###### Abstract
In recent years, many studies have carried out experiments and/or numerical simulations to assess the consequences of fires involving EVs powered by LIBs and/or the efficiency of some firefighting measures to address their extinguishment, while also investigating fires of similar ICEVs for comparative purposes. [PERSON] et al. [8] performed full-scale fire tests in an experimental tunnel facility to compare the fire consequences of analogous Battery Electric Cars (BECs) and internal combustion engine cars (ICECs). They found that the two types of vehicles showed similar values of the maximum Heat Release Rate (HRR\({}_{\text{max}}\)) as well as CO\({}_{2}\) and CO concentrations, with a significant difference in the production of Hydrogen Fluoride (HF), a higher release of which was observed for BECs due to the combustion of their LIB pack. They also pointed out that the results of these tests might be used in numerical simulations of BEC fires in confined spaces such as road tunnels, underground car parks, or other underground facilities. [PERSON] et al. [9] carried out real-scale fire tests in a fire room to compare the risk associated with the burning of a BEC rather than an equivalent ICEC. They found that the maximum magnitudes of both the HRR and heat flux for the BEC were higher than those of its ICEC counterpart. Moreover, the fire risk posed by the BEC was greater than that corresponding to the similar ICEC. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [10] conducted a series of full-scale fire suppression tests in an open-space environment on a BEC model. They found that BEC fires need much longer active suppression operations to counter LIB reignitions and considerably larger amounts of water than ICEC fires. Moreover, due to the long-expected cooling duration of burning BEVs, firefighter protocols should consider the potential need to equip rescue teams with multiple self-contained breathing apparatus tanks. [PERSON] et al. [11] performed a series of experiments in a full-scale fire test facility to compare the heat flux and HRR of similar BECs and ICECs subjected to external fire conditions simulating a fuel spill fire. Although the hazard did not change with the propulsion system, the heat flux levels and HRR\({}_{\text{max}}\) measured during BEC fires were a bit lower than those recorded in the corresponding ICEC fires. However, the authors remarkedthat the fire response of BEVs might vary with the design and State of Charge (SOC) of the battery, as well as the vehicle model. [PERSON] et al. [12] conducted two series of fire tests in an experimental tunnel facility. The first involved the individual combustible components of a vehicle (i.e., tires, plastics, gasoil, and electrical compounds), while the second focused on detailed smoke analysis concerning full-scale tests on similar BECs and ICECs. They observed that the HRR was not modified by the battery, as well as that the toxic gases released by the two types of vehicles were comparable. However, the total amount of HF released by the BEC was found to be 1.8 times (in kg units) higher than that of the corresponding ICEC. [PERSON] et al. [13] performed full-scale fire tests inside a fire hall to investigate the gases and heat released during the burning of analogous battery electric and internal combustion engine full-size vans. They found that the kind of propulsion system did not significantly affect the HRR\({}_{\text{max}}\) and total heat release. Instead, the production of HF was found to be the main difference between BEV and ICEV fires. Finally, using the full-scale fire test results as input data, they also developed computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models, for the resolution of which the Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) code was applied. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [14] presented CFD simulations, which were performed with the FDS code, to evaluate the temperature distribution and HF spread during a BEC fire in an underground garage, using as input the HRR and HF emissions data obtained experimentally by [PERSON] et al. [8].