Airbus, FAA Spar Over Lithium Batteries - WSJ July 27, 2016

[airman1900]

From the Wall Street Journal, July 27, 2016 an article titled, Airbus, FAA Spar Over Lithium Batteries:

Airbus, FAA Spar Over Lithium Batteries - WSJ (http://on.wsj.com/2auVybs)

[Lonewolf_50]

In a nutshell:

Escalating arguments about the extent of safeguards and testing for such rechargeable batteries—reminiscent of Boeing Co.’s difficulties with similar technology years ago—come after European regulators already have approved the Airbus systems based on less-stringent requirements.

The FAA seems to be operating under "once bitten, twice shy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y15iusA4ylc)" on this one.

[phylosocopter]

Just be aware that "lithium batteries" covers a number of chemistries while all contain significant energy when charged, some will go into chemical thermal runaway (burn) and some dont!
There is a big difference in terms of air safety (the ones boeing were using were the type that burn because they have a very slight weight advantage which was lost when they had to build bloody great steel boxes for them)

[edmundronald]

You can find the explanation in the first words of the first sentence:

"European jet maker Airbus Group SE is locked in a dispute with U.S. regulators over the safety of lithium-ion batteries installed on its latest model, according to people familiar with the details.".

Also, the US agency is finding a foreign manufacturer an easier target to create an inroad into regulating the battery issue - less lobbying. It's similar to the way the US banned *imports* of automatic weapons to combat gun crime, without offending the domestic gun lobby. One can recall that Boeing was allowed to self-certify its 787 battery system, so clearly domestic manufacturers enjoy a certain leeway on safety issues ... from domestic regulators.

[notapilot15]

Just to be clear on B787 battery issue

GS Yuasa self-certified the battery
JCAB accepted GS Yuasa self certification
FAA accepted JCAB certification
EASA accepted FAA certification
Boeing just framed the certificate and hung on the wall

So Boeing, FAA and EASA had no real involvement in testing and certification. But they were deeply involved in steel box design and certification.

There is no permanent fix (without steel box) to B787 battery because GS Yuasa never accepted there is a problem with the battery in the first place.

[tdracer]

There is no permanent fix (without steel box) to B787 battery because GS Yuasa never accepted there is a problem with the battery in the first place.

Not entirely true - the battery was completely redesigned as part of the steel box fix. IIRC they increased the distance and insulation between cells to keep a fault in one cell from propagating to adjacent cells.

[notapilot15]

Which part is not true?

If they are confident battery is safe with moving around spacers, they don't need 120+ lbs steel box.

As long as there is a steel box, it is not a permanent fix.

Steel box dead weight is almost equivalent to one paid pax.

[tdracer]

If Yuasa wouldn't accept there was a problem, why did they redesign the battery?
The steel box was added because they were unable to establish root cause, without knowing root cause they couldn't be confident of the fix.

Given there are over 400 787s currently flying around without battery problems, it looks like the battery redesign worked.

[notapilot15]

If Yuasa wouldn't accept there was a problem, why did they redesign the battery?
Because battery was never tested with multiple cells. Please don't call moving spacers a major redesign. Even DIY enthusiasts can figure out a better fix.

Given there are over 400 787s currently flying around without battery problems, it looks like the battery redesign worked.
Well there was at least one reported incident in Japan, that battery was quietly replaced. No further info. Why not remove the dead weight of steel box. Airlines can save on fuel.

they were unable to establish root cause, without knowing root cause they couldn't be confident of the fix.
Corrective action without establishing root cause. Which troubleshooting standard is this.

[FlightlessParrot]

Which part is not true?

If they are confident battery is safe with moving around spacers, they don't need 120+ lbs steel box.

As long as there is a steel box, it is not a permanent fix.

Steel box dead weight is almost equivalent to one paid pax.
This is a question from a non-pilot, with no hidden agenda.

If it is true that the steel confinement weighs about as much as one pax, and if the choice of lithium batteries over nicads is driven by weight, is there any net advantage for lithium?

