• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 1:10 am

Indy wrote:
What concerns me is that Boeing used something so unstable and dangerous that they had to create a titanium containment unit. Given the fact they initially built the plane without that safety feature, can we trust that this containment unit is 100% effective? It is easier to have more faith at ground level. But can you have the same level of faith in a company when you are at 33-34k feet? And what happens when a battery breaks containment?


So did Airbus. And both had an expanded certification process after the 787 battery failures.

If somehow the battery breaks the containment system despite it being ground tested as being able to withstand far more energy than the battery contains, then you have at worst a situation like the two previous incidents where the batteries overheated and vented without full containment, and yet still caused no damage to flight critical systems.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 1:19 am

Stitch wrote:
Indy wrote:
Given the fact they initially built the plane without that safety feature, can we trust that this containment unit is 100% effective?


UA915 has shown it works as designed.

Yep.
In 100% of ONE incident, it worked. No more, no less. It's a little early to be getting carried away with statistics like that.
There are two things that happen when you get old.
1. You start to lose your memory.
2. What was I saying again?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24737
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:04 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
In 100% of ONE incident, it worked. No more, no less. It's a little early to be getting carried away with statistics like that.


Frankly I think it's a good thing that we have such little data to go by compared to the batteries popping off left and right on 787s (and A350s) so as to get a better statistical means for the (respective) containment system(s).
 
User avatar
Balerit
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:15 am

The most feared thing on an aircraft is fire, why would this be deemed a non issue. I think this is just Boeings way of avoiding the bad press from the first time round. I'm sorry but there is no excuse. Tell me, can this aircraft be dispatched with the batteries inop?
Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (retired).
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24737
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:46 am

Balerit wrote:
The most feared thing on an aircraft is fire, why would this be deemed a non issue.


Because if there is a fire in the electrolyte, it is contained within the titanium enclose and subsequently vented outside of the plane.


Balerit wrote:
I think this is just Boeings way of avoiding the bad press from the first time round.


One wonders why Boeing decided to inform the NTSB then when they were not required to... :scratchchin:

Of course, the FAA and NTSB decide what is and what isn't reported, not Boeing, so even if Boeing wanted to keep it quiet, they could not if the FAA or NTSB required such incidents be reported.


Balerit wrote:
Tell me, can this aircraft be dispatched with the batteries inop?


The Main Battery must be operable for dispatch. The APU battery can be inoperable for dispatch if certain conditions are met (APU not used, left AGCU operates normally, VFSG systems operate normally, and flight remains within 180 minutes of landing at a suitable airport).
Last edited by Stitch on Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6634
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:51 am

Balerit wrote:
The most feared thing on an aircraft is fire, why would this be deemed a non issue?

Wrong! The most feared thing is definitely that the fire goes out (the engines quit).

The battery container is designed to contain a battery fire the same way as the engines are designed to contain the combustor flames. No miracle there, just design.

It's a non issue the same way as when the engines are shut down at arrival at destination. Battery fire, change battery and battery containment pressure valve, game over, insert coin for new game.

It has been asked, why change to new battery technology (Li-Ion) when old (Ni-Cd) seemed to cause few problems? The answer is a combination of different advantages of Li-Ion over Ni-Cd:
1. Ni-Cd contains cadmium, which is very toxic to the environment, therefore during the last decade or so banned from practically all applications.
2. Ni-Cd is two-three times heavier.
3. Ni-Cd is more maintenance intensive, and has shorter life.
4. Ni-Cd needs maintenance even when stored as a "spare part".

Pretty sure, there will never again be a new airliner design with Ni-Cd batteries. On the other hand existing airliner types will at relevant opportunities be updated to have Li-Ion batteries, just like newbuilt 747s some 35 years ago had its main battery changed from Lead-Acid to Ni-Cd.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
Chemist
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 5:22 am

Indy wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The containment is working. Older battery technologies provided different challenges. The Boeing lithium ion battery, including containment, is still lighter at the same capacity than older technologies.

If you do not want to take an airplane with a lithium ion battery you also have to avoid the A350, the C series and quite a few business jets. I assume lithium ion batteries will make it into most modern frames, until the next more efficient technology comes around

Putting the lithium ion battery in a containment, precedes the Boeing case. There were examples, quite a bit smaller, of lithium ion batteries with containment on the market.
It is still astonishing how Boeing's engineers imagined to use such a battery without containment and got it certified at that time. If that would have been done right the first time around, nobody would be talking about it today


What concerns me is that Boeing used something so unstable and dangerous that they had to create a titanium containment unit. Given the fact they initially built the plane without that safety feature, can we trust that this containment unit is 100% effective? It is easier to have more faith at ground level. But can you have the same level of faith in a company when you are at 33-34k feet? And what happens when a battery breaks containment?


We had TWA 800, using something so unstable and dangerous as JET FUEL. It was so dangerous that aircraft now have gas interting systems in their tanks to reduce risk of fire or explosion.

Using the above logic, airlines were originally build without that safety feature, can we trust that this inerting approach is 100% effective?
How is the fuel situation any different, yet we accept that risk?
 
WIederling
Posts: 4618
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 9:44 am

Stitch wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
In 100% of ONE incident, it worked. No more, no less. It's a little early to be getting carried away with statistics like that.


Frankly I think it's a good thing that we have such little data to go by compared to the batteries popping off left and right on 787s (and A350s) so as to get a better statistical means for the (respective) containment system(s).


NTSB and the manufacturing crowd would be well served to pay some attention on this.
If cells turn hot after the alleged manufacturing defects and the parametric misuse have been fixed should raise some eyebrows.
containment working or not.

Any reports on A350 LiIon batteries? ( Haven't seen anything.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 4618
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 9:58 am

Chemist wrote:
We had TWA 800, using something so unstable and dangerous as JET FUEL. It was so dangerous that aircraft now have gas interting systems in their tanks to reduce risk of fire or explosion.


Jetfuel is essential.

Then, we do have longstanding information on jetfuel behaviour and dangers. This is a well covered topic.

Now LiIon battery cells are rather new. .. And the current generation has rather energetic failure modes
that can be triggered by simple over or under charge.
contrast with lead-acid or Nicad cells that deteriorate but don't go "instaboom" on over or undercharge.

LiIon cells are not yet well understood in context of commercial aviation.

LiIon is not essential. Its good properties are nice to have but ... not essential.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Balerit
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:04 am

Chemist wrote:
Indy wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The containment is working. Older battery technologies provided different challenges. The Boeing lithium ion battery, including containment, is still lighter at the same capacity than older technologies.

If you do not want to take an airplane with a lithium ion battery you also have to avoid the A350, the C series and quite a few business jets. I assume lithium ion batteries will make it into most modern frames, until the next more efficient technology comes around

Putting the lithium ion battery in a containment, precedes the Boeing case. There were examples, quite a bit smaller, of lithium ion batteries with containment on the market.
It is still astonishing how Boeing's engineers imagined to use such a battery without containment and got it certified at that time. If that would have been done right the first time around, nobody would be talking about it today


What concerns me is that Boeing used something so unstable and dangerous that they had to create a titanium containment unit. Given the fact they initially built the plane without that safety feature, can we trust that this containment unit is 100% effective? It is easier to have more faith at ground level. But can you have the same level of faith in a company when you are at 33-34k feet? And what happens when a battery breaks containment?


We had TWA 800, using something so unstable and dangerous as JET FUEL. It was so dangerous that aircraft now have gas interting systems in their tanks to reduce risk of fire or explosion.

Using the above logic, airlines were originally build without that safety feature, can we trust that this inerting approach is 100% effective?
How is the fuel situation any different, yet we accept that risk?


Do yourself a favour and look into all the accidents involving the B747 section 41 failures that were attributed to bombs and ask yourself why the cover up and the subsequent section 41 mods there were done? We found cracks similar to the photos on our 747's.

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/aCI-611opinionn.html
Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (retired).
 
User avatar
Balerit
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:15 am

prebennorholm wrote:
Balerit wrote:
The most feared thing on an aircraft is fire, why would this be deemed a non issue?

Wrong! The most feared thing is definitely that the fire goes out (the engines quit).

The battery container is designed to contain a battery fire the same way as the engines are designed to contain the combustor flames. No miracle there, just design.

It's a non issue the same way as when the engines are shut down at arrival at destination. Battery fire, change battery and battery containment pressure valve, game over, insert coin for new game.

It has been asked, why change to new battery technology (Li-Ion) when old (Ni-Cd) seemed to cause few problems? The answer is a combination of different advantages of Li-Ion over Ni-Cd:
1. Ni-Cd contains cadmium, which is very toxic to the environment, therefore during the last decade or so banned from practically all applications.
2. Ni-Cd is two-three times heavier.
3. Ni-Cd is more maintenance intensive, and has shorter life.
4. Ni-Cd needs maintenance even when stored as a "spare part".

Pretty sure, there will never again be a new airliner design with Ni-Cd batteries. On the other hand existing airliner types will at relevant opportunities be updated to have Li-Ion batteries, just like newbuilt 747s some 35 years ago had its main battery changed from Lead-Acid to Ni-Cd.


Have you ever worked on an aircraft? Fire is the number 1 issue - the first thing they teach you is to never work on an aircraft with matches or a cigarette lighter in your pocket. Double engine outs are so rare and never fatal. I can think of a few instances where all the engines quit; whether due to fuel leaks, insufficient fuel or volcanic ash and all landed safely - okay BA crash landed. Ni-cads are maintenance free and in all my years of working on aircraft I never ever saw an issue with them other than the APU battery being cold soaked and being unable to start the APU on landing.

Fire on the other hand has brought down many an aircraft including one I have worked on many times, namely the Helderberg. Even rece3ntly an A320, maybe even MH 370.
Last edited by Balerit on Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (retired).
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2021
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:04 am

One sentence in the article intrigues me as the meaning is very unclear:
fluid dripping from the forward vent relief system, the titanium box and pipes Boeing installed after the airplane was grounded in 2013.
?

Does anyone know whether the "the titanium box ..." part of this sentence means that engineers also found fluid dripping from the box and pipes (which would, imo, be a very bad thing), or is just an explanation of the "vent relief system"?
 
grbauc
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:19 am

BREECH wrote:
On landing, technicians discovered the battery “venting fluid,” with fluid dripping from the forward vent relief system, the titanium box and pipes Boeing installed after the airplane was grounded in 2013.


All that aside... They installed a TITANIUM box to contain an overheating li-ion battery!? The question I have is... ARE THEY NUTS!? Have they seen a titanium fire? Nothing, and I mean absolutely NOTHING can suppress that until all titanium burns out. How high titanium burns? 2500C? 3500C? Am I the only one who thinks that an overheating li-ion battery can start a fire which will then ignite the "titanium box" and that will be the end?

On a totally different note, maybe a silly question. Is fire suppression system on an airplane affects its ETOPS ratings in any way? I mean, ETOPS is all about engine reliability, but if you have fire onboard, you kind of need to land fast.


And since "titanium fire can't be suppressed by NOTHING" I'm going to guess that the people you deem "NUTS" might have more information and testing on this then what we see.I get your Fear/question i have burned a magnesium blocks camping in the sand dunes. Reporting is notorious for not getting all or missing information.
Last edited by grbauc on Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6116
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:21 am

Stitch wrote:
Balerit wrote:
The most feared thing on an aircraft is fire, why would this be deemed a non issue.


Because if there is a fire in the electrolyte, it is contained within the titanium enclose and subsequently vented outside of the plane.


Balerit wrote:
I think this is just Boeings way of avoiding the bad press from the first time round.


One wonders why Boeing decided to inform the NTSB then when they were not required to... :scratchchin:

Of course, the FAA and NTSB decide what is and what isn't reported, not Boeing, so even if Boeing wanted to keep it quiet, they could not if the FAA or NTSB required such incidents be reported.


Balerit wrote:
Tell me, can this aircraft be dispatched with the batteries inop?


The Main Battery must be operable for dispatch. The APU battery can be inoperable for dispatch if certain conditions are met (APU not used, left AGCU operates normally, VFSG systems operate normally, and flight remains within 180 minutes of landing at a suitable airport).


Fire exist in an airplane, at least in engines including the APU. It is controlled and the fire hazard resulting from carrying the hydrocarbon based fuels is well understood and controlled.

The lithium ion battery is based on hydrocarbon based solution. Overheating due to a fault can lead to evaporation leading to a hydrocarbon vapour and ignition in the presence of oxygen. A containment, keeping the vapours from mixing with oxygen inside the airplane and venting the vapours outside is the proper response.

But as we seem to look also at the history of the battery in the 787 here in this thread. The FAA seems to understand the dangers of hydrocarbon liquids well. So how did this organisation managed to certify a battery based on a hydrocarbon solution, in this size quite few kg, with the possibility of runaway overheating, without demanding a containment vessel from the start? I am also slightly astonished at the no reporting requirement, after such a blooper, I, it seems not the FAA, would like to know exactly how well the solution works in praxis. But perhaps there is the embarrassment factor and the FAA hopes to never hear of this battery again.

Somebody mentioned the good results using similar batteries in space. Perhaps the good experience is based on space being hardly ever an oxygen rich environment, so a failure of this batteries should hardly present a problem.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 14835
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:39 am

speedbored wrote:
One sentence in the article intrigues me as the meaning is very unclear:
fluid dripping from the forward vent relief system, the titanium box and pipes Boeing installed after the airplane was grounded in 2013.
?

Does anyone know whether the "the titanium box ..." part of this sentence means that engineers also found fluid dripping from the box and pipes (which would, imo, be a very bad thing), or is just an explanation of the "vent relief system"?


I suspect it's just poorly worded. I think their use of "the titanium box and pipes" refers to the whole containment system and that the fluid was simply venting as designed. If the titanium box itself was leaking, then in my book that would most definitely be a containment failure and should presumably require notification to the authorities.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
grbauc
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:21 pm

Indy wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
itchief wrote:
Do you think the Boeing engineers are so incompetent that this design is that dangerous?


I would not go there. Boeing engineers designed the first system, putting a potential fire hazard without containment, into the main electrical cabinet.


This is all the reason someone needs to avoid every taking the 787. Using these batteries just seems like asking for trouble. I think we need to take one step back when it comes to battery technology and rethink where we go from there. Lithium very unstable and probably not the best metal to use in an airplane.


Its reported on here that the A350 has the same batteries. IF true you NEED to avoid it also.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6116
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:32 pm

speedbored wrote:
One sentence in the article intrigues me as the meaning is very unclear:
fluid dripping from the forward vent relief system, the titanium box and pipes Boeing installed after the airplane was grounded in 2013.
?

Does anyone know whether the "the titanium box ..." part of this sentence means that engineers also found fluid dripping from the box and pipes (which would, imo, be a very bad thing), or is just an explanation of the "vent relief system"?


There was a picture where the fluid was dropping and that was where the vent ends outside.
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1454
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:53 pm

KLDC10 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
scotron11 wrote:
last quote from the Forbes article:

Now that Dreamliner battery failures have been deemed "non-reportable" by aviation safety authorities, it is impossible gauge the size or the scope of the problem and that's how some folks seem to want it. The question is "why?"


As long as the containment system is doing its job, why would a battery failure need to be reportable?

It would be an entirely different situation if the containment failed.


Simply, because you don't need a containment system if something is working as it ought to.


Sure, tell that to all the people living near a Nuclear Power Plant. :box:
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12998
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:58 pm

I think many of use would be more worried about some dumb drunk, someone on drugs or mentally ill, a failed engine or non-battery electrical problem causing a diversion than a battery failure on a B787/A350. I am quite sure that older battery systems had failure or breakdown rates as high as with the B787/A350. I do think any battery failure should be reported to the NTSB or other airline authorities to determine if a problem with a manufacturing run of them or some electrical component problem that needs to be dealt with.
 
WIederling
Posts: 4618
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 1:04 pm

grbauc wrote:
Its reported on here that the A350 has the same batteries. IF true you NEED to avoid it also.


LI yes.
But rather different chemistry and design.
The Airbus battery for the A350 ( and probably onwards ) has closer relation to automotive designs.
( containment, how close to spec envelope the cells are used, charge mangement, all that.)
The cell family used inside has been used in mil applications before.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2157
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:50 pm

Balerit wrote:
prebennorholm wrote:
Balerit wrote:
The most feared thing on an aircraft is fire, why would this be deemed a non issue?

Wrong! The most feared thing is definitely that the fire goes out (the engines quit).

The battery container is designed to contain a battery fire the same way as the engines are designed to contain the combustor flames. No miracle there, just design.

It's a non issue the same way as when the engines are shut down at arrival at destination. Battery fire, change battery and battery containment pressure valve, game over, insert coin for new game.

It has been asked, why change to new battery technology (Li-Ion) when old (Ni-Cd) seemed to cause few problems? The answer is a combination of different advantages of Li-Ion over Ni-Cd:
1. Ni-Cd contains cadmium, which is very toxic to the environment, therefore during the last decade or so banned from practically all applications.
2. Ni-Cd is two-three times heavier.
3. Ni-Cd is more maintenance intensive, and has shorter life.
4. Ni-Cd needs maintenance even when stored as a "spare part".

Pretty sure, there will never again be a new airliner design with Ni-Cd batteries. On the other hand existing airliner types will at relevant opportunities be updated to have Li-Ion batteries, just like newbuilt 747s some 35 years ago had its main battery changed from Lead-Acid to Ni-Cd.


Have you ever worked on an aircraft? Fire is the number 1 issue - the first thing they teach you is to never work on an aircraft with matches or a cigarette lighter in your pocket. Double engine outs are so rare and never fatal. I can think of a few instances where all the engines quit; whether due to fuel leaks, insufficient fuel or volcanic ash and all landed safely - okay BA crash landed. Ni-cads are maintenance free and in all my years of working on aircraft I never ever saw an issue with them other than the APU battery being cold soaked and being unable to start the APU on landing.

Fire on the other hand has brought down many an aircraft including one I have worked on many times, namely the Helderberg. Even rece3ntly an A320, maybe even MH 370.


It sounds like you are scaremongering when you bring up all these crashes.

There is bonding and grounding for electrical circuits, insulation requirements, burn through requirements, inerting systems, fire bottles, fire detection, fire containment, and no shortage of other preventative and reactive functions on an airplane to deal with fire. In this case they worked and the event was contained.
 
BREECH
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:01 pm

itchief wrote:
Do you think the Boeing engineers are so incompetent that this design is that dangerous?

Let's see... On their latest passenger airliner they installed the battery type that is forbidden to be transported on passenger airliners. You tell me.
No friendship, love or respect unite people as much as shared hatred towards something.
Sergey Dovlatov
 
BREECH
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:03 pm

itchief wrote:
Using your logic all aircraft that have uncontained engine failures should be grounded.

And you think they shouldn't be!?
No friendship, love or respect unite people as much as shared hatred towards something.
Sergey Dovlatov
 
BREECH
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:07 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
Are you confusing titanium with magnesium? Titanium can certain burn, but usually in power form or in the presence of oxygen-rich atmosphere. Titanium is used for other fire-containing or heat-isolating applications.

No, no, no, it was definitely titanium. I may be wrong but I read that early Su-27s were prone to engine fires and the pilots were instructed to eject immediately because once the titanium blades of their engines started burning, there was no way to extinguish them.
No friendship, love or respect unite people as much as shared hatred towards something.
Sergey Dovlatov
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:08 pm

prebennorholm wrote:
It has been asked, why change to new battery technology (Li-Ion) when old (Ni-Cd) seemed to cause few problems? The answer is a combination of different advantages of Li-Ion over Ni-Cd:
1. Ni-Cd contains cadmium, which is very toxic to the environment, therefore during the last decade or so banned from practically all applications.
2. Ni-Cd is two-three times heavier.
3. Ni-Cd is more maintenance intensive, and has shorter life.
4. Ni-Cd needs maintenance even when stored as a "spare part".

Pretty sure, there will never again be a new airliner design with Ni-Cd batteries. On the other hand existing airliner types will at relevant opportunities be updated to have Li-Ion batteries, just like newbuilt 747s some 35 years ago had its main battery changed from Lead-Acid to Ni-Cd.

Here is what I wrote yesterday; apparently not everybody bothered to read it first time around..
Lead-acid (e.g. car battery, invented 1859) >> Ni-Cd (1899) >> Ni-MH (1989) >> Li-Ion (1991)>> Li-Ion polymer (1997) >> (?? - next generation)

From left to right you get more capacity for less weight. You also get increasing cost.

Up until 2008 Ni-Cd & Ni-MH were the go to solution for torches, radios, electric drills, etc.
Since 26th September 2008 an EU directive has banned ALL manufacturers/distributors from importing Ni-Cd batteries into Europe.
Of course China/eBay are not necessarily bothered by such things, and you can still buy Ni-Cd and import them yourself.

Ni-MH are still the first choice today for most domestic applications, whereas Li-ion are most probably what you will find in high value goods such as your laptop, and mobile phone. Indeed, some of you may remember a bit of an issue with spontaneous combustion and the Samsung Galaxy Note 7.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_G

So, why is nobody mentioning Ni-MH? (apart from myself).
In domestic applications, for AA size batteries, the best Ni-Cd was typically 700 mAh; the best Ni-MH is around 2500 mAh i.e. around 3½ times the capacity, with lower toxic problems, much better shelf life, and better energy density.
If Boeing are having problems with Li-Ion, they do not need to revert all the way back to Ni-Cd for a safer solution
However, as Li-ion batteries are in normal day-to-day usage around the world, it might just be that Boeing are stretching the parameters on these batteries one step too far. Or they need to source from a new supplier with better Quality Control.
Last edited by SheikhDjibouti on Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There are two things that happen when you get old.
1. You start to lose your memory.
2. What was I saying again?
 
BREECH
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:13 pm

NameOmitted wrote:
Lithium ion battery fires reach around 1,000 °F, titanium melts at around 3,000 °F.

Titanium burns at much lower temps than its melting point. Wikipedia (if you choose to believe it) says it's 800C. And the funniest thing about titanium is that it burns in pure nitrogen. How cool is that!
No friendship, love or respect unite people as much as shared hatred towards something.
Sergey Dovlatov
 
WIederling
Posts: 4618
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:19 pm

BREECH wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
Are you confusing titanium with magnesium? Titanium can certain burn, but usually in power form or in the presence of oxygen-rich atmosphere. Titanium is used for other fire-containing or heat-isolating applications.

No, no, no, it was definitely titanium. I may be wrong but I read that early Su-27s were prone to engine fires and the pilots were instructed to eject immediately because once the titanium blades of their engines started burning, there was no way to extinguish them.


I've looked it up.
Titanium starts to react with oxygen _and also_ nitrogen above 880°C.
Titanium powder can be self igniting. ( from a German resource, outsh)
elsewhere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium#Precautions
Murphy is an optimist
 
BREECH
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:22 pm

scbriml wrote:
You think Airbus and Boeing engineers and the certifying authorities are nuts?

In order of appearance, Airbus, no, Boeing, yes, FAA, yes. FAA certified B748 as "legacy". They said that an airplane that had a cracked rib during testing is SAFE.

scbriml wrote:
A Li-ion battery burns at 1,000C. The melting point of solid Titanium is 1,686C. While molten Titanium can burn, it can also be treated during manufacture to reduce the risk of burning.

One, burning and melting are two VERY different processes. Titanium burns way below it's melting point. And two, how do you "treat" a metal to stop being thermodynamically reactive? I don't think it's possible, but do prove me wrong.
No friendship, love or respect unite people as much as shared hatred towards something.
Sergey Dovlatov
 
BREECH
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:33 pm

WIederling wrote:
I've looked it up.
Titanium starts to react with oxygen _and also_ nitrogen above 880°C.
Titanium powder can be self igniting. ( from a German resource, outsh)
elsewhere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium#Precautions

BLASPHEMY!!! Wikipedia link on A.net. :-D

Ooooh, titanium powder is a HUGELY dangerous thing (I heard). It can burn in air, oxygen and nitrogen, it explodes in normal atmosphere, and I just read that it explodes if exposed to chlorine gas (right?). Much like sugar, really. Except for chlorine, of course.
No friendship, love or respect unite people as much as shared hatred towards something.
Sergey Dovlatov
 
WIederling
Posts: 4618
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:33 pm

BREECH wrote:
One, burning and melting are two VERY different processes. Titanium burns way below it's melting point. And two, how do you "treat" a metal to stop being thermodynamically reactive? I don't think it's possible, but do prove me wrong.


Surface oxides like with Al provide _limited_ passivation. The first boom box samples were stainless, weren't they?
Another way would be metal plating ( electrolytic, explosion )
Murphy is an optimist
 
BREECH
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:39 pm

WIederling wrote:
Surface oxides like with Al provide _limited_ passivation. The first boom box samples were stainless, weren't they? Another way would be metal plating ( electrolytic, explosion )

All true, but we are talking about titanium. Electroplating titanium I honestly never heard of. Considering how reactive it is, I'm not quite sure it's possible. You'd have to put a piece of titanium in a solution of another metal and apply electricity. The first thing that comes to mind as I write this, is CRASH! BOOM! BANG! and a huge fire. Again, prove me wrong. And I'm not sure what you mean by "first boom box".
No friendship, love or respect unite people as much as shared hatred towards something.
Sergey Dovlatov
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4980
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 9:35 pm

Make the box bigger and add a couple of sandbags to the top of the box. As temp raises bag opens up and sand should take care of the problem.
 
2175301
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 9:51 pm

I believe a concept than many posters have missed is that neither Aircraft, Nuclear Power Plants, nor anything else is designed to be absolutely fail safe and perfectly safe. They are all designed to be "reasonably" safe with varying degrees of probability or rates of failures. Nothing in the world has to absolutely 100% safe.

Have a great day,
 
scotron11
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:54 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:13 pm

AVHerald article on same incidence

http://avherald.com/h?article=4b1bd122&opt=0
 
Ufsatp
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 6:21 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:00 pm

BREECH wrote:
itchief wrote:
Do you think the Boeing engineers are so incompetent that this design is that dangerous?

Let's see... On their latest passenger airliner they installed the battery type that is forbidden to be transported on passenger airliners. You tell me.


As did Airbus, but you seem to give them a pass. Biased maybe?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6116
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:10 pm

BREECH wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Surface oxides like with Al provide _limited_ passivation. The first boom box samples were stainless, weren't they? Another way would be metal plating ( electrolytic, explosion )

All true, but we are talking about titanium. Electroplating titanium I honestly never heard of. Considering how reactive it is, I'm not quite sure it's possible. You'd have to put a piece of titanium in a solution of another metal and apply electricity. The first thing that comes to mind as I write this, is CRASH! BOOM! BANG! and a huge fire. Again, prove me wrong. And I'm not sure what you mean by "first boom box".


I think you confuse titanium and magnesium. Titanium is not that reactive. Read up on it, you can start with Wikipedia.

The two most useful properties of the metal are corrosion resistance and strength-to-density ratio, the highest of any metallic element.

I would see no reason to electroplate titanium, but titanium is used to electroplate other metals.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6634
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:15 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
So, why is nobody mentioning Ni-MH? (apart from myself).

Ni-MH is pretty good for most household applications. But they perform poorly at low temperature.

All battery types perform less well as temperature drops well below freezing. But in this respect Ni-MH is pretty much inferior to Ni-Cd and Lead-Acid. And of course also Li-Ion.

Ni-NH never replaced Ni-Cd on planes because when parked overnight on a cold winter night the Ni-Cd battery vastly outperforms Ni-MH.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6634
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:14 am

I don't know who invented the word "boom box". The 787 battery containment isn't a boom box, because the battery doesn't explode. When it fails, then it is a meltdown or slow combustion.

The containment is there to prevent the combustion products (mainly smoke) from spreading in the cabin, but direct it out of the plane. And to protect the surrounding electronics from heat and harmful chemical exposure.

The container does need to have some strength because once the outflow fuse valve has opened, then the container becomes an unpressurized room inside the pressurized hull of the plane. It shall be strong enough to prevent that it implodes. And it must of course also be strong enough to contain the overpressure until it blows the outflow fuse valve.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
B737900ER
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:26 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:45 am

Balerit wrote:

Have you ever worked on an aircraft? Fire is the number 1 issue - the first thing they teach you is to never work on an aircraft with matches or a cigarette lighter in your pocket.




Ni-cads are maintenance free and in all my years of working on aircraft I never ever saw an issue with them

What?????

I’ve worked on aircraft for a few decades and I’ve never been taught not not have a lighter in my pocket. I’d venture to say half of all people I work with smoke and probably carry two lighters on them at any given time.

And Ni-Cads are maintenance free? In what world are you working on airplanes in?
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4980
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:22 am

2175301 wrote:
I believe a concept than many posters have missed is that neither Aircraft, Nuclear Power Plants, nor anything else is designed to be absolutely fail safe and perfectly safe. They are all designed to be "reasonably" safe with varying degrees of probability or rates of failures. Nothing in the world has to absolutely 100% safe.

Have a great day,


True, but supplier saying this is the best we can do and Boeing being content with it is the problem.

Automotive companies have their own battery labs testing various conditions 24x7 for years. The size, loads and conditions these automotive batteries operate are more taxing than a 787 battery. Any of these labs would be able to figure out failure condition by now.
 
LTCM
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:35 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:24 am

Was there even a fire within the containment box? The avherald doesn't mention anything which would lead me to think there was acutual combustion. Is the containment box filled with a non combustible gas? Seems like if there was a fire, the newspaper would have tried to point that out.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24737
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:33 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
True, but supplier saying this is the best we can do and Boeing being content with it is the problem.


Technology will advance. There are Li-Ion formulations that are a fair bit safer, but they as yet lack the energy density and/or longevity to meet the requirements (not just of aerospace, but also automotive and consumer electronics/tools). However, work is being done to improve their performance and once they are as effective as current formulations, they should be adopted (and as they scale in production, costs will drop and their adoption will increase).
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4980
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:40 am

Stitch wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
True, but supplier saying this is the best we can do and Boeing being content with it is the problem.


Technology will advance. There are Li-Ion formulations that are a fair bit safer, but they as yet lack the energy density and/or longevity to meet the requirements (not just of aerospace, but also automotive and consumer electronics/tools). However, work is being done to improve their performance and once they are as effective as current formulations, they should be adopted (and as they scale in production, costs will drop and their adoption will increase).


Did GS Yuasa change battery formula since inception (or) sticking to their "there is no issue with the battery" argument?

I sincerely doubt 787 batteries face the loads and conditions of the battery of an electric roadster. Stepping on the throttle and hitting a pole, ditching or foreign object is a very likely scenario for an automotive.
 
2175301
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:59 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
Did GS Yuasa change battery formula since inception (or) sticking to their "there is no issue with the battery" argument?

I sincerely doubt 787 batteries face the loads and conditions of the battery of an electric roadster. Stepping on the throttle and hitting a pole, ditching or foreign object is a very likely scenario for an automotive.


My memory from when the original issues occurred is that they identified a manufacturing issue, which may have had to do with needing more precise quality control, as the base cause of the initial 787 battery issues, and also a minor design improvement. Such manufacturing and minor design issues are fixable (happens in many products); yet, there is no such thing as 100% quality control - in anything. Thus, a certain number of failures will occur in the future. That is why both Airbus and Boeing currently have these batteries in a containment system.

Have a great day,
 
BREECH
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:53 am

Ufsatp wrote:
BREECH wrote:
itchief wrote:
Do you think the Boeing engineers are so incompetent that this design is that dangerous?

Let's see... On their latest passenger airliner they installed the battery type that is forbidden to be transported on passenger airliners. You tell me.

As did Airbus, but you seem to give them a pass. Biased maybe?

Maybe they didn't have fires all over the world? Besides, Boeing is now run by the same attitude (and probably even the same people) that caused American Flight 96 and Turkish Flight 981, so you kind of wonder...
No friendship, love or respect unite people as much as shared hatred towards something.
Sergey Dovlatov
 
BREECH
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:00 am

mjoelnir wrote:
I think you confuse titanium and magnesium. Titanium is not that reactive. Read up on it, you can start with Wikipedia.

The two most useful properties of the metal are corrosion resistance and strength-to-density ratio, the highest of any metallic element.

I would see no reason to electroplate titanium, but titanium is used to electroplate other metals.

Hmmm... let's see. Opening wikipedia:
"As a powder or in the form of metal shavings, titanium metal poses a significant fire hazard and, when heated in air, an explosion hazard."
"When used in the production or handling of chlorine, titanium should not be exposed to dry chlorine gas because it may result in a titanium–chlorine fire. Even wet chlorine presents a fire hazard when extreme weather conditions cause unexpected drying."
"Titanium can catch fire when a fresh, non-oxidized surface comes in contact with liquid oxygen."
"Titanium is one of the few elements that burns in pure nitrogen gas, reacting at 800 °C"

Anything else you think I should "read up on it".
No friendship, love or respect unite people as much as shared hatred towards something.
Sergey Dovlatov
 
2175301
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:30 am

BREECH wrote:
Hmmm... let's see. Opening wikipedia:
"As a powder or in the form of metal shavings, titanium metal poses a significant fire hazard and, when heated in air, an explosion hazard."
"When used in the production or handling of chlorine, titanium should not be exposed to dry chlorine gas because it may result in a titanium–chlorine fire. Even wet chlorine presents a fire hazard when extreme weather conditions cause unexpected drying."
"Titanium can catch fire when a fresh, non-oxidized surface comes in contact with liquid oxygen."
"Titanium is one of the few elements that burns in pure nitrogen gas, reacting at 800 °C"

Anything else you think I should "read up on it".


Hmmmm.... Let's see:
Containment systems are not in a powder form.
No noticeable concentration of chlorine present in aircraft environment
No liquid oxygen around the battery or containment system either...
Not a pure nitrogen gas environment...

I see nothing that suggest that Titanium is not suitable for the application it is being used in (containing Li-Ion batteries) - and as a Heat Exchanger Engineer; I make part of my living specifying materials for applications... Now I may have to look at those issues for certain applications in chemical plants; but, not aircraft.

Have a great day,
 
WIederling
Posts: 4618
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:48 am

BREECH wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Surface oxides like with Al provide _limited_ passivation. The first boom box samples were stainless, weren't they? Another way would be metal plating ( electrolytic, explosion )

All true, but we are talking about titanium. Electroplating titanium I honestly never heard of. Considering how reactive it is, I'm not quite sure it's possible. You'd have to put a piece of titanium in a solution of another metal and apply electricity. The first thing that comes to mind as I write this, is CRASH! BOOM! BANG! and a huge fire. Again, prove me wrong. And I'm not sure what you mean by "first boom box".


That is not the case. For one Titanium is pretty popular for tooling and plating copper bus bars in scope of electroplating.
Murphy is an optimist
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6116
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:57 am

iamlucky13 wrote:
If somehow the battery breaks the containment system despite it being ground tested as being able to withstand far more energy than the battery contains, then you have at worst a situation like the two previous incidents where the batteries overheated and vented without full containment, and yet still caused no damage to flight critical systems.


I can agree with the battery inside the containment being safe. I can not imagine a battery event breaching the containment, especially as the containment limits the amount of oxygen available to the battery to burn.

I can not agree that the extremely lucky outcome of a battery venting hydrocarbon fumes inside the electrical cabinet in the 787 is a sign of a safe situation when an uncontained lithium ion battery event happens.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:20 am

BREECH wrote:
"Titanium is one of the few elements that burns in pure nitrogen gas, reacting at 800 °C"


2175301 wrote:
{an aircraft environment is...} Not a pure nitrogen gas environment...

May I offer just the tiniest of clarifications? (no, I'm not being sarcastic - it really is just a small point of order)
The claim that Titanium burns in pure nitrogen gas isn't significant because it is pure nitrogen; it is significant because pure nitrogen excludes everything else. And in most cases this would be a good thing because Nitrogen gas would extinguish many fires that way.
Therefore Titanium would also burn in 80% nitrogen (earth's atmosphere) or any other number from 0% upwards. And such gases are found in a typical aircraft environment, invalidating that particular response to Breech

I am sure you realise this is relevant particularly because one standard procedure for extinguishing a fire is to exclude oxygen. In most cases this is achieved with a CO² extinguisher, but as Wikipedia says... "Water and carbon dioxide are ineffective for extinguishing a titanium fire; ". And now we have Nitrogen being ineffective too.

I should add that I am not a chemist, more of an alchemist, so I'm just offering a lay-persons viewpoint from what I have read myself.
There are two things that happen when you get old.
1. You start to lose your memory.
2. What was I saying again?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos