Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bad battery design responsible for Boeing Dreamliner grounding, expert says
Fox News ^ | 1/18/13 | Jeremy A. Kaplan

Posted on 01/18/2013 12:56:33 PM PST by Ron C.

A charred lithium ion battery at the center of the worldwide grounding of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner showed evidence of “thermal runaway” -- which is indicative of a design problem, experts tell FoxNews.com.

The All Nippon Airways plane made an emergency landing Wednesday morning in western Japan after its pilots smelled something burning and received a cockpit warning of battery problems. Nearly all 50 of the 787s in use around the world have since been grounded.

The battery’s burned insides indicate it operated at a voltage above its design limit, a Japanese investigator said Friday. That’s a clear sign of an out-of-control chemical reaction, explained Reginald Tomkins, a professor of chemical engineering at New Jersey Institute of Technology.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aerospace; boeing
The bottom lines in the piece:

If Boeing were forced to replace the batteries in the Dreamliner, that rigorous testing would be a fresh problem.

“The redesign is much smaller than the extensive testing that would go on, that would be time consuming. We’d be talking about months. Many months.”

1 posted on 01/18/2013 12:56:42 PM PST by Ron C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

The new one on the right looks to be a simple open box (no top cover) - gotta wonder why it isn't in a flame-proof steel box that would help prevent fire. Perhaps better that than an explosion.

2 posted on 01/18/2013 1:03:38 PM PST by Ron C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.
Chinese batteries. Figures.


3 posted on 01/18/2013 1:06:30 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

Exa Rong Rife


4 posted on 01/18/2013 1:12:20 PM PST by Mashood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

Interesting. I wonder if aircraft testing included a scenario that simulated a ‘fully-loaded’ stress test over a long period of time..in other words, having every appliance turned on in the kitchens, cockpit, not to mention all the music ports, movies and computer users, etc.


5 posted on 01/18/2013 1:12:34 PM PST by SueRae (It isn't over. In God We Trust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

I’ve seen larger metal cased battery packs oilcan before...and split metal, even along welds.


6 posted on 01/18/2013 1:14:22 PM PST by SueRae (It isn't over. In God We Trust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

A power source, like a battery (meaning multiple cells), without the means to shut down the individual cells via a fuse or switch is simply asking for trouble.

Some batteries are safer than others like the good old, heavy, lead acid batteries in our cars but these newer batteries are KNOWN to overheat and to build a battery in a mission critical application like an aircraft is beyond stupid. From laptops to electric cars and now airplanes it should be obvious to anyone who knows which direction electrons actually flow, you need protective devices at the cell level.


7 posted on 01/18/2013 1:14:43 PM PST by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

Wrong. These are Japanese made batteries.


8 posted on 01/18/2013 1:20:39 PM PST by Ron C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SueRae
It seems rather obvious that no such testing was ever done...

Sad to say!

9 posted on 01/18/2013 1:22:08 PM PST by Ron C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

Most people don’t understand this mess. Anything — ANYTHING — that is installed in an aircraft as equipment, has to be tested and paper-worked to death. It’s weight and effect on the CG envelope has to be discovered and then allowed per FAA regs. All — ALL — ops and maintenance manuals must be approved by the FAA and then supplied to all users. The supplier has to be officially blessed by the FAA and no — NO — non-approved device or part can be used or even mentioned. The part supplier has to undergo the equivalent of a military TS background check. The legal liability assumed by a supplier and builder is open-ended. You cannot add a four-pound GPS to your Cessna’s panel without a complete rework of the airplane’s paperwork. Then, after all that, there is public perception. Boeing is in deep trouble. So is the current battery supplier. Law suits will be ongoing for the next 15 years. The Lockheed L-188 Electra suffered four crashes before it was discovered that engine mounts were failing. It never recovered, although the Navy bought it as the P-3 with wing re-working.


10 posted on 01/18/2013 1:24:19 PM PST by pabianice (washington, dc ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

Exa Wong Wife


11 posted on 01/18/2013 1:26:47 PM PST by Mashood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SueRae; Wurlitzer
I too have seen metal cased batteries that have swollen or broken wide open.

