Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fire

Batteries, Chargers, and Battery Management Systems.
Post Reply
User avatar
mrbill   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 511
Joined: Jun 10 2008 6:47pm
Location: Silicon Valley, California
Contact:

Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fire

Post by mrbill » Jan 08 2013 2:16pm

Does anyone know what kind of lithium batteries are installed in the Boeing 787 Dreamliner?

CNBC reported recently on a fire that broke out on one parked at BOS that was connected to the lithium battery power supply. Anyone have additional information?

http://finance.yahoo.com/video/fire-bos ... 00197.html
Bill Bushnell
http://mrbill.homeip.net/
Bike build thread can be seen here.

User avatar
amberwolf   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 27408
Joined: Aug 17 2009 6:43am
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA, Earth, Sol, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group
Contact:

Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fire

Post by amberwolf » Jan 08 2013 5:19pm

a quick search didn't find the type, but did find this spec sheet on a 3rd party charger for them:
http://www.securaplane.com/download/doc ... arger-unit

and here's a page tht lists mfr for thme
http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detai ... model=B787
http://www.airframer.com/direct_detail. ... any=121739
http://www.gs-yuasa.com/us/index.asp

dnmun   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 16190
Joined: Jun 09 2008 1:32pm
Location: portland, or and loveland, co

Re: 2013 Li Battery Fires - Summary Thread

Post by dnmun » Jan 08 2013 10:57pm

Japan battery maker shares fall after Boeing 787 fire
9:53 PM ET 1/8/13 | Reuters

Japan battery maker shares fall after Boeing 787 fire
By Ayai Tomisawa

TOKYO, Jan 9 (Reuters) - Shares of Japan's GS Yuasa Corp , which makes batteries for Boeing Co's new 787 Dreamliner, fell sharply for a second day on Wednesday after a fire aboard a Japan Airlines aircraft earlier this week.

"The batteries were made by our company," a GS Yuasa spokesman told Reuters, adding that the cause of the fire was unclear, and whether or not the fire was sparked by the GS Yuasa-made batteries had not been determined.

"We are ready to send our crew for investigation when we get more details from the authorities," he said. The company said it provides auxiliary power unit batteries for the Dreamliner.

On Monday, an electrical fire erupted on one of Boeing's 787 Dreamliners operated by Japan Airlines at Boston's Logan International airport. Authorities said a battery in the auxiliary power unit aboard the plane jet had suffered "severe fire damage".

In a second mishap a day later at the same airport, a fuel leak forced a different 787 operated by Japan Airlines to cancel takeoff at the Boston airport. The two incidents have extended a series of problems that have dogged the jet for more than a month and notched up concern about the plane.

Shares in GS Yuasa, Japan's top producer of traditional lead acid auto batteries with a 35 percent chunk of the domestic market, fell as much as 5.1 percent to 318 yen, after falling 4 percent on Tuesday.

Analysts said the impact on earnings was seen as limited at present, as the company's industrial battery business only accounts for 1 percent of group sales.

"We think this incident is unlikely to have any major impact on earnings at GS Yuasa at this point because industrial application LiBs (lithium-ion batteries) make only a modest earnings contribution," Citigroup analyst Tsubasa Sasaki said in a note.

"However, industrial LiBs are one of the company's growth areas and we think earnings could be negatively affected to some degree if it turns out that its batteries did trigger the fire."

GS Yuasa's products range from lead acid batteries for auto and motorbike uses to industrial lithium-ion batteries.

Japan Airlines said six of its seven Boeing 787 aircraft are operating in Japan, while one remains at Boston Logan. Japan's transport ministry ordered inspections of batteries in the auxiliary power unit. JAL inspected six of the units and found no problems.

salty9   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 478
Joined: Aug 14 2009 10:14pm
Location: 42.6°N 122.71°W

Boeing 787 Lithium Battery Fire

Post by salty9 » Jan 16 2013 11:37am


User avatar
Chalo   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 7961
Joined: Apr 29 2009 11:29pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fire

Post by Chalo » Jan 16 2013 1:55pm

I had a feeling when the news broke about a battery fire on the 787, that it would turn out to be lithium secondaries. And now it looks like my hunch was correct:

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... g-787-fire
http://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=boeing+lithium
This is to express my gratitude to Justin of Grin Technologies for his extraordinary measures to save this forum for the benefit of all.

