Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fire

If the ceramic was like space shuttle heat tiles (like styrofoam) it wouldn't add too much weight. But insulating the cells will just make them overheat easier. Individual cell temperature monitoring wouldn't be that hard.

I wonder if any of those guys read this forum? :idea:
 
I'm not entirely sure they even read the documentation for the batteries themselves, based on some of the things described so far. ;)
 
This whole saga would be funny, if it wasn't for the unimaginable potential consequences for Boeing and all the "stakeholders" they have,..if this all goes "tits up" ( IE, another battery fire ?)
I have always been confident in the engineering and professionalism of aero engineers, but i have to say if this is any kind of an insight to their actual capabilities, i wont be quite as comfortable next time i step onto an airliner.
 
Kinda funny, the Mitsubishi iMievs are using GS Yuasa Li-Ion batteries and a good few thousands of them are on the roads without any fire.
Two of them where flooded with salt water (check out Ben's thread on EM), batteries went down to 0V, still no fire.
Interesting.
 
Just in... Thu Feb 21, 2013 5:43am EST

Boeing to meet with FAA on Dreamliner fixes

(Reuters) - A senior Boeing Co (BA.N) executive will meet with the head of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration on Friday and present a series of measures aimed at preventing battery failures that grounded its 787 Dreamliner fleet for five weeks, according to a source familiar with the plans.

Ray Conner, who heads Boeing's commercial airplanes unit, will explain the proposed changes to FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Friday, but the plans have already been vetted with lower level U.S. government officials, the source said.

If Huerta and U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood accept the proposed plan, that could lay the groundwork for resuming flights of the Boeing 787 by April, said the source, who asked not to be identified.

The engineering changes that Boeing has proposed include an improved box to contain any possible fire in the airliner's lithium-ion batteries. They are aimed at addressing four possible causes for the battery failures that resulted in a fire in a parked 787 in Boston on January 7, and a separate incident that forced a second 787 to make an emergency landing in Japan.

The grounding of all 50 Dreamliners that have already been delivered is costing Boeing and the airlines that operate the world's newest airliner dearly, compounding pressures caused by earlier delays in 787 deliveries.

On Wednesday, the chief executive of Australia's Qantas Airlines Ltd. (QAN.AX) said it had received $125 million in compensation income from Boeing for 787 delivery delays.

Analysts estimate the world's largest planemaker is missing out on about $200 million in delivery payments every month that the 787 remains grounded, while spending as much as $1 billion a month to keep its 787 production line running.

A second source familiar with Boeing's plans told Reuters that the company also planned to increase the space between the cells in the lithium-ion batteries made by Japan's GS Yuasa as a potential fix. (6674.T).

"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 potential battery fix 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."

An FAA spokeswoman declined to comment on the reported meeting. Boeing declined comment on details of any battery fix it may be considering.

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.L (9202.T), which has the biggest fleet of Dreamliners, and Japan Airlines Co Ltd JAL.L (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 closed 13 cents higher at $74.78 on the New York Stock Exchange on Wednesday. (Additional reporting by Bill Rigby in Seattle, Yoko Kubota and Mari Saito in Tokyo, Devidutta Tripathy in New Delhi, and Lincoln Feast in Sydney; Editing by Daniel Magnowski, Jim Marshall, Carol Bishopric, Richard Chang and Andrew Hay)

More in a bit from Seattle, KF
 
From the Seattle Times, an inside scoop...

Boeing seeks FAA’s OK for permanent 787 battery fix

A small team of top machinists at Boeing’s Auburn plant is building high-strength containment boxes for the lithium-ion batteries on the 787 as part of a redesign to get the planes flying again as soon as April.

Boeing on Wednesday instructed a small team of top machinists at its Auburn parts plant to begin building new, high-strength containment boxes for the lithium-ion batteries on its 787s as part of a redesign intended to get the planes flying again as soon as April.

An Auburn insider said the company ordered 200 such boxes, with the first 100 to be ready by March 18.

Commercial Airplanes CEO Ray Conner will lay out the company’s plan to Federal Aviation Administration officials Friday, but it’s unclear whether regulators will sign on to the fast-paced schedule.