Perhaps the numbers work out differently for a very electrical aircraft like the 787, which presumably needs more battery capacity than most designs? But I suppose this is a routine consideration in aircraft design; but perhaps the politics of getting FAA approval is an added factor for Airbus? How do the lifetime costs of regulatory processes compare with small differences in weight?

[TURIN]

Which part is not true?

If they are confident battery is safe with moving around spacers, they don't need 120+ lbs steel box.

As long as there is a steel box, it is not a permanent fix.

Steel box dead weight is almost equivalent to one paid pax.

Are you sure you are not quoting the added weight for the two boxes. I can't see one box (plus the vent mod) being 120lbs.

Saying that the box is not a permanent fix is like saying any post production in-service mod is not a permanent fix.

In addition, part of the post mod fix was to alter the operational procedures to ensure the battery is not 'stressed' beyond its limits. Its, discharge limits were changed too.

[tdracer]

Well there was at least one reported incident in Japan, that battery was quietly replaced. No further info. Why not remove the dead weight of steel box. Airlines can save on fuel.
Actually there is a fair amount of information on that event - single cell failed, redesigned battery did its job of preventing the failure from cascading to adjacent cells, battery box vented fumes overboard as per design intent.


Corrective action without establishing root cause. Which troubleshooting standard is this.
I take it you're not an engineer. While it's certainly desirable to nail down root cause, the real world is not always so accommodating. Boeing had some of the worlds best experts on the subject investigating and they were unable to come up with a definitive root cause. So they did what engineers do in that case - they brainstorm everything potential cause they can come up with, and addressed those potential causes. Battery design, battery monitoring, charging/discharging, and then to cover their bases they put it in a protective steel box.
What did you expect them to do, leave the 787 fleet grounded indefinitely?


BTW, the Airbus proposal of cert by analysis is exactly the course that was followed for the original 787 cert that the FAA was so roundly criticized for. I think Lonewolf is right, the FAA is being extra cautious since the exact same thing when so badly wrong with the 787.

[tdracer]

If it is true that the steel confinement weighs about as much as one pax, and if the choice of lithium batteries over nicads is driven by weight, is there any net advantage for lithium?
Flightless, this is far from my area of expertise (and I haven't worked the 787), but my understanding at the time was they couldn't go back to nicads due to the energy density - basically a NiCad of sufficient storage capacity wouldn't fit in the available space.


I thought I read somewhere that Airbus was going to abandon Li batteries for the A350 after the Boeing problems - I wonder why they went back to Li (perhaps they ran into the same size issue?)

[notapilot15]

@FlightlessParrot

If I recall correctly 70 lbs LiOn equivalent NiCd will be around 350 lbs. Still NiCd cannot meet 787's hungry power requirements. 120 lb add on is better than 280 lb.

@Turin
120 lbs per battery. It is a heavy thick steel casing to contain thermal runway conditions. Rework and additional weight associated is common on frames, parts already built. But putting a battery in a steel case, forever!!! Is FAA going asking every future battery in a steel case.

@tdracer
Boeing is just an integrator, they have to take whatever partner gives. Welcome to the risk sharing partnership world of B787 program, outsourcing on steroids.

[vapilot2004]

One of the parameters the FAA requires is an overcharge test that can induce thermal runaway. The FAA needs to understand how this develops regarding heat generation, fire, and outgassing. Airbus refusal in making this test is based on theirs and their battery manufacturer's belief that the A350 batteries are immune to overcharging. As the FAA and industry learned with Boeing, Yuasa, SecuraPlane, and Thales on the 787 batteries, never say never.

The overall designer for the 787's electrical system, and chooser of a Lion type battery for the 787 is a French company, working with two American companies providing the integration and charging electronics, and a Japanese battery company. That is a fairly cosmopolitan group. Comments regarding nationalism/NIH beliefs are not applicable here.

If it is true that the steel confinement weighs about as much as one pax, and if the choice of lithium batteries over nicads is driven by weight, is there any net advantage for lithium?

Batteries can be charged quicker, have no memory issues from partial charges/discharges and as already mentioned, dramatically higher energy density over NiCads.

[phylosocopter]

lithium iron phosphate batteries dont burn ok
Yes they will get hot if internal short when charged but do not enter any sort of chemical thermal runaway
They are an order of magnitude safer than the cells Boeing used
A very slight power/weight cost but not when you include a bloody great steel box.
It was a bad call by Boeing and now "lithium batteries" have a bad rap
Unjustified, unnecessary
Huge saveing on lead acid in weight, voltage stability, no explosive gas, non corrosive, just better!
I repeat lithium iron phosphate batteries dont burn !

[tdracer]

It was a bad call by Boeing and now "lithium batteries" have a bad rap
Unjustified, unnecessary



Accident investigators have traced a fire that destroyed a UPS Boeing 747 in the United Arab Emirates in 2010 to the lithium batteries being carried in the cargo hold. Unless something is done to prevent similar disasters, the FAA now says such crashes are all but inevitable in the future.

UPS 747 Crash Highlights Lithium Battery Danger | Flying Magazine (http://www.flyingmag.com/news/ups-747-crash-highlights-lithium-battery-danger)


It would seem issue with Li batteries pre-dated the 787 issues by several years...

[vapilot2004]

Boeing did not make the call, Thales did and told the airframer that the battery used on the 787 was safe with proper handling of charging/discharge currents, temps, and the so-called fail-safe electrical integration. They were wrong and the NTSB investigations clearly showed this.

The failure is a perfect example of how outsourcing can go awry. Never take the word of another manufacturer - test and re-test yourself. (Not an easy task in the complex and electronics/software-heavy world of commercial aviation.) It was also illustrative of the dysfunctional certification process that fully approved the 787 batteries in the first place.

Lithium iron phosphate batteries can overheat and outgas and fires are not impossible in the battery assembly, just unlikely. The manufacturer of these batteries includes aviation firefighting strategy guidance should their batteries catch fire. Never say never is the point.

If the Iron Phosphate cells are perfectly safe, Airbus should have no problem testing them for the overcharge condition - satisfying the now-skittish FAA's requirement.

[phylosocopter]

Fair cop vapilot "never say never" point taken !

But the lithium iron phosphate chemistry is inherently very much safer in that the battery materials themselves will not sustain a exothermic reaction

Others especially lithium colbalt oxide (the chemistry used in dreamliner do burn in a self sustaining reaction. A very very diferent scenario

Any concentrated energy source can get hot.. very hot when many kwh are contained in a small space, it is reasonable in an aviation setting that cells should be protected from cascading heat failure. But that is a very much easier (and lighter) ask with lipo than li colbalt oxide

[vapilot2004]

I understand the difference, but thank you Phylos for pointing that out. I am also not disagreeing with you or the battery manufacturer regarding their having qualities that lessen the number of failure modes, including the most serious, thermal runaway. Perhaps Boeing will consider the newer battery chemistry Saft uses for their next endeavour.

[HamishMcBush]

Because battery was never tested with multiple cells.
How on earth did it get certified then?

Maybe time for Tesla to supply the batteries from the first of their new "GigaFactories".....

[notapilot15]

How on earth did it get certified then?

Certification process allowed certified individual cells in any configuration, at least until NTSB said you got to be kidding.

Maybe time for Tesla to supply the batteries from the first of their new "GigaFactories".....
Perhaps Boeing will consider the newer battery chemistry Saft uses for their next endeavour.

It is not about factories, it is about battery test labs. Each automotive manufacturer invested close to $100 Million in battery test labs continuously adjusting chemical composition and testing with different charge/draw and other conditions.

I am not saying Yuasa don't have similar lab, but I doubt anyone tested batteries like Tesla for B787.

Of course I also buy 12v battery for solar system at Harbor Freight with 20%-25% coupon and put it in a empty bucket, just in case it leaks.

[Scuffers]

What I find amazing is just how such a simple concept and implementation can be so messed up (787 wise), hell, we are taking a piss-ant capacity battery(s) ie. some 75AH @ 32V each compared to a Tesla car battery that's some 230Ah @ 400V, they also experience a far higher charge/discharge rate (supercharger use and 'ludicrous' mode), yet they manage not to catch fire or need to be in a stainless steel box, they also work out lighter per KWh stored.

Nothing wrong with using Lithium-ion, just like everything else, design it right in the first place.

[lomapaseo]

Corrective action without establishing root cause. Which troubleshooting standard is this.

as troubleshooting it happens quite a bit.

It's a matter of economics once reasonable safety has been met.

In the long run the engineers expect to understand the root cause and either fix it or replace with a different design. In the interim one must do something to reduce the risk to the passenger etc. to a level commensurate with all other historical risks (hidden or known problems).

Hats off to Airbus if they understand the Boeing design well enough to have address root cause and thus certified as such. On the other hand maybe they have addressed the risk (against a similar failure condition) with some unique method.

Just because the FAA doesn't understand is not reason to withold a certificate but we as the public certainly are not privy to enough information to comment, except via something like a "Special Condition" published in our Federal Register.

[tdracer]

Scuffers, at least two Tesla's have caught fire and burned due to battery failures in service. As vapilot said, never say never.

[RealUlli]

Scuffers, at least two Tesla's have caught fire and burned due to battery failures in service. As vapilot said, never say never.

AFAIK, both of these were caused by massive mechanical damage to the battery packs. Apparently, Tesla goes to great lengths to precisely control environment and demands for every single cell.

Also, I don't know the 787 battery packs, but Tesla's pack is made up of a really large number of rather small battery cells (type 18650, AFAIK). Every one of those has its own controller that makes sure the cell doesn't exceed the design limits, in addition to the global controller that monitors the whole pack.

I wonder how the cells in the 787 are handled...

And yes, the Tesla pack also comes with armor plate, but mostly to avoid damage to the pack...

[tdracer]

AFAIK, both of these were caused by massive mechanical damage to the battery packs. Apparently, Tesla goes to great lengths to precisely control environment and demands for every single cell.
Nope, not 'massive' damage, road debris.

[notapilot15]

I wonder how the cells in the 787 are handled...
I believe 6-8 large cells. Musk had a white paper on disadvantages of having small number of large cells.

Nope, not 'massive' damage, road debris.
Sure, because it is a earth hugging high performance automobile. But there was no FOD involved with B787 batteries. They are just ready to runway like a troubled teenager.

[RealUlli]

Nope, not 'massive' damage, road debris.

Well, one of the pieces of road debris was a tow hitch, IMHO large enough to cause trouble for any car and the other case of the car burning was (AFAIK) after a severe crash.

(Googling revealed there was another fire, but I couldn't find any specifics about the kind of debris, however they also said it pierced the steel plate)

Anyway - each of the pieces were large and hard enough to pierce the armor of the battery pack - at that time a heavy steel plate, replaced in later models by a titanium plate.

None of that happened to the batteries in the 787s.

[Aluminium shuffler]

So back on topic, the FAA are happy with the fire-prone 787 battery to have a botched repair, but unhappy with the 350 battery that has not had the same issues? Typical US hypocrisy and protectionism.

[EEngr]

"GS Yuasa self-certified the battery"

Those battery cells have been used without problems in numerous applications. It was the battery charger, or more accurately the overall battery system (which now includes a steel box) which failed.

[notapilot15]

Perfect, I guess there were no red flags when the charger took the building down in 2006.

Boeing
UTC
Thales
Securaplane (Meggit PLC)
GM Yuasa

Am I missing anybody.

[tdracer]

So back on topic, the FAA are happy with the fire-prone 787 battery to have a botched repair, but unhappy with the 350 battery that has not had the same issues?The FAA issue is that Airbus is proposing the same method of certification as was used for the 787 - wouldn't that give you pause given what we now know about the 787 battery? And what part of the 787 repair is "botched"?
Typical US hypocrisy and protectionism.
Dealt with EASA much? I have...:rolleyes:

[edmundronald]

The only net result is going to be that the next plane Boeing makes will have certfication difficulties too. This called tit for tat and has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with non-tariff barriers. If it were safety that was really the issue, the guys and gals from Airbus, Boeing, EASA and FAA and NTSB and battery makers and other stakeholders would get together in an ISO setting for lunch, then go into a quiet room, put a word processor on a big screen and write the certification requirements together, and make the battery requirements that are safe in a passenger airplane an independent ISO standard. A standard sets a level playing field.

[notapilot15]

I don't think new type certification will be a problem for Boeing. Even with B787's worst design and build quality Boeing managed the PR aspect very well either by compensating heavily (eg., QR) or blaming customers (eg., AI) themselves.

There are at least four countries involved directly/indirectly involved with B787 battery. Airlines from those four countries are not going complain, if anybody else complains quote the four as example.

Good news, every new type(both A&B) is having quality issues. I think airlines will stop owning planes and pay only by the hour and let lessors deal with issues with manufacturers.

There is serious trust deficit.

[edmundronald]

i meant that if the current Airbus has certification issues in the US, the next Boeing will have certification difficulties in Europe - regardless of both companies' undoubtedly faultless attention to safety in matters of batteries.

On the other hand, all of this posturing may have the useful effect of attracting some public attention, as a result of which the regulatory agencies might actually start regulating in order to cover their asses.

Edmund

[Scuffers]

Scuffers, at least two Tesla's have caught fire and burned due to battery failures in service. As vapilot said, never say never.

not quite the same thing, they had both been breached physically by hard objects, they had not 'cooked' themselves, in a physical car accident, there are a whole host of possible issues, and for only two to have issues with several hundred thousand cars on the road, that's pretty good numbers (hell, petrol/diesel cars have been known to catch fire).

The point is that Tesla's installation and battery management has been designed and tested to death, Boeing relied on farming different parts of the job out to different companies, and that's always going to be a recipe for problems.

Airbus appear to have got the whole system done by one supplier, which should eliminate the finger pointing and miss-communication.

[Aluminium shuffler]

As I understand it, there were three Tesla fires, two of which were due to extensive mechanical rupture from crashes and one which I don't know about. Still that's a lot better than the number of 787 battery fires, especially when you look at how many Teslas there are compared to 787s.

[ironbutt57]

wasn't there a whistle-blower event over lack of quality control involving the battery charging system?

[Volume]

It looks like it has not been posted here...
In their FAST magazine (http://www.airbus.com/support/publications/?eID=maglisting_push&tx_maglisting_pi1%5BdocID%5D=88442)Airbus talks about "Taking lithium-ion technology to new heights" from page 32 on. Worth a read.
Looks like that battery is quite different from the one on the dreamliner.
In line with the discussions we had here some years ago, the did not only go to a different chemistry, but also to cylindical SAFT cells, which are much more robust than the rectangular YUASA cells, especially if you expose them to permanently changing air pressure.
Looks like the Airbus cast aluminum housing with venting does most of the tricks of the additional Boeing strong box already at battery level.

and

A350XWB Lithium Batteries A guide for fire fighters (http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/tech_data/General_information/Airbus-A350-XWB-Lithium-batteries-guide-for-firefighter-Oct2015.pdf)

[tdracer]

Tesla Car Catches Fire During Promotional Event in France (http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/a22375/tesla-car-catches-fire-during-promotional-event-in-france/?mag=pop&list=nl_pnl_news&src=nl&date=081716)

[cwatters]

New Lithium battery uses Lithium in metal form but claims to be safest yet..

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/08/23/solidenergy-systems-promising-double-battery-life-lithium-ion-batteries-new-lithium-metal-technology/

https://cleantechnica.com/files/2016/08/SolidEnergy-Systems-570x380.jpg