User avatar
neptronix   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 13944
Joined: Jun 15 2010 5:56pm
Location: California refugee living in Utah, USA
Contact:

Re: Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fire

Post by neptronix » Jan 16 2013 2:45pm

The event prompted scrutiny from the media over Boeing’s use of the particular kind of battery–known to present a fire hazard in the event of an overcharge or what Sinnett called an over-discharge condition. In response, Sinnett issued a sober explanation of the dangers and the “redundancies” put in place by Boeing to protect against both conditions, as well as the spread of fire in the event of an explosion.

“In the case of this APU battery we have four separate layers of protection,” said Sinnett. “Really the only faults left that we’d be worried about are internal faults in the manufacture of the battery, of its individual cells…We have never seen that in these batteries.”
I'm laughing my fraggin' ass off over here reading this article.
I can point out at least a dozen people on this forum who could have designed a better battery pack.
Efficiency is everything :bolt:

My first major build: 1.6kW 8T MAC motor on a Trek 4500.
The new all-arounder: Leafmotor 1500w @ 4kW on a Turner O2 full suspension.
The monster scooter: 20" eZee on a Cannondale Semi Recumbent.
Whipper-snapper: ? on a lightweight BikeE Semi Recumbent

dnmun   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 16190
Joined: Jun 09 2008 1:32pm
Location: portland, or and loveland, co

Re: Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fire

Post by dnmun » Jan 16 2013 3:01pm

there is not any clear knowledge of the battery 'problem' just the smoke from the plane on the ramp at boston and the alarm that put the ANA jet on the ground last night and grounded half the fleet.

until there is clear knowledge of what failed it is still just opinions. the problem could be in the management circuit that regulates and switches the power that the pack is part of.

etriker   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1078
Joined: May 27 2012 8:21am
Location: Florida USA

Re: Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fire

Post by etriker » Jan 16 2013 3:09pm

neptronix wrote:
The event prompted scrutiny from the media over Boeing’s use of the particular kind of battery–known to present a fire hazard in the event of an overcharge or what Sinnett called an over-discharge condition. In response, Sinnett issued a sober explanation of the dangers and the “redundancies” put in place by Boeing to protect against both conditions, as well as the spread of fire in the event of an explosion.

“In the case of this APU battery we have four separate layers of protection,” said Sinnett. “Really the only faults left that we’d be worried about are internal faults in the manufacture of the battery, of its individual cells…We have never seen that in these batteries.”
I'm laughing my fraggin' ass off over here reading this article.
I can point out at least a dozen people on this forum who could have designed a better battery pack.
No way it was the cells. Cell quality has nothing to do with battery fires ? :?

Someone hooked them up wrong or did not do the lipo rules ?

User avatar
fechter   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 14073
Joined: Dec 31 2006 3:23pm
Location: California Bay Area, USA

Re: 2013 Li Battery Fires - Summary Thread

Post by fechter » Jan 16 2013 3:32pm

dnmun wrote: On Monday, an electrical fire erupted on one of Boeing's 787 Dreamliners operated by Japan Airlines at Boston's Logan International airport. Authorities said a battery in the auxiliary power unit aboard the plane jet had suffered "severe fire damage".

In a second mishap a day later at the same airport, a fuel leak forced a different 787 operated by Japan Airlines to cancel takeoff at the Boston airport. The two incidents have extended a series of problems that have dogged the jet for more than a month and notched up concern about the plane.
Dang, good thing both problems didn't happen at the same time! That could be expensive.
"One test is worth a thousand opinions"

User avatar
fizzit   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 726
Joined: Mar 10 2010 10:14pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fire

Post by fizzit » Jan 16 2013 5:33pm

neptronix wrote:
I'm laughing my fraggin' ass off over here reading this article.
I can point out at least a dozen people on this forum who could have designed a better battery pack.
I highly doubt that. People designing batteries for commercial jet liners don't mess around.
-Colin

Joseph C.   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1797
Joined: Feb 03 2011 8:43am
Location: Ireland
Contact:

AP Story Leaking Batteries Aboard 787

Post by Joseph C. » Jan 16 2013 6:59pm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =169517358
Boeing's troubles with its newest, flashiest airplane are getting worse.

For the second time in two weeks, a smoking or burning battery has been tied to an emergency aboard a 787. Almost half of the 787s that have been delivered have now been grounded for safety checks. And the latest incident raises the risk that the jet's electrical problems are more dangerous than previously thought.