Boeing executives briefed key members of Congress in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, telling them the company has developed a permanent fix to the battery problems and hopes to have the Dreamliners return to passenger service quickly, assuming prompt FAA approval. The 50 delivered 787s have been grounded since last month.

A congressional aide said Boeing representatives in one such meeting “were adamant that it will be a permanent fix, and rejected reports that mentioned a temporary fix.” They also cited the April target date, the aide said.

Boeing spokesman Marc Birtel declined to comment on any conversations with regulators but reiterated an earlier statement that “good progress is being made” toward finding a fix.

According to a person familiar with Boeing’s proposal, Conner plans to provide FAA head Michael Huerta details of the fix along lines previously reported: most important, a stronger outer containment box and a system of high-pressure tubes that vent any gases directly out of the airplane.

Another element is that the eight cells inside the redesigned battery box will be separated by more insulation, possibly high-temperature glass.

Boeing believes it can implement those and other new battery design elements quickly and can make it a permanent fix, to be incorporated on all subsequent Dreamliners. That contradicts earlier reports in The Seattle Times and elsewhere that the company will first implement a temporary fix.

Boeing engineers contend, and hope their tests will show, their redesign will prevent a runaway battery fire.

It’s unclear if the FAA will be ready to move as swiftly as Boeing would like.

Boeing is unlikely to get a full go-ahead Friday. There will be a back and forth to follow, with requirements for flight tests to validate Boeing’s solution.

Investigators at the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) are still looking for the root cause of the two incidents that prompted the crisis — a battery fire in a 787 on the ground in Boston in early January, followed eight days later by a smoldering battery on a 787 flight in Japan. The FAA ordered the Dreamliner grounded after the second incident.

The FAA must take into account the NTSB investigation, which found the Boston fire was started by a short circuit in a single battery cell but hasn’t established what caused that short.

In the absence of knowing the root cause, said the person with knowledge of Boeing’s proposal, the fix accounts for the possibility that a battery cell could overheat at some time in the future. The new battery design aims to ensure the plane is safe if that happens.

The person made an analogy to how the FAA handled the crash of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island in 1996.

While investigators into that tragedy learned that the Boeing 747’s fuel tank had exploded, the ignition source was never pinned down.

That forced the FAA to come up with a way to eliminate the chance of any explosion, regardless of ignition source: It mandated a fuel-tank inerting system that pumped nitrogen into the tank to displace flammable fuel vapor.

“That seems to be the discussion now: It would be great to find the root cause, but let’s take it a step further and eliminate the possibilities,” the person said.

Industry analysts have expressed skepticism the FAA will readily approve a fix that focuses on containing an in-flight fire, rather than preventing one.

But the person familiar with Boeing’s fix insisted “it’s not containment versus prevention. It’s containment and prevention.”

The idea is that venting off the airplane all the gas from an overheated cell will prevent an oxygen fire inside the battery. Meanwhile, the better thermal insulation between cells should prevent the heat from spreading through the battery and setting off adjacent cells.

“If you redesign the battery so it’s not possible for the cells to propagate into a batterywide fire, then you’ve prevented that from happening,” the person said. “And on top of that, you are building a containment box so that, if there is a problem, you are doubly protected.”

Still, he said, Boeing’s proposed timetable for getting the 787s back in service “is pretty aggressive.”

The news of Boeing’s fast-track fix came on the same day the investigation of the Japan in-flight incident appeared to add a new wrinkle.

The problem on that aircraft was overheating of the main battery in the forward electronics bay.

But according to The Associated Press, the Japan Transport Ministry said Wednesday the aircraft’s other lithium-ion battery — the one in the rear electronics bay that’s connected to the jet’s auxiliary power unit — was miswired and improperly connected to the main battery that overheated.

It’s unclear what impact that finding will have.

Meanwhile, Boeing’s plan to fix the battery is in motion.

The Boeing Auburn employee, who asked for anonymity, said the work of building the new battery boxes has been designated urgent and top priority.

Three crews of six volunteers — all “very talented mechanics” — will work in three daily shifts. The parts needed have not yet come in, and design changes are expected as the work proceeds, the employee said.

Local boyz do good. Git'r done!
~KF
 
if they have ordered cabinets for the fix then you can be sure they have already done the worst case testing.

they will have overcharged and blew up as many of the cells inside the cabinet as they could to certify it will withstand the pressure and the heat.

the FAA would not even talk to them otherwise and it sounds like they ran their test results by the engineering staff on the FAA already if they have meeting with the big dog friday.

the talking heads who you will see pontificating on TV don't have a clue, but the engineering staff will be accurately informed and accepted the fix.
 
I haven't been as up to date on this thread but have you guys seen this: http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/787-battery-diagrams/

looks like the BMS is on the inside?
 
I don't get the logic. Why bother trying to make LIPO safe? LIPO is amazing and there are many perfect applications for the chemistry. It is widely known that LiCo is a very volatile battery. Just use LiFePO! Why not? Rather than make LIPO safe, use a safe battery.
 
The money Boeing are spending on a solution, and paying in compensation to airlines for delayed deliveries and grounded aircraft ( ( 100's of millions ?)...they could have bought the entire A123 operation and all the "smarts" that came with it. !
 
Why does everyone assume the engineering staff responsible are completely incompetent and stupid?

It's hard to accept when the only source of information available is non-technical news outlets. It just seems like armchair expertism to me...
 
Punx0r said:
Why does everyone assume the engineering staff responsible are completely incompetent and stupid?

It's hard to accept when the only source of information available is non-technical news outlets. It just seems like armchair expertism to me...
I would think because the type of battery chosen and based on the pictures. Just my guess.
 
I'm a lipo fan and that's all I use, but I can jump off the bike in a catastrophe. Hard to do at 30,000'. That said, I'd use something less volatile. But that's not why I think they're a bunch of morons. First is the choice of battery. A 5C cell. come on, that's just nuts. A 580A BMS while using a pack rated for 325A. Duh. I don't know what the problem is as details aren't clear, but I'd bet any amount of moaney I could put together a pack that would work for under $1000 a pack. It doesn't get much simpler than a 24V pack of lipo.
 
Punx0r said:
Why does everyone assume the engineering staff responsible are completely incompetent and stupid?

It's hard to accept when the only source of information available is non-technical news outlets. It just seems like armchair expertism to me...
A lack of hard information is usually a good way to hide a high level of incompetance and protect reputations.
I'm not saying that is the case with this situation,....but...
 
Punx0r said:
It just seems like armchair expertism to me...
Mostly, it is. ;) I think it is just how most of us are. :lol:

But given the type of failures reported, and damages actually seen in what little imagery and other info has been made avaialbe, vs the information many of us have via experience or reading that of others, there do seem to have been some very basic mistakes made by the design and manufacturing teams--stuff that doesn't make sense for an experienced group to have done (or a group that researched how others did things that failed, and how those things failed).

One thing that stands out is the small bit of tech info that says the BMS is limited to a much higher current than what the cells themselves are capable of. But the armchair theorizing based on that doesn't include an important fact we dont' know the answer to: the actual max current draw of the system the battery has to power. ;) If that max current is lower than the cell max rate, then it doesn't really matter what the BMS max limit is, however, if the BMS cannot protect the pack against overcurrent in case of system failure down the line that is below the BMS limit but above the pack limit, then it is still a critical design and/or manufacturing flaw.

Again, armchair theorizing, since we don't have all the facts. :)
 
how many of these people making these comments have ever worked as a professional engineer in a manufacturing company?

making such insulting remarks about their professionalism or capability. even if they are french it is not justified or even thoughtful.

how many of you high mighty newbies could have invented or even imagined the integrated circuit that makes your current life a mindless game of iphone insanity.

how many have even studied engineering or physics or chemistry or math. all the course work that engineers have to master and PROVE they have mastered it in order to be part of the groups that make new things and make them work.

obviously little information will make its way out. we did hear a rumor that one of the overheating events was associated with wiring errors. this puts the problem in an entirely different dimension.

neither of these fires was catastrophic or resulted in damage to the plane itself. there was a DC-10 that went down a decade or so ago with several hundred passengers off newfoundland because of a fire started in a power cabinet for the multimedia stuff in the cabin. the test bed 787 experienced a similar onboard fire during testing several years ago. so neither of these events rises to that level and should be kept in perspective imo.

it is obvious they are gonna build a big strong box that can be vented to the outside like i said and will be capable of handling all the worst case scenarios. so even in the event of wiring errors or whatever they will have a level of control over the event no matter what. the problem now is modern communication and tv hysteria has damaged the reputation of the plane so it may not sell if passengers refuse to board it because of the this modern media induced hysteria.

look at what they did with the Macondo blowout. the media made it seem like some tar on the beach was the end of the world and when the bacteria consumed all the oil then nobody in the media made it a priority to inform the public. the hysteria movie 'gasland' has convinced all the media that hydraulic fracturing of the source rock is evil and contaminates all the water tables when in fact it has never happened. ever. just total hysteria in a twitter world.
 
dnmun said:
how many of these people making these comments have ever worked as a professional engineer in a manufacturing company?...
...how many have even studied engineering or physics or chemistry or math. all the course work that engineers have to master and PROVE they have mastered it in order to be part of the groups that make new things and make them work.
Several of us .


dnmun said:
obviously little information will make its way out. we did hear a rumor that one of the overheating events was associated with wiring errors. this puts the problem in an entirely different dimension.

"One" of the events..what about the others ?... and the multiple battery "failures".

dnmun said:
the hysteria movie 'gasland' has convinced all the media that hydraulic fracturing of the source rock is evil and contaminates all the water tables when in fact it has never happened. ever. .

You have stated that before ,...obviously without bothering to check the facts, .... or research the replies that have been posted before to your incorrect statements.
 
Amberwolf, I appreciate you have some background in the industry, which the vast majority in this thread (myself included) don't have.

I just think it's easy to jump to conclusion in hindsight situations like this. I've done it before, you sit there thinking "how on earth can a supposed professional have made such an obvious mistake?" A mistake obvious even to a lay person by myself. But then the details come out and it turns out due care had been taken afterall.

It's just not likely that everyone involved in this battery project was incompetent and new less about the technology than an average ebike enthusiast. I'd be very surprised if they didn't work closely with the cell manufacturers.

To anyone who believes they could specify a truly effective replacement pack I suggest you contact Boeing. I'm sure they'd happily pay you a million dollars for this information, because they're apparently incapable of sourcing it from elsewhere ;)

I'm sure failings in the design will be found (is there any such thing as a perfect design?), or the assembly or testing. But I doubt it'll be anything an amateur like us would have spotted.
 
Collectively we are much further ahead in knowledge than the senior engineers at boeing. Here is my theory. Lithium is relatively new on the scene for battery application. Many senior engineers have never studied lithium in academia. They had to learn it from Continued ed requirements. Or they had to become "street smart". I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut that there are qualified engineers as members of ES that learned all about lithium from ES and all the sources and info available to engineers. Some senior engineers that were still in academia when lithium cobalt came out. Early on LiCo was considered reasonably safe. Shortly after it LiCo demonstrated the volatility. The challenge for many at the time was to make LiCo safe. Now all engineers qualified on the subject will agree not to use LiCo. Qualified by more than continued education. No matter how good your work will be in building anything and regardless of the quality of technique, If the correct materials are not specified, count on failure. Specifying the proper material is the foundation of a successful project.

To speculate. When the dreamliner was being designed the only choice of lithium was LiCo. And early on the volatility was not apparent. So LiCo gets speced in. In production of this magnitude any errors or omissions are very costly in time and money. The pressure was on as the got behind. I'm sure there were bonuses for incentives for various reasons. And in this speculations a bonus was to be lost if someone stepped up and forced the change of LiCo to perhaps LiFePO4.

Regardless of any speculations the specification was absolutely wrong. It is refreshing to read wesnewell, a long time member, and a user of LiCo. And calls himself a LIPO fan. But not a fan of LiCo to be used all and any battery needs.

Why force a volatile battery mixture, LiCo, with history into any airplane when known lithium chemistries are much, much safer?

As comparison; why take an exotic sports car to haul manure? Next try to engineer a way to do it. There might be an answer, but who cares. Beg borrow or steel a pick up truck. DO not try to figure a way to haul manure in a spots car.
 
I absolutely agree that there's a legacy element to this battery pack and when it was specced lico was the only choice.

However, (and I think this may already have been mentioned in this thread), is lifepo4 even a real option *today*?

Lithium consumer electronics and EV's are invariably lico. They're pretty darned reliable and safe, too.

Regarding knowledge, surely we all here get what tidbits filter down from cell manufacturers, researchers and organisations with the resources to conduct independent testing and analysis. Large companies have the resources to just get this information directly from source. We read a paper online, Boeing just goes and talks to whoever wrote it.
 
How could LiFePO4 not be considered an option? For *today*. Properly applied there are safe applications of LiCo. And are the best choice in many applications. But clearly not the best choice in any application. Especially in planes and boats.
 
If there was anything I could change about the way that this incident has been reported, I would have liked for there to be a real emphasis on how the chemistry was lithium COBALT. This incident has been the publics biggest exposure to date about how lithium is the major battery chemistry component. If you had asked the average person on the street what chemistry their laptop or smart-phone was using....you'd get the "deer in the headlights" reaction.

Recently I have been reading about factory E-bikes that use an integrated BB-drive, often using the unit from Panasonic or Bosch. The low-watt power limit on E-bikes in many European and Asian markets has led Bike manufacturers to spend significant resources on how to squeeze the maximum performance from 250W. Another concern was a battery pack that has the reliability that consumers have grown to trust like the ones in their cordless drills. The most often mentioned factory E-bike battery I have seen is the Samsung Lithium MANGANESE, in the 18650 format (18mm diameter, 65mm long, 0=cylindrical).

the C-rate is lower than LiCoO2, but much better than NiCD or NiMH. The Makita cordless drill I own uses Samsung-LiMn, and Justin L-E from ebikes.ca sells Samsung-LiMn packs to his customers (rated for 5C). http://ebikes.ca/store/store_batteries.php

Allcell lists their chemistry as NCM, a quick search results in that chemistry being called [NCM, NMC, Li-NMC-02, Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt], apparently Nissan, Imara, and Microvast found that the addition of nickel and manganese made the LiCo safer and more stable. http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_ion
edit: it appears the Zero E-motorcycle uses Li-NMC-O2, and this accounts for its improvement in range for this years model (last year their battery was LiMn for safety): http://www.eigbattery.com/eng/product/C020.pdf

The secret of NMC lies in combining nickel and manganese. An analogy of this is table salt, in which the main ingredients of sodium and chloride are toxic on their own but mixing them serves as seasoning salt and food preserver. Nickel is known for its high specific energy but low stability; manganese has the benefit of forming a spinel structure to achieve very low internal resistance but offers a low specific energy. Combining the metals brings out the best in each. NMC is the battery of choice for power tools and powertrains for vehicles. The cathode combination of one-third nickel, one-third manganese and one-third cobalt offers a unique blend that also lowers raw material cost due to reduced cobalt content

Another interesting thing I want to mention is that allcell claims they are using a Phase-Change-Material (PCM) inbetween the cylindrical cells in their packs. I can only Imagine that using the PCM would slow down the smokey death of one cell, and would either slow or stop the bad cells heat from affecting the neighboring cells (no "domino effect"?). They list their chemistry as NCM.
banner_pcmtechnology.png


It just seems that NiCD would be twice as massive/heavy as the LiCoO2, and LiMn/Li-NMC-O2 cells in a PCM block would be a better solution. I would guess that loudly and quickly announcing a replacement battery that doesn't have the word 'LITHIUM" in it was the most important part of whats going on behind the scenes, because public perception is a very important driving force looming over this.

edit: I am not a trained engineer, nor do I play one on TV, I just read a lot. Plus, I just drank a lot of coffee, and it's making me type. You may now return to your regularly scheduled activities.
 
I hate the idea that lithium is getting a bad name. When the dreamliner batteries are discussed in the press it is mostly called lithium ion. And all of us know that could mean any chemistry mix. And when professors and engineers also call it lithium ion it makes me very suspicious of these "educated" people. Lithium can and will be a very important to the future of the planet. It pains me to see mud thrown at "Lithium". Regardless, lithium will prevail.
 
ebent said:
How could LiFePO4 not be considered an option? For *today*

I'm not completely up on lifepo4, so I could be wrong here. Who manufacturers a suitable cell? Similar energy and power density to the lico cells used, with guaranteed ongoing availability? Preferably at a similar price.

The closest I can think of was A123, but they fail on availability. Dewalt ditched them, anyways.
 
Back
Top