Lithium batteries in 787 may pose fire issues

[Sese]

Airbus declared they'd switch from LiIon to NiCad batteries on their upcoming A350 XWB at least on all customer aircraft because of the dreamliner troubles. Only the almost complete A350-prototypes will use the LiIon batteries for their flight testing.

I'd expect Boeing to switch to NiCad too if no root cause for the fires can be found soon.

[Phil Bunch]

Another update by the NY Times, including Boeing's predictions of resuming flights by April of 2013.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/business/boeing-to-propose-battery-fixes-to-faa.html?ref=todayspaperhttps://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/business/boeing-to-propose-battery-fixes-to-faa.html?ref=todayspaper

I wonder if the theory that the 787 will be approved for flight by April is realistic, considering the multiple battery changes they propose?  I personally find it hard to believe that such major changes to the airliner batteries could be implemented and tested within a few months.  Regulatory approval is of course another set of issues, as discussed earlier in this thread by Jeroen H.

[Phil Bunch]

As best I can interpret the NY Times account of the FAA/Boeing meeting held on Friday, Feb 22, Boeing has a seemingly impossible task.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/business/faa-sets-terms-for-boeings-battery-fixes-on-787.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=print

They must somehow prove that revised batteries and avionics will be safe, yet they don't know specifically what caused the failed batteries to fail.  It almost seems like they are trying to act like US automobile salesmen in trying to create an impression of safety without in-depth evidence that their solutions would for sure work.  Boeing's very recent projection that the 787 would be flying by April of 2013 sure seems optimistic to me, but obviously I don't know how the FAA and other agencies work.  I can't imagine Boeing's executives wanting to resume 787 flights without a clear understanding of how the batteries failed and without thorough, statistically justified evidence that the new batteries have been fixed and that if somehow they do fail that they won't bring an airliner down.  Can the battery vendors really create, test, and certify a new lithium battery design in 2 months?

I wasn't aware that it is feasible to stop a lithium fire once it starts, without using unusual fire extinguishing and containment means.  There is so much heat and energy released that I can't visualize how one could contain such a fire.  But without specific causes identified and fixed in the batteries, it isn't convincing to me that new designs would necessarily be safe.  Sort of a Catch 22 situation...

And then there are no doubt a zillion regulatory issues, as well as the FAA not wishing to be seen as unwisely endorsing an unsafe airliner.

[Phil Bunch]

Another update re the ongoing battery investigation, etc:

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/business/safety-board-reports-little-progress-in-787-inquiry.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all

---------------------------
An excerpt:

Firefighters, who were quickly called, found "a white glow with radiant heat waves" coming from the battery. The battery was hissing loudly and leaking liquids, and it seemed to be reigniting. Standard fire suppressants had little effect. A fire captain's neck was burned, he said, when the battery "exploded."



Another excerpt:

 Meanwhile, one of the plane's crucial safety mechanism intended to keep smoke out of the cabin in case of a problem did not work. The venting system had lost power after the auxiliary power unit shut down.

It eventually took firefighters 80 minutes to contain the fire and remove the charred battery from the plane.

Boeing's plan to redesign the battery would add insulation among the eight cells in the battery to minimize the risk of a short circuit cascading through most or all of them. The company also proposed adding systems to monitor the temperature and activity in each cell. It would enclose the batteries in sturdier steel boxes to contain any fire, and it would create tubes to vent hazardous gases outside the plane.

----------------------------------
One aspect of the new design that I don't personally understand is the theory that one can put such a battery inside a steel box and that a fire would then be contained.  With as much thermal energy as a lithium fire creates, it seems to me that it would melt steel container(s) fairly quickly.  Most likely I'm just missing something here and failing to understand how they are making the fire risk negligible.  Perhaps it will work something like a rocket engine, where the fuel safely burns and vents through a high-tech ceramic nozzle?  But they don't make nozzles out of steel and they are designed to be self-limiting with respect to its maximum temperature.

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

... create drop hatch and quick release solenoid ...

[Jeroen D]

Looks like progress is being made:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21764282

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

Watch the wording: the design plan has been approved. This typically means the PROCESS to design and test has been approved -- not necessarily the design, if there is one.

I got weathered by FAA speak over the last years  :-)

[Phil Bunch]

I'm surprised that Boeing isn't rushing forward with previously approved (NiCd?) battery packs and working to redesign lithium batteries at a later date.  I would think that they couldn't attempt a parallel NiCd redesign in secret.

It seems like they are betting everything on somehow quickly proving that modified lithium batteries won't fail or if they do fail a fire won't spread or create too excessive fumes or smoke.

It would be interesting to know what Boeing's strategy and a realistic redesign/recertification timeline really are.

[Phil Bunch]

Another NY Times update, with some interesting discussions and quotes:

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/business/faa-backs-boeing-plan-for-battery-test.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all&pagewanted=print

The effort to get the 787 back into flight seems to be especially political in nature, aimed at using the FAA's processes to obtain a quick approval.  

But what good will it do Boeing and the 787 if they manage to get the lithium batteries approved and then additional fires and problems start showing up?  Even with the improved battery design and added safety features, a battery fire wouldn't be something that is welcome during a flight.

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

How much money do they bleed every day?

[Phil Bunch]

How much money do they bleed every day?

An interesting question.  They've already sunk huge amounts of money getting the 787 to its current non-flying status.  If and when it resumes flight status, it will slowly pay back those sunk costs and (hopefully) begin making steady net profits some years from now.  There are also interest payments on the loans involved.  Too complex for my non-financial brain, and only limited data are available for such calculations anyway.  It must be very stressful on the many global suppliers, too, as they presumably can't make money until shipments resume.

The NY Times has yet another update today, this one with some more details re the testing procedures and hints of the FAA's involvement, etc.  Also, there is an interesting 3-D reconstruction from a CT scan of the battery:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/business/initial-tests-of-battery-by-boeing-fell-short.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/B788,_Boston_MA_USA,_2013_%28FIRE_AW%29

[Phil Bunch]

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/B788,_Boston_MA_USA,_2013_%28FIRE_AW%29

Thanks for this interesting link.  I was surprised to read that the A350 group has decided to not use lithium batteries but instead to stay with NiCd batteries.  I would think this would give Boeing a convenient fallback position to make the same decision instead of trying to convince the world that their new lithium battery design is "1000% safe".

The above page also contains a link to a PDF of the presentation overheads by a member of the A350 flight safety group:

http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/2078.pdf

This interesting and informative presentation discusses in detail the risks and benefits and many other technical aspects of lithium batteries and related topics.

An interesting quote from the FAA, excerpted from the above A350 presentation:

"There are currently no approved and tested containers that can sufficiently contain the known effects of accidental lithium metal battery ignition."   ---FAA SAFO 09/10

I'm somewhat surprised after reading this report that the world at large has accepted lithium batteries into general use.  I continue to be puzzled that Boeing is making such a heroic attempt to keep lithium batteries in the 787.  I can't personally imagine anything happening other than lithium batteries being sent back to R&D for further studies.  I of course admit that I don't understand how the FAA and other approvals work.

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

I bet Airbus is doing both NiCd and Li-Ion batteries in parallel, and has been doing this for quite a while.  Just to be sure.


Jeroen

[Sese]

The NTSB sent a formal letter to Boeing complaining about their latest press conference in Japan. In Japan Boeing had claimed there was no fire at all while the NTSB has not decided yet and Boeing publicly announced to be expecting some permit to fly again within weeks.

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020614479_ntsbrebukexml.html

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

I hope we won't see the time that development of any aircraft turns out to be, by definition, a gamble 'to bet the farm' and/or that research & development simply will halt due to insurmountable costs or uninsurable risks (which is actually the same as insurmountable costs).

On the other hand, it may lead to abandoning the competitive model, where only the bottom line counts and investors run away for unpolished risk/benefit ratios. It may be that cooperative models will eventually come up, where fair prices are paid for development work, but there is no overall profit to be made. Something like public transport; I know very few places where the public transport system is self-sufficient, yet most people agree that it is worth the taxpayer's money. Maybe developing aircraft (and microprocessors) is getting too complex to remain competitive, as the whole world's market (100% share) is needed to recover the costs?


Jeroen

[Sese]

Cost might not be that much of a factor when modifying the 787's battery system. What is expensive is letting their aircraft inventory stand idle at Everett. Maybe double digit billion incomes parked there waiting to be delivered?

I am not sure what makes them refuse to switch to Ni-Cad batteries instead? To me that would look like the most logical response.

[Phil Bunch]

I hope we won't see the time that development of any aircraft turns out to be, by definition, a gamble 'to bet the farm' and/or that research & development simply will halt due to insurmountable costs or uninsurable risks (which is actually the same as insurmountable costs).

On the other hand, it may lead to abandoning the competitive model, where only the bottom line counts and investors run away for unpolished risk/benefit ratios. It may be that cooperative models will eventually come up, where fair prices are paid for development work, but there is no overall profit to be made. Something like public transport; I know very few places where the public transport system is self-sufficient, yet most people agree that it is worth the taxpayer's money. Maybe developing aircraft (and microprocessors) is getting too complex to remain competitive, as the whole world's market (100% share) is needed to recover the costs?


Jeroen

These things are also complicated by the globalization of the airliner development and production process.  As best I can follow, the lithium battery R&D and production was outsourced to some sort of combination of a Japanese and a French company.    There is also the likelihood that international politics and cultural differences are mixed in with this strange stalemate of the 787's commercialization.  "Wheels within wheels" is an aphorism that comes to mind.  

I just have to believe that Boeing doesn't have a parallel NiCd battery program in the wings, waiting to be routinely certified if their "let's relaunch the 787 in 2 weeks" public strategy.  

This whole situation seems so unlike traditional Boeing business practices and traditions...I'm beginning to sense that something else is going on behind the scenes.  One would think that it would leak by now, though...

[Phil Bunch]

Boeing has executed a test flight with their proposed new lithium battery systems today:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-25/boeing-moves-toward-battery-fix-approval-with-787-flight.html

Excerpt:

"Today's flight will be followed by ground tests and one certification demonstration flight "in the coming days" to show regulators the new battery systems function properly, the company said. Boeing then will seek Federal Aviation Administration approval to get the 787 back in operation, Marc Birtel, a Boeing spokesman, said in a telephone interview.

The battery testing is going to be today's flight, ground testing and then the certification demonstration flight," Birtel said. "Once all the laboratory and associated ground testing is all complete, along with the flight test, then the submission goes to the FAA."

-----------------
Is it possible that they've figured out some sort of shortcut way to "unground" the 787 and get very quickly expedited regulatory approvals?  Or are they just trying to put public relations/media pressures on the regulatory bodies to speed up their anticipated regulatory review processes?  Or, all of the above!?!?

I would bet at least 50 Euros/dollars that Boeing already has a NiCd battery system offstage, essentially ready for approval, "just in case".

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

... I've now been waiting for the FAA for a month... and my paperwork wasn't exactly worth looking at, with the DER simply having zero comments. That sequester thing surely slows them down...


Jeroen