It's a stunning setback for the plane nicknamed the Dreamliner, which was supposed to set a new standard for jet travel but has been beset for more than a week by one mishap after another. The two episodes involving batteries appear to be the most worrisome yet.

So far, no one has suggested that the plane's fundamental design can't be fixed. But it's unclear how much will need to be changed.

The remedy could range from relatively quick-and-easy improvements to more extensive changes that could delay deliveries just as Boeing is trying to speed production up from five planes per month to 10.

On Wednesday, Japan's All Nippon Airways said pilots smelled something burning and received a cockpit message warning of battery problems while flying from Yamaguchi Ube airport in western Japan to Tokyo.

They made an emergency landing at Takamatsu airport in western Japan, and passengers evacuated using inflatable slides.

An inspection found that a flammable liquid had leaked from the main lithium-ion battery, which is below and slightly behind the cockpit. Investigators found burn marks around the damage.

"Anytime you have a fire on board — whether it's the battery that has caused it or a passenger that caused it or another electrical component — that's a very a serious situation on an aircraft and something not to be taken lightly," said Kevin Hiatt, president of the Flight Safety Foundation.

Japan's Kyodo News agency quoted transport ministry investigator Hideyo Kosugi as saying that the liquid leaked through the electrical room floor to the outside of the aircraft.

The transport ministry said the leak could have led to an accident. ANA, which operates 17 of the jets, and Japan Airlines, which has seven, said they won't fly their 787s until they complete safety checks. That's almost half of the 50 planes Boeing has delivered since handing the first one over to ANA in late 2011.

Just last week, a battery on a Japan Airlines 787 caught fire soon after the plane landed at Boston's Logan Airport. It took firefighters 40 minutes to put out the flames.

The 787 is the first plane to make extensive use of lithium-ion batteries, which have raised concerns in the past for their potential to catch fire. The Federal Aviation Administration has given the batteries extra scrutiny and issued a special rule for their use in the 787. The plane has two batteries — the main one near the front and a second one in the rear.

Boeing and the airlines will need to move quickly to determine whether the problem is a flaw in the batteries themselves, in the plane's wiring or in some other area that's fundamental to the plane's electrical system.

Boeing has booked orders for more than 800 of the planes from airlines around the world attracted by its increased fuel efficiency.

The jet's lightweight design makes it more of a fuel-sipper, and it's so lightweight in part because it uses electricity to do things that other airplanes do with hot air vented through internal ducts. So a 787 with electrical problems is like a minivan that won't haul kids. It goes to the heart of what the thing was built to do.

Before it carried paying passengers, the 787 was closely reviewed by inspectors from Boeing and the FAA.

Mike Sinnett, chief engineer on the 787, said last week that the plane's batteries have operated through a combined 1.3 million hours and never had an internal fault. He said they were built with multiple protections to ensure that "failures of the battery don't put the airplane at risk."

The lithium-ion design was chosen because it's the only type of battery that can take a large charge in a short amount of time.

When he spoke last week, Sinnett said Boeing was not considering replacing the lithium-ion design with another type of battery.

Neither GS Yuasa Corp., the Japanese company that supplies the batteries for the 787, nor Thales, which makes the battery charging system, would comment on the recent troubles.

Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airways are two of the 787's biggest customers.

ANA was especially proud of its 787s. Its executives' business cards and the top of its website read "787" and "We fly 1st." ANA got the first one Boeing delivered in late 2011, more than three years late.

Other 787s have had problems with certain electrical panels and fuel leaks.

Back on Jan. 9, ANA canceled a domestic flight to Tokyo after a computer wrongly indicated there was a problem with the 787's brakes. Two days later, the carrier reported two new problems with the aircraft — a minor fuel leak and a cracked cockpit windscreen.

Many of the 787s problems are typical of well-established planes around the world, Hiatt said, adding that he would have no qualms about flying aboard a 787.

"That airplane is the most scrutinized plane in the air," he said. "I would get on the airplane tomorrow."

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood dismissed any doubts that the FAA was not as diligent as it should have been when certifying the plane.

"Our people are the best, but we need to work with Boeing and to make sure everything we've done has been done correctly," he told reporters at a luncheon Wednesday in Washington.

Other airlines are sticking with the 787 for now. United Airlines checked all six of its 787s overnight and planned to fly them as scheduled Wednesday.

LOT Polish Airlines was beginning regular 787 flights between Chicago's O'Hare Airport and Warsaw on Wednesday and said its plans had not changed.

Because its planes are among the later ones built by Boeing, they received "proper modifications which reduce technical problems" seen in the 787s of other airlines, the airline said in a statement. A spokesperson declined to elaborate.

Boeing was already under scrutiny for last week's fire, which was also tied to the battery in the back of the plane.

That fire prompted investigations by the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration, and the FAA later said it would review the design and manufacture of the plane, focusing on its electrical systems.

The NTSB said Wednesday that it would send an investigator to Japan to join the latest probe, and that representatives from the FAA and Boeing were on their way, too.

United frequent flier Josh Feller said he changed his plans to fly a United 787 from Los Angeles to Houston next month because of the 787's troubles.

"I've been following the 787 news closely, and the latest incident finally spooked me into changing my flight," he said by email. "It's an unnecessary risk, and since I was going out of my way to fly the plane in the first place, decided to change flights."

He also wanted to avoid any disruptions if United eventually grounds the 787.

Boeing shares dropped $2.60, or 3.4 percent, to close Wednesday at $74.34. They're down 4.3 percent since the first fire.

Also Wednesday, Goldman Sachs dropped Boeing from its "conviction buy" list of top picks, although it left the shares with a "buy" rating.

___

Associated Press writers Elaine Kurtenbach and Yuri Kageyama in Tokyo, Kelvin Chan in Hong Kong, Scott Mayerowitz in New York and Joan Lowy in Washington contributed to this report.
It seems like corners are being cut.
Yellow Magpie - Home Of The Talented And The Interesting

http://yellowmagpie.com

User avatar
ohzee   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1715
Joined: Jul 20 2011 1:13pm
Location: Columbus Ohio USA

Re: AP Story Leaking Batteries Aboard 787

Post by ohzee » Jan 16 2013 7:01pm


etriker   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1078
Joined: May 27 2012 8:21am
Location: Florida USA

Re: Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fire

Post by etriker » Jan 16 2013 7:03pm


Joseph C.   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1797
Joined: Feb 03 2011 8:43am
Location: Ireland
Contact:

Re: AP Story Leaking Batteries Aboard 787

Post by Joseph C. » Jan 16 2013 7:49pm

Yellow Magpie - Home Of The Talented And The Interesting

http://yellowmagpie.com

User avatar
neptronix   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 13944
Joined: Jun 15 2010 5:56pm
Location: California refugee living in Utah, USA
Contact:

Re: Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fire

Post by neptronix » Jan 16 2013 9:03pm

Maybe they will reconsider the battery supplier after the third time :lol:
Efficiency is everything :bolt:

My first major build: 1.6kW 8T MAC motor on a Trek 4500.
The new all-arounder: Leafmotor 1500w @ 4kW on a Turner O2 full suspension.
The monster scooter: 20" eZee on a Cannondale Semi Recumbent.
Whipper-snapper: ? on a lightweight BikeE Semi Recumbent

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10061
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fire

Post by Hillhater » Jan 16 2013 10:10pm

neptronix wrote:Maybe they will reconsider the battery supplier after the third time :lol:

Leaping to conclusions, then playing prosecutor, Judge and Jury there Nep' ..
As others have said it could be the charge circuits, BMS, wiring, or any one of many associated items.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
liveforphysics   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 14134
Joined: Oct 29 2008 1:48am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Re: Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fire

Post by liveforphysics » Jan 16 2013 10:56pm

I pity the team in charge of that battery. Commercial production battery development is so much harder than people ASSume it would be to do. This issue could be something as simple as under-estimating the amount of condensation that collects in that area of the plane in some odd usage model that never occurred in testing, or a thousand other things. It's not as easy as you may think to make durable long lasting batteries that withstand every bizarre should-never-happen-type-situation that ol' infinitely creative Murphy can throw at them.
Each carcinogen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for cancer.

Each mutagen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for reproductive genetic defects in your children.

Each engine start sprays them into a shared atmosphere which includes beings not offered an opportunity to consent accepting these cancer experiences and defective genetics life experiences.

Every post is a free gift to the collective of minds composing the living bleeding edge of LEV development on our spaceship.

flathill   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1273
Joined: Jul 06 2010 9:26pm

Re: Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fire

Post by flathill » Jan 17 2013 12:24am

Which is why you shouldnt use flammable electrolyte on a plane with hundreds of passens
Unless the batteries can be dropped
But all batteries can start a fire

The airlandplane
Im working on can parachute the motor and batteries and go into glide mode

dnmun   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 16190
Joined: Jun 09 2008 1:32pm
Location: portland, or and loveland, co

Re: Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fire

Post by dnmun » Jan 17 2013 12:53am

they really should not carry all that refined petroleum in the wings either. it burns like crazy and they carry 20 tons of it.

it would be neat if we got some real info to analyze. 'flaming electrolyte' is concocted for the press to have something to make news out of.

this may be a problem of different suppliers having different assumptions about power management during the development and when it came together at boeing, there was no boeing project engineer with his hands around the entire project since it was all developed out of house.

i am like luke, since i really feel for the engineer in the hot seat on this. been there, done that until i burned out. luke knows that feeling now too it sounds like.

flathill   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1273
Joined: Jul 06 2010 9:26pm

Re: Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fire

Post by flathill » Jan 17 2013 1:00am

Well nasa qualified these batteries
But none of the reports Ive seen show Penetration testing at all
Just short, overcharege to 4.9
And vibration heat accel etc

The tiedown strap arrangement is wack
What was the thinking quick change
Either way retared
The straps can warp that thin case
Look how easy they broke in
Image

User avatar
neptronix   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 13944
Joined: Jun 15 2010 5:56pm
Location: California refugee living in Utah, USA
Contact:

Re: Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fire

Post by neptronix » Jan 17 2013 1:14am

So apparently dreamliners are all permanently grounded until further inspection.

Man, this looks bad on lithium batteries.
Efficiency is everything :bolt:

My first major build: 1.6kW 8T MAC motor on a Trek 4500.
The new all-arounder: Leafmotor 1500w @ 4kW on a Turner O2 full suspension.
The monster scooter: 20" eZee on a Cannondale Semi Recumbent.
Whipper-snapper: ? on a lightweight BikeE Semi Recumbent

User avatar
amberwolf   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 27408
Joined: Aug 17 2009 6:43am
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA, Earth, Sol, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group
Contact:

Re: Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fire

Post by amberwolf » Jan 17 2013 1:18am


flathill   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1273
Joined: Jul 06 2010 9:26pm

Re: Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fire

Post by flathill » Jan 17 2013 1:36am

Fing cobalt

The chemistry—and safety—of lithium-ion batteries varies. According to GS Yuasa’s website, the batteries it uses for Boeing’s 787 use lithium cobalt oxide electrodes. These are known for high-energy storage capacity, but other battery chemistries, such as lithium iron phosphate, are more resistant to overheating. Because of safety concerns, many electric vehicle makers have shifted to alternative chemistries, sacrificing some energy storage capacity.

Because the electrolyte materials used are flammable, no lithium-ion batteries are completely safe. Some companies are developing a version that doesn’t use these electrolytes (see “Solid-State Batteries”). Consequently, battery makers install various safety features, including electronics designed to prevent overcharging. They also often include sensors and cooling systems.

According to GS Yuasa, its battery for the 787 “comes with battery management electronics which guarantees multiple levels of safety features.” A specification sheet for the batteries warns, “Inappropriate handling or application of the cells can result in reduced cell life and performance, electrolyte leakage, high cell temperatures, and even the possibility of smoke generation and fire.”

Boeing declined to comment on its selection of battery chemistries. A spokesperson says it is aware of the incident in Japan and is working with the airline and regulatory bodies to address it.

Why go large format cobalt
So stupid
If they wanted to stick with cobalt they should have stuck with quallion 18650
Prismatic terminals still arent good with vibration
But the two in the same time frame make me think firmware bms upgrade recent
Or just japan return the favor for the little trick we played on toyota to give gm the lead which we just lost
And prodding for island defense

User avatar
Dlogic   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 324
Joined: Oct 18 2010 11:10am
Location: Germany

Boeing Lipo fire

Post by Dlogic » Jan 17 2013 2:30am

Maybe they should acquire some help from the lipo gurus on this forum. :mrgreen:

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/50 ... erheating/

User avatar
dogman dan   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 34964
Joined: May 17 2008 12:53pm
Location: Las Cruces New Mexico USA

Re: Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fire

Post by dogman dan » Jan 17 2013 6:48am

Sounds like perhaps a puffy leaked. Once cells become nonfunctional, it sure hammers the remaining ones, to the point of flames perhaps.

Post Reply