Wurlitzer has one possible and obvious answer - "...the means to shut down the individual cells via a fuse or switch is simply asking for trouble."

Too, why not a built-in over-heating alarm.

A whole bunch of people haven't done due diligence here.

12 posted on 01/18/2013 1:27:49 PM PST by Ron C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SueRae

loads you mention are not suported by the batteries,wouldnt make a dif.

This was/is a design flaw and IMOP related to improper charge and discharge resulting in thermal runaway resulting in the battery case being consumed by intense heat


13 posted on 01/18/2013 1:29:55 PM PST by CGASMIA68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

While I certainly cannot, nor should not, dispute a single thing you posted, it is amazing after all that GOVERNMENT paperwork, they would allow a battery design, with cells known to overheat in many other applications, on an aircraft.

The only semi-safe design for these batteries are to have every cell contain a thermal trip device such that on cell cannot generate enough heat to cascade other cells into a ignition source with NO internal off switch. Once they start to overheat they take on a life of their own.


14 posted on 01/18/2013 1:31:00 PM PST by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
WSJ reports they came from Yusa, a Japanese company.
15 posted on 01/18/2013 1:31:41 PM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (In the game of life, there are no betting limits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer
you need protective devices at the cell level.

These are balancing chargers -- at the cell level and 4X redundant. Still, even with the redundancy I think this was more likely a runaway charging problem, although the lithium cobalt oxide chemistry is more sensitive than lithium iron phosphate would be and only slightly higher in energy density.

16 posted on 01/18/2013 1:32:02 PM PST by steve86 (Acerbic by Nature, not Nurture™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer
Once they start to overheat they take on a life of their own.

True, the cobalts start to generate their own oxygen in a big way.

17 posted on 01/18/2013 1:35:26 PM PST by steve86 (Acerbic by Nature, not Nurture™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer

We got new sonobouys aboard the P-3 for a time that had lithium batteries. They were so dangerous that the Navy instituted special, new procedures for jettisoning the things if they caught fire.


18 posted on 01/18/2013 1:37:01 PM PST by pabianice (washington, dc ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Interesting comment! One has to wonder how these planes were certified by the FAA. Perhaps they were partially built in Japan, escaping some of the FAA regs?


19 posted on 01/18/2013 1:37:13 PM PST by Ron C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

Computer design is a tool. It is no replacement for human experience. The 787 relies on too much on technology, and not enough on basic aircraft design. Trying to squeeze every ounce of weight and inch of space has come back to haunt them.


20 posted on 01/18/2013 1:37:25 PM PST by VRWC For Truth (Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

“....which is indicative of a design problem”

They were designed to last for the life of the aircraft, so technically, there is no design problem.


21 posted on 01/18/2013 1:39:08 PM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

Yuasa. Well known in powersports applications and one of the most respected. Have to remember, they “built to specification”. These young engineers at Boeing now are far too biased toward the bleeding edge and now some of them won’t fly in their own airplanes.


22 posted on 01/18/2013 1:42:16 PM PST by steve86 (Acerbic by Nature, not Nurture™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: t1b8zs

Appreciate your response and the clarification. THose cables in that picture along with every other component are fried. There’s a lot of people in trouble right now..I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes. But I’m even more thankful that no one was hurt.

It will be interesting to see the failure analysis.


23 posted on 01/18/2013 1:43:38 PM PST by SueRae (It isn't over. In God We Trust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
“....which is indicative of a design problem”

They were designed to last for the life of the aircraft, so technically, there is no design problem.

Much like the lifetime guarantee on pacemakers.

24 posted on 01/18/2013 1:43:46 PM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

It’s my understanding that although the manufacturer certifies the aircraft safe, the individual nations operating it certify it separately for use in that country’s airspace. Such a system has been used to keep a competing country’s product out.


25 posted on 01/18/2013 1:44:26 PM PST by pabianice (washington, dc ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
You are correct. In Gen-Av they used to be able to convince the FSDO of a change and if looked good engineering wise, they might let you do it with a "337" without going the one time STC route. Not so much now, unless it is for safety like shoulder harnesses. The only other exemption would be on antiques if you can't find a part you can substitute but that is it. What many here may not realize here if Boeing puts anything else in the battery box, the aircraft is essentially "experimental" all over again.

I am curious is this the Lithium-Ion Phosphate which are more geared towards aviation use (just got on my radar screen recently).

26 posted on 01/18/2013 1:50:52 PM PST by taildragger (( Tighten the 5 point harness and brace for Impact Freepers, ya know it's coming..... ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

The L-188 Electra never recovered because the jet age had started. Many pilots say the Electra was the best plane that they had ever flown in their careers. The tv show Ice Pilots features them still flying for Buffalo Airways in Yellowknife, Canada.


27 posted on 01/18/2013 2:06:57 PM PST by willk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.
The battery’s burned insides indicate it operated at a voltage above its design limit, a Japanese investigator said Friday. That’s a clear sign of an out-of-control chemical reaction, explained Reginald Tomkins, a professor of chemical engineering at New Jersey Institute of Technology.

Hmmm...

It sounds like Boeing is covering their butts.

I've been using these batteries for almost 10 years and when the batteries are manufactured, the nominal voltage is 3.7 volts per cell. The maximum per cell voltage in a fully charged state for a properly charged battery is 4.2 volts.

The only time they go into a thermal runaway state is when they are charged to a state above 4.2V per cell or if they are discharged at a rate higher than their designed to deliver.

In both cases (over-charge and over-discharge) they will develop internal shorts which trigger the thermal runaway.

I've never heard of a Li-Ion battery going into a thermal runaway all by itself.

One of the unique features of Li-Ion batteries is the ability to wire them in series and parallel at the same time. This allows the batteries to be formed into packs that deliver a higher voltage and capacity. When wired in parallel, each cell must be balanced before or during the charging process to ensure that each cell's voltage never rises above 4.2 volts.

If one cell resting voltage is higher than those of the rest of the pack, and each cell's voltage is not monitored during charge or if all the cells in a pack are not balanced with each other before charging, then it's possible to over-charge a single cell above it's maximum rated voltage, which will trigger a thermal runaway.

Once a cell goes into thermal runaway it can trigger other cells.

28 posted on 01/18/2013 2:11:12 PM PST by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Government should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
They were designed to last for the life of the aircraft, so technically, there is no design problem.

If you're talking about Lithium batteries, they have a maximum life of about 2-4 years, whether they're used or not. Depending on how they're used, this could be shorter.

They definitely won't last the life of the airplane, which is 20-30 years.

29 posted on 01/18/2013 2:29:04 PM PST by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Government should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

Why not just get a windmill from a wind farm bolted to the undercarriage. Voila! No toxic lithium and no overheating battery.


30 posted on 01/18/2013 2:36:19 PM PST by Cyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

The batteries really don’t power anything unless ground power or on board generator power is not available. They are back-up/auxiliary power only.

“In the case of the 787, two 32-volt lithium-ion primary batteries provide power as key elements of the aircraft’s more-electric architecture. The main battery, located forward in the electric/electronic (E/E) equipment bay below the cabin floor by the front passenger doors, provides power for aircraft start-up, ground operations such as refueling and towing, and acts as backup power for the electrically actuated brake system. It can also assist the second battery, located in the aft E/E bay, in starting up the auxiliary power unit (APU) and, in the event of a power failure, energizes essential flight instruments in the flight deck until the drop-down ram air turbine spools up.

The battery that caught fire on the Japan Airlines 787 in Boston was the second main battery. This unit’s primary purpose is to electrically start the APU when neither of the engines is running and the aircraft is not connected to external ground power. In this case, the battery energizes the righthand of the two starter/generators connected to the APU. The aft battery also provides another minor role, namely to power navigation lights during battery-only towing operations.”

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_01_21_2013_p22-537845.xml


31 posted on 01/18/2013 2:38:55 PM PST by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer; Ol' Dan Tucker
If you're talking about Lithium batteries...

I should clarify that I was talking about Lithium Ion cells which are rechargeable and not Lithium cells which are not.

Lithium cells, such as watch batteries have a very long shelf life, whereas Lithium Ion cells have a limited life span, depending on their operating environment.

32 posted on 01/18/2013 2:39:24 PM PST by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Government should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

Now all they have to do is figure out why the windshield cracked ad the fuel leaked.


33 posted on 01/18/2013 2:41:26 PM PST by VanShuyten ("a shadow...draped nobly in the folds of a gorgeous eloquence.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VanShuyten

Airliners have electrically heated windshields. It’s not unusual for the outer pane to crack from the heating and cooling of the panel. Only the outer pane cracks. It’s alarming, but not too serious. The integrity of the windshield is not compromised when this happens.

Airliner windshield panes crack fairly regularly.


34 posted on 01/18/2013 2:45:11 PM PST by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

didn’t they learn from klinton and flight 800?


35 posted on 01/18/2013 2:48:35 PM PST by longfellow (Bill Maher, the 21st hijacker.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

Were offending batteries made on the same day. Reminds me of Detroit production line scenerio...What was the BAD day? Hummm


36 posted on 01/18/2013 4:29:24 PM PST by codder too
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: steve86

Thanks for correcting my spelling.
No doubt the battery company followed Boeing’s specs...

Many of the problems with this airplane can be traced to so many outside suppliers in various countries.


38 posted on 01/18/2013 4:31:56 PM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (In the game of life, there are no betting limits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

I heard the other day that lithium batteries are not allowed as cargo on aircraft after a crash that was thought to have been caused by a number of such batteries having caught fire.


39 posted on 01/18/2013 4:32:56 PM PST by Gay State Conservative (Red State Secession Is The Only Answer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SueRae
I wonder if aircraft testing included a scenario that simulated a ‘fully-loaded’ stress test over a long period of time..in other words, having every appliance turned on in the kitchens, cockpit, not to mention all the music ports, movies and computer users, etc.

If they didn't, it would be almost criminal. I can't imagine why these flaws are just coming to light after the years and years this plane has been in development. It sure puts Boeing in a bad light.

Several years ago, there was a great deal of discussion on FR about the 787 vs. the hated A-380. Well, the latter did have some problems at start-up, but has become a noncontroversial part of the fleet. This business with the 787 is disheartening.

40 posted on 01/18/2013 4:41:43 PM PST by BfloGuy (Workers and consumers are, of course, identical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

Thanks much - interesting stuff! Now I wonder if they’ll ever find out what caused it. (Over or under charged?)


41 posted on 01/18/2013 4:48:40 PM PST by Ron C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6

So in short this was a starter battery (and a backup breaking battery) - if I read correctly. Sounds like the load for starting is greater than the battery is designed for - if after starting the engines, it has to come into play too soon afterward for breaking. Too much demand for too small a battery perhaps?


42 posted on 01/18/2013 4:58:58 PM PST by Ron C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.
Thanks much - interesting stuff! Now I wonder if they’ll ever find out what caused it. (Over or under charged?)

You're welcome.

43 posted on 01/18/2013 5:02:46 PM PST by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Government should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

Some good comments in this thread. I enjoy ‘technical discussions’ and learn something every time I do. Ping for more reading later...


44 posted on 01/18/2013 5:09:48 PM PST by SueRae (It isn't over. In God We Trust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

“They definitely won’t last the life of the airplane, which is 20-30 years.”

Not if the Lithium battery catches on fire, which was the unspoken punchline.


45 posted on 01/18/2013 5:45:24 PM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
They definitely won't last the life of the airplane, which is 20-30 years.

I think that the point here is that the 787 lifespan is going to be measured in weeks. Hence, these batteries are certainly going to last for the life of the aircraft.

46 posted on 01/18/2013 8:45:49 PM PST by tpmintx (Gun free zones are hunting preserves for unarmed people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

It’s normally not used unless other power sources are not available.

It would be a bit unusual to start the APU or the main engines with the batteries.

It was probably last done when they were testing the planes.


47 posted on 01/19/2013 5:11:03 AM PST by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
I worked on the Boeing 787, software side. The amount of paperwork we had to do was cumbersome to the point of being comical. We had to account for EVERYTHING in testing and certification work ant it amounted to 10x the amount of time it took to actually write the software. Boeing is right, a change like a battery will require months of retesting.

Boeing and the passengers are blessed the incidents weren't more serious.
48 posted on 01/21/2013 7:45:00 AM PST by DarkSavant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson