Reframing Data Center Fire Safety as a Socio-Technical Reliability System: A Systematic Review

Overview

The study asks how holistically academic literature treats fire-safety risk management frameworks for data centres. The search found 806 records (Scopus 330, Web of Science 476); after screening, eligibility and quality appraisal, twelve empirical studies were synthesised and benchmarked against NFPA 75 and NFPA 76. Findings are organised in three themes: strategic management, fire risk and fire preparedness.

The review identifies electrical faults (arc faults, short circuits, overloads, deteriorated wiring) as the predominant cause of data-centre fires. Lithium-ion BESS and UPS equipment are reported to significantly amplify fire potential, especially in high-density and hyperscale halls where energy is concentrated. Evidence from major incidents shows battery management systems and gaseous suppression can be ineffective against self-oxidising Li-ion battery fires, and DC power systems carry combined fire and shock risk from arcs and leakage currents that conventional protection devices find hard to detect.

The imbalance is clear: the literature concentrates on technical prevention and electrical ignition sources, while emergency response, damage control and recovery are far less studied and identified as the critical research gap. The authors note that fire standards require risk-based and performance-based design to consider impaired fire-protection systems and failure scenarios. Benchmarking shows the NFPA standards take a more comprehensive lifecycle approach than the academic literature, and the literature is geographically concentrated in technologically advanced regions, particularly China.

Limits: only twelve empirical studies were synthesised, a small sample, and the search is limited to 2020-2025 and two databases. The conclusion is that data-centre fire safety should be managed as a socio-technical system involving technology, people and organisational processes.

Key points

1. The search found 806 records (Scopus 330, Web of Science 476); twelve empirical studies were synthesised and benchmarked against NFPA 75 and NFPA 76.
2. The review identifies electrical faults (arc faults, short circuits, overloads, deteriorated wiring) as the predominant cause of data-centre fires.
3. Lithium-ion BESS and UPS equipment significantly amplify fire potential, especially in high-density and hyperscale halls.
4. Evidence from major incidents shows battery management systems and gaseous suppression can be ineffective against self-oxidising Li-ion battery fires.
5. DC power systems carry combined fire and shock risk from arcs and leakage currents that are hard to detect with conventional protection devices.
6. Fire standards require risk-based and performance-based designs to consider impaired fire-protection systems and failure scenarios.
7. Fire preparedness (emergency response, damage control, post-fire recovery) is the critical research gap.

Using it in design

• Ask for a fire-safety design file that covers a lifecycle plan (aligned with NFPA 75 and NFPA 76) including emergency response, damage control and post-fire recovery, not only prevention and suppression.
• Add to the design file the scenario in which BMS and gaseous suppression fail against a self-oxidising Li-ion fire in UPS and BESS areas.
• Assess arc and leakage-current detection in DC power systems separately, beyond conventional protection devices.
• In risk-based design, analyse impaired fire-protection systems (disabled, failed) as a separate scenario.

Who should read it

Engineers, risk managers and researchers planning data-centre fire-safety management, risk assessment and fire preparedness.

Document contents

1. 1. Introduction
2. 2. Methods (2.1 Systematic Searching Strategies: identification, screening, eligibility, quality appraisal; 2.2 Data Extraction and Analysis)
3. 3. Results (3.1 Thematic Distribution of Findings, 3.2 Strategic Management, 3.3 Fire Risk, 3.4 Fire Preparedness)
4. 4. Discussion (4.1 Imbalance in Thematic Emphasis, 4.2 Strategic Management Practices and Gaps, 4.3 Electrical Hazards and High-Consequence Fire Risks, 4.4 Fire Preparedness Gaps, 4.5 Systematic Literature Contributions, implications, limitations and research gaps)
5. 5. Conclusions

Related standards

• NFPA 75
• NFPA 76
• NFPA 855

Read the document

Publication details

Authors

Riza Hadafi Punari; Kadir Arifin; Mohamad Xazaquan Mansor Ali; Kadaruddin Ayub; Azlan Abas; Ahmad Jailani Mansor

Publisher

Fire (MDPI AG)

Year

2026

Volume

9

Issue

4

Pages

151

Document language

English

Source type

Scientific

Access

Open licence — downloadable

DOI

10.3390/fire9040151

Licence

CC BY 4.0 — share with attribution

Licence evidence

www.mdpi.com

Citation