787 Batteries and Chargers - Part 1
Cockney Steve
I am sure Turin can weigh in as well but there seems to be a slight misperception about what the purpose the aircraft main battery serves in a degraded power state. Indeed if it it a race to the aerodrome the battery should last for 30 minutes to provide absolute essential power-think in this case of the captain's flight instruments. This has been pretty much the standard on every Boeing that I have flown as well as MD, Lockheed, and narrow body Airbus.
What really should be going on however, is that the battery is providing power long enough until you can climb back out of the degraded power state. This might mean the RAT starts powering the busses, the apu comes on line, or you can get a generator back. It should be just an interim power source at most.
I know you realize this but I am not sure some that are following this thread do.
Btw. I have a colleague who landed in South America on battery power only in a 767. 40 minutes on this power source. 10 more than advertised but it was drained on the rollout....close...
I am sure Turin can weigh in as well but there seems to be a slight misperception about what the purpose the aircraft main battery serves in a degraded power state. Indeed if it it a race to the aerodrome the battery should last for 30 minutes to provide absolute essential power-think in this case of the captain's flight instruments. This has been pretty much the standard on every Boeing that I have flown as well as MD, Lockheed, and narrow body Airbus.
What really should be going on however, is that the battery is providing power long enough until you can climb back out of the degraded power state. This might mean the RAT starts powering the busses, the apu comes on line, or you can get a generator back. It should be just an interim power source at most.
I know you realize this but I am not sure some that are following this thread do.
Btw. I have a colleague who landed in South America on battery power only in a 767. 40 minutes on this power source. 10 more than advertised but it was drained on the rollout....close...
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: china
Age: 61
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am glad to be wrong. The NTSB said both failures were caused by the same thing. I cell failed (for some reason).
The only thing I don't like in the battery is what Cockney Steve said. I want a metal contact for all those little wires. Not mechanical. Too mainy points to corrode, poor installation, etc.
The only thing I don't like in the battery is what Cockney Steve said. I want a metal contact for all those little wires. Not mechanical. Too mainy points to corrode, poor installation, etc.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seattle Times:
NTSB challenges Boeing estimates of 787 battery safety
Some well chosen and rather salutary quotes in the piece...
NTSB challenges Boeing estimates of 787 battery safety
Some well chosen and rather salutary quotes in the piece...
Last edited by robdean; 10th Feb 2013 at 07:22.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Li ion can be used in airliners today?
Hi,
Question:
Airliners benefits today and will benefit in near future in using Li ion batteries?
Some facts:
Question 2: Limited test activities are being planned with just Li ion batteries?
Question:
Airliners benefits today and will benefit in near future in using Li ion batteries?
Some facts:
- When they fail you are not able to use it and sometimes the stored energy is automatically used to create fireworks inside your aircraft.
- 1 month after 1st 787 incident (BOS) NTSB didnīt know WHY (happened)
- No one could tell when Boeing 787 will return to commercial operation. The implications of this uncertainty affects thousands of professionals.
- You canīt not retrieve all the energy stored. Unless you damage one or more cells. The Thales battery price is about US$ 16,000 (each)
- After years of R&D, prominent high tech. aviation suppliers delivered a BAD battery damaging the Dream (liner) of a giant: Boeing
- Boeing is concerned and regrets: "the entire Boeing team deeply regrets the impact that recent events have had on our customers and their passengers."
- The insurance companies are not yet able to know the costs (to be paid) but the insurance costs certainly will go higher.
- EADS is questioning itīs use on A350
- Better batteries are being designed but will not be available for immediate use.
- A retrofit to 787 is absolutely technically feasible. The use of another battery (Ni Cd) is affordable.
Question 2: Limited test activities are being planned with just Li ion batteries?
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NTSB has narrowed the failure down to some criteria. Internal defects are on the list, and cannot, by their nature, be monitored, or even known, until failure. They are mentioned as related to the folding of the electrode, pinching and wrinkling, and foreign object contamination.
This report is not a new revelation. This failure is well known in the industry, see Failure Analysis Associates, Exponent evaluation.
NTSB may appear to be discovering this problem just now. Wrong, it was on their list, it was on the list prior to the wording of the FAA special circumstances.
Try to avoid the propaganda that somehow something mysterious is happening.
Any Drama is Public Relations.
As has been said here before, this is "Mature Technology". That is true, but "Mature" is not a synonym for "Safe in Commercial Aviation".
As to Boeing writing the regs. Let's see. I am in a spelling Bee, as a contestant.
May I submit the word which I will be required to Spell?
This report is not a new revelation. This failure is well known in the industry, see Failure Analysis Associates, Exponent evaluation.
NTSB may appear to be discovering this problem just now. Wrong, it was on their list, it was on the list prior to the wording of the FAA special circumstances.
Try to avoid the propaganda that somehow something mysterious is happening.
Any Drama is Public Relations.
As has been said here before, this is "Mature Technology". That is true, but "Mature" is not a synonym for "Safe in Commercial Aviation".
As to Boeing writing the regs. Let's see. I am in a spelling Bee, as a contestant.
May I submit the word which I will be required to Spell?
Last edited by Lyman; 10th Feb 2013 at 16:29.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surrounding electric environment
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Li ion 787 previous battery replacements
Hi,
Low MTTR:
After some problems during trips, some years ago i opened and analyzed the 6 cell battery pack of my main laptop. The voltage span from empty to full used in that design was just one volt. IIRC 11.6 to 12.6 Volts. I decided to use an external battery for my main and spare laptops. Currently i use 12 cells, charging each one up to 4.2 volts with constant voltage monitoring. Warning me if a given cell falls below 3.3 volts during operation. Result: 10 hour plus operation. 
Ea. cell can be replaced. (18650) 
Low MTTR:
"...the top three reasons for Boeing returning batteries as batteries running down, being improperly disconnected, or exceeding their expiration date."
A battery thats left on with no other power source, Gunter said, will deep discharge (and) cannot be recharged or reused.
And one thats improperly disconnected, she added, trips one of the protection features and renders the battery unusable.
Because lithium-ion batteries can be dangerously volatile if undercharged, as well as when overcharged, an automatic cutoff is built into the 787 batteries so that if the charge falls below 15 percent of full, the battery locks.
Ea. cell can be replaced. (18650)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lyman:
FALSE.
That standard does not apply to the battery system, as it is not critical for flight.
I urge contributors to this thread to please refrain from posting unfounded hyperbole. It does nothing to further our understanding of the technical issues at hand, bothers those professionals well versed in the industry standards, and misleads the gullible.
The standard set by the FAA for this safety critical event is one occurrence in one Billion flight hours.
FALSE.
That standard does not apply to the battery system, as it is not critical for flight.
I urge contributors to this thread to please refrain from posting unfounded hyperbole. It does nothing to further our understanding of the technical issues at hand, bothers those professionals well versed in the industry standards, and misleads the gullible.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: china
Age: 61
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regulating agencies are always a step behind the industries that they regulate. If they were not, there would be no innovation. Banks, airplanes, whatever. I don't blame the FAA. They did the best they could with the info they had.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Batteries cell voltages in JA829J and JA804A were recorded?
Hi,
NTSB and JTSB mentioned cell voltages?
NTSB and JTSB mentioned cell voltages?
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: hong kong
Age: 63
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@RR_NDB
CVR/FDR are recorders for investigative purpose.
QAR records more in detail, with maintenance in mind.
Subsystems do their own recording. Frequently, investigations looked for example at FADEC NVM.
So far, there is no hint on availability of any per cell recordings. Sensibly, the BMS would record (amongst others) things like
IMHO, NTSB based their BOS related analysis, as of 6 Feb brief, on FDR (32V, no overcharge), and on physical evidence / examination after disassembling battery and cells.
We know that 32V during a cell short will result in destruction of remaining cells. To figure it out, the following info is needed.
CVR/FDR are recorders for investigative purpose.
QAR records more in detail, with maintenance in mind.
Subsystems do their own recording. Frequently, investigations looked for example at FADEC NVM.
So far, there is no hint on availability of any per cell recordings. Sensibly, the BMS would record (amongst others) things like
- Event time stamp
- Cell #
- Cell voltage
- Cell short/over voltage/under-voltage
- Charger on/off
- Failure notification
- Breaker tripped / disconnected
- Battery temperature/fire
IMHO, NTSB based their BOS related analysis, as of 6 Feb brief, on FDR (32V, no overcharge), and on physical evidence / examination after disassembling battery and cells.
We know that 32V during a cell short will result in destruction of remaining cells. To figure it out, the following info is needed.
- Battery temperature history
- Per cell voltage history
- Per cell voltages prior to Primary failure
- BMS response to Primary failure
- Battery voltage after Primary failure - Has it reduced or remained at 32V
- Precise failure sequence
Last edited by saptzae; 10th Feb 2013 at 18:28. Reason: Typo
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lyman:
FALSE. No such reduction ever took place.
Posting nonsense incorrectly extrapolated from opinions collected by journalists doesn't lead to a better understanding.
There is an immense difference between the designed failure rate requirements for flight critical systems and other systems and components.
One may opine what qualifies as such, but that doesn't make it so.
having been reduced from the one billion figure
FALSE. No such reduction ever took place.
Posting nonsense incorrectly extrapolated from opinions collected by journalists doesn't lead to a better understanding.
There is an immense difference between the designed failure rate requirements for flight critical systems and other systems and components.
One may opine what qualifies as such, but that doesn't make it so.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Black box own data recorder
Hi,
saptzae:
But, if Investigators were with only "Per cell voltage history" like the old CVR approach (endless tape) probably they would be ready (some time ago) to deterministically say the "WHAT and WHY" in these BAD batteries that initiated the thermal runaway, GROUNDING THE 787.
saptzae:
Battery temperature history
Per cell voltage history
Per cell voltages prior to Primary failure
BMS response to Primary failure
Battery voltage after Primary failure - Has it reduced or remained at 32V
Precise failure sequence
Per cell voltage history
Per cell voltages prior to Primary failure
BMS response to Primary failure
Battery voltage after Primary failure - Has it reduced or remained at 32V
Precise failure sequence
But, if Investigators were with only "Per cell voltage history" like the old CVR approach (endless tape) probably they would be ready (some time ago) to deterministically say the "WHAT and WHY" in these BAD batteries that initiated the thermal runaway, GROUNDING THE 787.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a poor design
Hi,
saptzae:
Yes, with a poorly designed system you even display fireworks.
(When a cell starts to exhibit anomalies YOU CAN IMMEDIATELY process the info and decide what to do. AFAIK the people that worked in the algorithms had this techniques available to implement a "world class" design. 787 deserved it!
saptzae:
We know that 32V during a cell short will result in destruction of remaining cells.
Yes, with a poorly designed system you even display fireworks. (When a cell starts to exhibit anomalies YOU CAN IMMEDIATELY process the info and decide what to do. AFAIK the people that worked in the algorithms had this techniques available to implement a "world class" design. 787 deserved it!
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 88
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I urge contributors to this thread to please refrain from posting unfounded hyperbole. It does nothing to further our understanding of the technical issues at hand, bothers those professionals well versed in the industry standards, and misleads the gullible.
Last edited by CliveL; 10th Feb 2013 at 19:29.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ether former safety board member John Goglia was misquoted by the interviewing journalist, or he would be well advised to refrain from making erroneous statements about matters he doesn't understand.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HazelNuts39
I quoted the article in good faith, and will retain it in my files.
I will remove all reference to the remarks from this thread.
Your information I consider to be the gold standard, here.
Thanks for your intercession...
I quoted the article in good faith, and will retain it in my files.
I will remove all reference to the remarks from this thread.
Your information I consider to be the gold standard, here.
Thanks for your intercession...
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How long will be the grounding of 787?
Hi,
In first NTSB briefing Deborah Hersman emphasized WHAT and WHY on BOS 787 incident.
WHAT: A short circuit inside a cell.
Problem now (WHY) seems much more complex. Even impossible to conclude:
1) PCBīs probably were FUBAR
2) Cell voltage history (before and after thermal runaway) probably were lost
If this is true, the only way to recover cell voltage history would be if battery voltage was measured and recorded. (NOT THE DC bus as happens in a conventional plane) Remember that between the cells plus terminal (the right position to measure) and the bus you have a relay/contactor and a diode module (this one specific to 787, because using Li ion that only "goes to the bus" if it drop below, i estimate 30 V)
So, if the voltage at battery plus terminal of cell # 8 was not measured or recorded NTSB will have two possibilities:
1) A cell failure from a non electric reason. (process, etc.)
2) A cell failure from a cell voltage balancing failure when battery was being charged. (Series charging, IMO not the best approach)
Considering JA829J started flying few weeks before the incident, very probably no other battery was used (and replaced) in that plane. So not possible (very probably) to look to other battery used in (APU) this plane.
So i donīt expect a conclusive WHY from NTSB for this particular battery failure. Simply i cannot imagine how to conclude. (the WHY)
The fact they are going to see process (manuf., design and chargers) is an indication they had no means to find the WHY in using the shortest procedure: Looking to the smoking gun.
On the question in the Title: What concerns me most is the FAA design review. A mere change to Ni Cd could not be the only required change.
In first NTSB briefing Deborah Hersman emphasized WHAT and WHY on BOS 787 incident.
WHAT: A short circuit inside a cell.
Problem now (WHY) seems much more complex. Even impossible to conclude:
1) PCBīs probably were FUBAR
2) Cell voltage history (before and after thermal runaway) probably were lost
If this is true, the only way to recover cell voltage history would be if battery voltage was measured and recorded. (NOT THE DC bus as happens in a conventional plane) Remember that between the cells plus terminal (the right position to measure) and the bus you have a relay/contactor and a diode module (this one specific to 787, because using Li ion that only "goes to the bus" if it drop below, i estimate 30 V)
So, if the voltage at battery plus terminal of cell # 8 was not measured or recorded NTSB will have two possibilities:
1) A cell failure from a non electric reason. (process, etc.)
2) A cell failure from a cell voltage balancing failure when battery was being charged. (Series charging, IMO not the best approach)
Considering JA829J started flying few weeks before the incident, very probably no other battery was used (and replaced) in that plane. So not possible (very probably) to look to other battery used in (APU) this plane.
So i donīt expect a conclusive WHY from NTSB for this particular battery failure. Simply i cannot imagine how to conclude. (the WHY)
The fact they are going to see process (manuf., design and chargers) is an indication they had no means to find the WHY in using the shortest procedure: Looking to the smoking gun.
On the question in the Title: What concerns me most is the FAA design review. A mere change to Ni Cd could not be the only required change.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: BRISBANE
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B787 battery
Cell failure - multi current paths involving metal cased cells & metal battery case all resulting in further cell failures currents via earth straps bonding, heat etc. If need to stay with the same cells. Answer redesign battery case for temps above 800 degs C without metal. Material- basalt internal with kevlar external safety outer. Basalt & kevlar dividers between cells. Good for over 1600 degs C. No shorts, no ground loops, light weight.
Most batteries changed because they had been discharged too far. (ground handling?) It is most likely to be found the underlying reason for the two major failures. State of charge indications as a percentage comes to mind. If it at the present displayed as a percentage, then the low end should be recalabrated. If it is voltage it is just wrong. ( don't have how it is displayed & could not find ref in the thread.) The voltage indication of Li-Ion batteries between good & bad are too close for voltage readings anyhow. (coulomb counting for short term indicating)
Regards
Most batteries changed because they had been discharged too far. (ground handling?) It is most likely to be found the underlying reason for the two major failures. State of charge indications as a percentage comes to mind. If it at the present displayed as a percentage, then the low end should be recalabrated. If it is voltage it is just wrong. ( don't have how it is displayed & could not find ref in the thread.) The voltage indication of Li-Ion batteries between good & bad are too close for voltage readings anyhow. (coulomb counting for short term indicating)
Regards
Last edited by bill good; 11th Feb 2013 at 09:30. Reason: ps