Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fire

another case of industrial espionage. this is becoming common in the battery manufacturing sphere. (remember a123)
 
i don't think they had low standards at A123. from what i read, during assembly of the pouches, there was a registration error when the separator was mounted in between the electrodes that was significant enuff that there was risk of shorting between the electrodes. there are others who may know more.

it was not from negligence or poor standards, it was just poor manufacturing process control at a critical step. i never did learn how the misalignment could be caused. perhaps there was a failure of the equipment to place the separator exactly or it could have had a built in offset invisible to the equipment controls.
 
dnmun said:
i don't think they had low standards at A123. from what i read, during assembly of the pouches, there was a registration error when the separator was mounted in between the electrodes that was significant enuff that there was risk of shorting between the electrodes. there are others who may know more.

it was not from negligence or poor standards, it was just poor manufacturing process control at a critical step. i never did learn how the misalignment could be caused. perhaps there was a failure of the equipment to place the separator exactly or it could have had a built in offset invisible to the equipment controls.
Click to expand...

Assuming they knew how critical the potential defect was ( they should have known) .. then they should also have had operating procedures to both prevent it occurring, and also a sample check procedure ( process capability based) to ensure any defects were detected before significant quantities were produced.
Both obviously failed = poor manufacturing standards = subsequent business impact.
 
dnmun said:
i also wondered why they could not have some big air vent that opens directly to the exterior of the plane on this battery box. if it overheats just exhaust so much air through the box it would carry the heat away and then have water sprayer inside the box to cool it along with the air flow to suck all the moisture out of the electrical bay there.
Click to expand...

I worked on plane air systems (although on different planes, sukkoi superjet 100 and chinese copy of the airbus A320). The main reason for this not being done is the sudden pressure change / differential would tear the plane in half, or kill everyone. You need the place to be accessible, so you need air conditionning (temperature, humidity and pressure); you cannot just vent it outside. It also needs clean air (ie no ice pellets / debris / birds in it ), so that is not as simple as it looks.

The pressure system on plane is somewhat simple: there are valves (if not just holes) in the front, and other at the rear. Depending on their opening, you let more or less air in while flying, and bleed more or less air, so you have the desired pressure. There are safety relief valves of course but the main idea is there, so you cant just add a vent that will depressurize the plane in case of a fire emergency. That would kill every passenger in case the plane flights high ( i dont know how to translate it : "embolie pulmonaire", air dissolved in your blood start to bubble everywhere and you die from suffocation, same thing happens when going deep underwater and climbing too fast)
 
UPDATE 3-Airbus drops lithium-ion batteries for A350
8:02am EST
* Switch to traditional batteries amid Boeing battery probe
* Move aims to prevent further delay to new European jet
* Uncertainty over outcome of 787 battery investigation
By Tim Hepher
PARIS, Feb 15 (Reuters) - Airbus has dropped lithium-ion batteries of the type that forced the grounding of Boeing's 787 Dreamliner and will use traditional nickel-cadmium batteries in its crucially important next passenger jet, the A350.
The European planemaker said on Friday it had taken the decision to adopt the batteries used on existing models such as the A380 superjumbo in order to prevent delays in the A350's entry to service next year.
Reuters had reported that Airbus was considering such a move to limit the risks surrounding the development of its $15 billion airliner.
"We want to mature the lithium-ion technology but we are making this decision today to protect the A350's entry-into-service schedule," an Airbus spokeswoman said.
Industry executives, insurance companies and safety officials had told Reuters the technology's predictability was being questioned at senior levels as investigators struggle to find the cause of incidents that led to the grounding of Boeing's 787 Dreamliner.
These included a fire on board a parked 787 in Boston and an in-flight problem on another plane in Japan.
The A350 is due to enter service in the second half of 2014 compared with an initial target of 2012 when it was launched as Europe's answer to the lightweight 787 Dreamliner.
The industry's fear is that the failure to identify the "root cause" of the burning battery incidents leaves too much uncertainty over whether regulators will certify planes as safe when relying on the powerful but temperamental power packs.
Airbus, which has said the A350 timetable is "challenging," can ill afford such doubts over its largest ever civil plane project and so has opted to eliminate its exposure to the risk that regulators might change the rules.
Airbus will use the lithium-ion batteries for a maiden flight in mid-year and early flight trials but switch to traditional batteries in time for certification and delivery.
DOUBTS OVER TECHNICAL MATURITY
Uncertainty over whether Airbus can be sure of certifying the A350 with the new batteries, in time for delivery in the second half of next year, illustrates the scale of the task Boeing faces in persuading U.S. regulators to let it fly the 787.
People familiar with the matter say it has developed a fix involving a tough casing for the lithium-ion battery.
Without a clear cause for the battery problems and based on the same broad facts that are available to its arch-competitor Airbus, Boeing would need to demonstrate the risks are minimal.
Lithium-ion batteries have been in consumer products such as mobile phones and laptop computers for years but are relatively new to industrial applications such as back-up batteries for electrical systems in jets or energy storage on wind farms.
Both Airbus and Boeing insist the new battery technology is safe. But beyond any debate over safety, questions have arisen over its "maturity" or predictability. Engineers aim to minimize uncertainty because it translates into financial risk.
Airbus parent EADS shares rose 0.4 percent on Friday, while shares in French battery maker Saft fell over one percent. Saft developed the lithium-ion battery for the A350 but is also Airbus's supplier for older types on all models. A spokeswoman said Saft supported Airbus's decision.
Switching to the heavier nickel-cadmium will mean adding 60-80 kilogrammes to the weight of the A350 -- reducing its payload capacity by the equivalent of an adult male passenger.
That is usually more than enough for planemakers to fight over when marketing the fuel savings of their jets, but Airbus has decided it is outweighed by the risks of further delay.
Boeing said last week it had selected lithium-ion batteries because they best met the performance and design objectives of the 787.
"Nothing we learned during the design of the 787 or since has led us to change our fundamental assessment of the technology," a spokesman said.
© Thomson Reuters 2011
 
You would think they could drop a stewardess or two using a robot, where's my damn Roboserver already!! It's 2013 for cryin' out loud! A track running fore and aft on the ceiling with a hanging bot would free up the aisles. Seeing as how the old stewardess' aren't retiring and the young girls don't seem to be hired on good looks, the humans would not be missed IMHO.
 
From The Guardian newspaper in the UK

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/feb/15/airbus-lithium-ion-batteries-dreamliner

Airbus ditches lithium-ion batteries from A350 after Dreamliner fiasco


Airbus is dropping lithium-ion batteries from its new A350 airliner because of uncertainty surrounding the technology that has led to the grounding of Boeing's 787 Dreamliner.

Airbus said it had decided to revert to conventional nickel-cadmium batteries for the A350. The plane is a wide-body long-range jet rival to the 787 and is expected to make its first flight around the middle of 2013.

The European firm said it did not expect the battery switch to lead to a setback in the A350's schedule.

"Airbus considers this to be the most appropriate way forward in the interest of program execution and A350 XWB reliability," said spokeswoman Mary Anne Greczyn.

US aviation safety officials grounded the 787 last month because of problems with its lithium-ion batteries that caused one fire and forced another plane to make an emergency landing.

Airbus noted the A350 uses batteries in a different setup than the 787, making it unlikely it would face the same problems. Its A350 flight-test programme would still go forward with lithium-ion batteries.

But because the causes of the problems with the 787 batteries remain unclear, Airbus decided to make the switch "to optimise programme certainty", Greczyn said.

The Wall Street Journal first reported on Airbus's decision to drop the lithium-ion batteries, noting the incidents with the 787 had led to industry uncertainty about future safety standards for the technology.
 
Martin A said:
From The Guardian newspaper in the UK
......But because the causes of the problems with the 787 batteries remain unclear,.
Click to expand...

do i get a whiff of a "cover up" going down here ??
..playing for time until they can put the finger on something that doesnt totally undermine Boeing's reputation ?

Actually, on a similar vein...
I watched a doco' last night where they are still trying to figure out exactly what caused the Hindenburg airship to catch fire 80 years ago !!
Look what that one incident did for the Airship business !! :shock:
 
I cannot believe the latest rumor on this subject .. :shock:
Boeing may encase the battery cells in a titanium or steel box fitted with a high pressure vent to contain any fire that erupts in flight.
Click to expand...
http://www.news.com.au/business/breaking-news/boeing-seeks-temporary-dreamliner-fix/story-e6frfkur-1226580806306
 
Hillhater said:
I cannot believe the latest rumor on this subject .. :shock:
Boeing may encase the battery cells in a titanium or steel box fitted with a high pressure vent to contain any fire that erupts in flight.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
What's wrong with that? Sounds like one of our Lipo ammo box setups. Fill the top space with marshmallows that will expand and melt under heat and smother the flames. Also makes a tasty snack for accident investigators.

I still think it's the French BMS...
 
fechter said:
I still think it's the French BMS...
Click to expand...

Is the 787 BMS not provided by Securaplane, the US subsidiary of Meggit (UK) who provide the 3 battery-related systems for the 787 as a subcontractor to Thales (France)?

http://www.securaplane.com/products/power-conversion
The latest application of Securaplane's battery charger is for charging and managing the Boeing 787 main ship lithium battery used for APU start and electrical system support.
Click to expand...
 
From the HeraldNet (local Everett, WA newsy)
Note: 787s are assembled/tested out of Everett which is (normally) less than an hour from where I live.

Published: Wednesday, February 20, 2013, 7:40 a.m.
Japan probe uncovers improper 787 battery wiring

Associated Press
TOKYO — A probe into the overheating of a lithium ion battery in an All Nippon Airways Boeing 787 found it was improperly wired, Japan's Transport Ministry said Wednesday.

The Transport Safety Board said in a report that the battery of the aircraft's auxiliary power unit was incorrectly connected to the main battery that overheated, although a protective valve would have prevented power from the APU from doing damage.

Flickering of the plane's tail and wing lights after it landed and the fact the main battery was switched off led the investigators to conclude there was an abnormal current traveling from the APU due to miswiring.

The agency said that more analysis was needed to determine what caused the main battery to overheat and emit the smoke that prompted the Jan. 16 emergency landing of the ANA domestic flight and the worldwide grounding of Boeing 787 jets. They said they are consulting Boeing about the issue.

The Federal Aviation Administration and aviation authorities in other countries grounded 787 fleets because of the ANA incident which followed a battery fire earlier in January in a 787 parked in Boston.

The 787, dubbed the Dreamliner by Boeing, is the first airliner to make extensive use of lithium ion batteries, which are lighter weight, charge faster and contain more energy than conventional batteries similar in size. However, the batteries also are more prone to overheating and catching fire.
Click to expand...

Finally a light at the end of the tunnel, KF
EDIT: fixed typo/added link
 
^ Seattle Times reprinted the previous post from the HeraldNet in today's new.

Also, another optimistic article released today... this time from Reuters:

Boeing close to fixing Dreamliner battery: source

(Reuters) - Boeing Co (BA.N) has found a way to fix battery problems on its grounded 787 Dreamliner jets that involves increasing the space between the lithium ion battery cells, a source familiar with the U.S. company's plans told Reuters.

"The gaps between cells will be bigger. I think that's why there was overheating," said the source, who declined to be identified because the plans are private.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board declined comment on the Reuters report or any Boeing plan to return the 787s to the air.

"The decisions to return the airplane to flight will be made by the FAA and only after Boeing has demonstrated to them that the solution is adequate," Kelly Nantel said. "We continue to investigate the cause of the short circuiting."

A spokeswoman from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration declined to comment. Boeing declined comment on details of any battery fix it may be considering.

The 50 Dreamliners in commercial service were grounded worldwide last month after a series of battery-related incidents including a fire on board a parked plane in the United States and an in-flight problem on another jet in Japan. Until the Dreamliner is cleared to fly again, Boeing will be starved of delivery payments.

The logical solution for Boeing would be to install ceramic plates between each cell and add a vent to the battery box, Kiyoshi Kanamura, a professor at Tokyo Metropolitan University who has conducted research with several Japanese battery makers, told Reuters on Tuesday.

Earlier on Wednesday, the chairman of state-run Air India AIN.UL said Boeing is hopeful of getting the Dreamliner back in service by early April.

"They said that these planes should start flying again from early April. They can't be sure but they are hopeful," Rohit Nandan said.

Air India has six Dreamliners and has ordered 21 more. The question of the airline seeking compensation from Boeing for the jet's glitches would be taken up once the aircraft are flying again, Nandan said.

"We have been in close communication with our customers since this issue arose," a Boeing spokesman in Seattle said, regarding the issue of compensation. "The details of our conversations with customers are confidential."

The Boeing spokesman declined to address the details of the battery fix, but said it was making progress.

"Boeing has teams of hundreds of engineering and technical experts who are working around the clock with the sole focus of resolving the issue and returning the 787 fleet to flight status," he said. "Everyone is working to get to the answer as quickly as possible and good progress is being made."

On February 7, in its most recent official update on the Dreamliner, the NTSB said it had a "long road ahead" in its investigation of the lithium ion batteries.

Spokesmen for Japan's All Nippon Airways Co Ltd (ANA) (9202.T), which has the biggest fleet of Dreamliners, and Japan Airlines Co Ltd (JAL) (9201.T) said they were unaware of the suggested April schedule.

ANA and JAL have been most affected because they own around half of the lightweight, fuel-efficient jetliners in operation as a strategic move to win market share from their U.S. and European rivals.

Boeing shares rose on 1.3 percent on Wednesday, to $75.64 on the New York Stock Exchange.
Click to expand...

Sounds like there are multiple paths to get the plane back in the air PDQ.
~KF
 
I don't know how much I buy their 'source' info.... The cells being "too close together" doesn't really seem to make any sense. Also, adding ceramic plates between each cell? Sounds like a sure way to destroy any energy density you might have otherwise had. I hope we find out exactly what the fix is when it does happen.
 
yes it does. thermal runaway in one cell can precipitate thermal runaway in an adjacent cell from the heating. that is why they are separating the cells from each other and using metal or ceramic dividers to prevent them from falling into an adjacent one if it blows up, and then they will be venting the space with large volumes of air somehow to keep it all as cool as possible.it should pass muster but finding out they had wired that ANA battery in incorrectly is not gonna help.
 
Here's why it is suspect: just because you pack cells closely together, doesn't mean that they are more likely to vent, unless you're stressing the hell out of them, in which case, they will still likely vent, so it's bullshit, it's not a cause, it's a potential mitigation.
 
Thinking outside the box for a moment: Let’s say that the battery was mis-wired. It’s discovered in flight over the ocean. Cells get hot: I’ll take that ceramic plating to insure we can get to where the plane can be serviced.

It’s sort of like body-side paneling in cars for that potential crash that could take your life; though it adds weight and armor we don’t absolutely need it – but just in case I’d rather have it. Or that skid plate to protect my oil pan and tranny on my 4x4. There are lots of good examples of smart protection for rare conditions.

In this case we have Cause (APU) and Effect (hot cells): Fix the Cause and protect us from the Effects – because there could very well be other causes that have yet been discovered. :)

Safety first, KF
 
I'm with you KF, I'm not trying to argue that they shouldn't use ceramic plating (however they manage to do that).

However the cause is not hot batteries. The cause is something which causes hot batteries (eg separator breakdown from overcharge condition, over-discharge, or some other heat-generating source nearby, or a miswiring)

That's really what gets me about this article "I think the cause is [garbage]". Sounds like their source isn't nearly close enough to the issue to speak to the problem very well.

Once you start to load a battery box down with ceramic material, it might make sense to use a less-energy dense chemistry in the first place.
 
Ahh, I see what you’re saying now: The benefit of LiPo is erased by the containment of the potential dangers when compared to other sources of battery construction. :)

Without knowing how the 787 battery compartment is constructed, I wonder aloud if they attempt to control the thermal environment. From my understanding Tesla thermally protects their cells, yes?

~KF
 
i think they are gonna do something that is really overbuilt.

from looking at the picture of where the technician was inspecting the battery box, instead of a compact cubby under the floor, i would expect instead to see a large cabinet above the floor with air ducts from the cooling system and to the vent exhaust.

there will be real time monitoring and maybe even have a video camera and lighting inside the cabinet to monitor them from the ground. i expect boeing will have to develop real time monitoring systems now as part of the fix to satisfy the FAA.

they currently monitor engine parameters real time on airliners in flight so adding the battery pack to a critical monitoring list will not be big in comparison to a bet the company plane.
 
Personally, I think they're all a bunch of morons that don't have a clue how to handle lico batteries. 580A cutoff on their bms for a rated 325A battery pack is just stupid. Why are they using 5C cells in this day a age. Just idiotic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
DIY Battery for E-Bike
Replies
4
Views
816
docw009
docw009
B
The Barncat Battery- No weld/no solder
2 3 4 5
Replies
106
Views
7,120
Barncat
B
C
Installing torque sensing pedal assist PAS on a tandem bike
Replies
5
Views
1,242
E-HP
E-HP
L
BATTERY FIRE
Replies
10
Views
2,403
ricklin
R
neptronix
Revisiting RC Lipos - Safety box to limit fire/smoke.
Replies
12
Views
1,088
Hillhater
H
Back
Top