Supply Chain Execution Software
Supply Chain Execution Software
The rise of electric vehicles (EVs) is transforming automotive logistics—but not in the way many assume. EVs don’t necessarily catch fire more often than internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. The real shift lies in how they burn—and the profound implications this has for car carrier stowage planning.
Today, vehicle logistics is no longer just about maximizing deck space. It’s about managing risk in a fundamentally different fire scenario—one that challenges long-established practices across the maritime industry. Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) are restricted in handling and stowage due to their big battery and the fact that they are driven on board electrical, so the battery is heated during loading process. Hybrid Electronic Vehicles (HEV) and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV) do not require special handling due to their smaller battery and the fact that they are driven on board purely on gasoline.
Traditional vehicle fires—typically involving fuel ignition—are relatively well understood. They spread quickly but can usually be extinguished with water or foam, with limited risk of reignition.
EV fires, however, behave very differently. Driven by lithium-ion battery thermal runaway, they:
In traditional stowage planning, the goal was clear: maximize capacity and efficiency. EVs disrupt that paradigm. Today, planners prioritize decks that have fixed (non-hoistable) configurations, provide strong structural fire boundaries, offer robust ventilation, and allow quick access for firefighting.
This often means placing EVs on main or lower fixed decks, while avoiding areas where heat and smoke could accumulate or where access is limited. Space efficiency sometimes becomes secondary to fire response capability.
Car carriers have long been divided into fire zones. With EVs, these zones are becoming more granular and purposeful. Operators increasingly group EVs into dedicated zones or lanes, align detection systems precisely with EV stowage areas, and introduce buffer spaces between EV clusters.
The objective is clear: prevent cascading events and ensure a fire can be managed within a clearly defined area.
Even without universal regulations, many operators now enforce stricter internal rules:
These measures come at a cost—lower cargo intake and reduced revenue per voyage. Planners must constantly balance commercial pressure with safety margins.
One of the most significant operational changes involves hoistable decks. These decks, designed to optimize capacity flexibility, now pose challenges for EV stowage because they restrict vertical heat dissipation, complicate firefighting access, and increase the risk of heat accumulation. As a result, many operators prohibit EVs beneath lowered hoistable decks and restrict EV placement to fixed deck areas. This represents a fundamental departure from traditional RoRo optimization strategies.
Stowage planning now goes beyond geometry—it incorporates sensor coverage and monitoring capability:
In an EV scenario, firefighting is a prolonged activity. That makes accessibility critical.
Planners now prioritize placements near fire mains and hydrants, water spray systems and easily navigable access routes. Hard-to-reach locations—such as deep aft sections or areas behind complex ramps—are increasingly avoided for EV stowage.
Battery fires release toxic and flammable gases, which makes ventilation a key planning parameter.
EVs are typically placed where the air extraction is strongest, ventilation systems can operate independently, and smoke can be effectively managed without affecting other decks. This can limit which decks are even eligible for EV cargo, adding another constraint to planning.
Planning now must also consider upstream and operational rules like state-of-charge (SoC) limits, often capped at 30–50%, strict pre-loading inspections and damaged EVs may be rejected entirely. Late detection of issues can force last-minute replanning—something automation alone cannot easily accommodate.
Despite advanced stowage software, human intervention remains essential. Why? Because planning is no longer just about math. It’s about judgment.
Software can calculate stability, validate structural constraints, and optimize layouts within defined rules. But it cannot anticipate real-world cargo discrepancies, adapt to port disruptions or operational chaos, evaluate firefighting practicality or incorporate tacit knowledge from past incidents. As a result, planners constantly adjust cargo manually — creating buffers, improving access, and making trade-offs that software cannot fully model.
Lessons learned from incidents that happened have shifted the guiding principle of car carrier stowage:
From: “How many vehicles can we load?”
To: “Where can we safely manage the worst-case fire while still focus on utilization?”
This shift affects every aspect of planning, like deck allocation, cargo density, zoning strategy, ventilation, and operational procedures. But most importantly, it reinforces the role of human expertise.
There is currently no unified global standard for EV stowage. Rules vary by operator, classification society, and insurer—and they continue to evolve as new lessons emerge.
What is clear, however, is this:
EVs are not just another cargo type. They are redefining the risk model of maritime vehicle transport.
For planners, operators, and technology providers alike, the challenge is not just to adapt—but to rethink the entire approach to car carrier logistics.
This is why the new Kaleris RoRo Planning module introduces software-supported stowage planning without diminishing human expertise. It enables the planner to work more sustainably by keeping an overview of special stowage instructions and adhere to restrictions like electric vehicle decks or other area restrictions. It also enables informed decision making based on exact vessel and cargo details and warnings and aims for optimized and close-to-real-live-practice placement and space assessment without ignoring safety instructions.
