, for the resolution of which the FDS code was used, to compare the consequences on user safety and property due to a fire involving similar BECs and ICECs in an underground garage, using as input the smoke and heat data computed by [PERSON] et al. [8]. They observed that the burning of the two types of vehicles had similar impacts in terms of visibility and temperature. Moreover, the fire of BECs with small-capacity traction batteries was found not to cause--compared to their ICEC counterparts--a greater risk in terms of power and energy released. However, given the lack of available data, they emphasize the importance of conducting research on vehicles with larger-capacity traction batteries. [PERSON] et al. [16] carried out full-scale fire tests in a road tunnel to evaluate the heat and toxic gases released during the burning of vehicles (i.e., vans and cars) with different energy storage technologies (i.e., LIB and diesel), while also investigating the efficiency of certain firefighting methods. They observed that the HRR\({}_{\text{max}}\) of BEVs was higher than that of similar ICEVs. Moreover, the most critical combustion product of a BEV fire was found to be the HF, whose concentration at the breathing height did not exceed the corresponding threshold value for human health. They also stressed that an efficient firefighting system to extinguish a BEV fire consisted of using a fire lance to inject water directly into the battery, while the use of a fire blanket failed once the battery was implicated in the fire. [PERSON] et al. [17] extended the study of [PERSON] et al. [13] by performing further full-scale fire tests inside a fire hall to investigate the effectiveness of a sprinkler system in mitigating the fire consequences of a BEC and a similar ICEC. Overall, the results obtained in this work, expressed in terms of HRR, toxic gas emissions, and smoke composition, confirmed those found by [PERSON] et al. [13] (i.e., the HF constituted the largest difference between BEV and ICEV fires). [PERSON] et al. [18] conducted a series of real-scale fire tests in an open-space environment to assess the hazards caused by the fire of a BEC and a similar ICEC. They found that the propulsion system did not significantly change the HRR\({}_{\text{max}}\), total heat released, and average effective heat of combustion. However, BEV fires are particularly dangerous for first responders due to the thermal runaway of the LIB packs. This increased risk stems from the delayed detection of such fires and the rapid escalation once the batteries catch fire. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [19] developed CFD models, which were run with the FDS tool, to investigate the impact of the fire of a battery electric bus (BEB) and a similar internal combustion engine bus (ICEB) in a short road tunnel (i.e., 300 m long), considering both cases of natural and mechanical ventilation. Compared to ICEBs, BEB fires were found to produce higher levels of toxicants, which might make the evacuation process more difficult for some vulnerable evacuees. Moreover, in the absence of a mechanical ventilation system, the results showed that some users might be exposed to irritant concentrations above the threshold values for human health during the burning of both types of vehicles. [PERSON] et al. [6] carried out a review of studies aimed at evaluating the impact of BEVs (i.e., cars and light commercial vehicles) on ventilation design for road tunnels. They observed that (i) the average HRR developed by BEVs and ICEVs in the event of a fire was comparable; (ii) the production of HF was higher when BEVs caught flames; (iii) water was still suitable for addressing the burning of BEVs.