What do you know about Lithium batteries?

[the cool one]

Good Day all;

I read this article and was not impressed. http://lithium-ion.weebly.com/

I am not familiar with this type of batteries other than to know that they are "high performance" type and relatively light in weight.

Did Boeing engineering knew about this type of problems and did they design them with enough protection?

Feel free to educate me.

Thank you

TCO

[200hr Wonder]

Poorly written fear mongering. Light on facts big on "ZOMG Li batteries add bad!!!111!!!1!!one" Li batteries are safe if handled correctly. Yes there are issues and maybe but they should not be in the 787 however this is fear mongering by someone who really just wants to cause fear.

[old_man]

Good Day all;

I read this article and was not impressed. http://lithium-ion.weebly.com/

Neither was I, it seemed like a very biased and lacking any real research.

I am not familiar with this type of batteries other than to know that they are "high performance" type and relatively light in weight.

You might be more familiar than you think. Take a look at the type of battery in your cell phone, laptop, or other electronic gadgets. Chances are it is Li-ion.

Did Boeing engineering knew about this type of problems and did they design them with enough protection?

This is only a guess as I don't work for Boeing but I am willing to bet that a lot of research went into it. However, evidently, perhaps not enough.

Feel free to educate me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787 ... Groundings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Safety
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-10 ... -19980.pdf

[slowstream]

Poorly written fear mongering. Light on facts big on "ZOMG Li batteries add bad!!!111!!!1!!one" Li batteries are safe if handled correctly. Yes there are issues and maybe but they should not be in the 787 however this is fear mongering by someone who really just wants to cause fear.

200hr Wonder,

I would say the media like definitely like to create fear mongering, but in this case I think there is more than enough cause to be concerned. I agree that the danger is very dependant on how the batteries are being transported and or used. Clearly Boeing has had an issue with them as well as their warning system.

I flew them often and the only place that they were allowed in our A300 freighters was in the rear belly, because if a problem arose (and it has) it would cause the least amount of damage, it was a area that we could ventilate easily with the out-flow valve being close by.

I think that Cessna is on the right track with Lithium batteries, they developed a fireproof casing and deliberately over-charged it causing a fire and it was completely contained. Battery technology is ever changing and in the case of Lithium batteries I think they good in that their light and have a lot juice. But and its a really big but, they do have a tendency to runaway and cause fires which there is more than enough documented cases of just that.

Are they suitable for a/c use, likely but as I said I think Cessna is on the right track with their use.

Its just my opinion though

[Eric Janson]

Here's an FAA video about how to tackle Li-ion battery fires.

[the cool one]

Thank you all for your contribution to my question. I was looking more at an answer from a deeper technical point of view.

In short, it appear that these type of batteries are lighter weight, better performance but have a fatal flaw. They are prone to have a thermal runaway or easily short circuited. Surely this must be a design problem!

From what I have read so far it seem to me that the way the B787 lithium batteries are assembled is in a "package". If one cell does get a thermal runaway or short it directly affects the entire battery. And the entire battery casing or cooling system is unable to cope with this potentially serious and often occurring problem. Facts are facts.

It is my understanding that aeroplanes are built to a 150% of normal use or stress in a regular designed line of work. The million dollar question is: were the B787 lithium batteries built and tested to this standard or did Boeing get a let.

I understand new computer design airplanes are the way to go but perhaps in this case a common sense check would have avoided a multi-million dollars gaffe and perhaps the reputation of a "state of the art" new design airplane.

We are a few weeks into this grounding with no time frame for lifting this restriction.

IMHO this is not a small problem anymore. I love to fly in Boeing airplanes but.........not at all cost.

Thank you

[NeverBlue]

NiCad batteries are prone to thermal runaway as well if not operated properly. It will transfer from cell to cell with no way to stop it once it starts.

I've seen this happen and there is nothing one can do if it occurrs but wait for it to end...they will explode like a bomb

Lead-Acid batteries are filled with ACID...very corrosive ACID...they also create very poisonous and deadly gases when they are charged...but operated and handled properly the can be used safely.

...just like Lithium Ion batteries

It's all accomplished through the controlling and limiting of charge current to appropriate levels...which in turn controls the temperature of the battery.

[185_guy]

I use Lithium batteries in my R/C airplanes.
As long as they are handled, charged and stored properly they are as safe as any battery.
Most accidents involving these batteries in the r/c hobby have been caused by physical abuse of the battery, improper charging (wrong charger settings, trying to charge to fast, trying to charge or use a damaged battery) and improper use, ie. putting to much demand on a battery.
These batteries are in tons of devices and yes there has been accidents. However i'm sure the rate is very low considering how many devices are out there. It does not take much of a drop to damage a cell and cause it to short out. Neither does it take much of a drop to damage a lead acid battery.

[CFR]

Try mixing NiCad with alkaline and see what happens! Most of the time ... Nothing , but sometimes much noise and smoke!

[pelmet]

Apparently damaged batteries are the most likely cause of these fires. I fly a lot of them as cargo. You never know if one has been damaged somewhere, perhaps just being dropped. It appears that two 747 freighters have crashed in the last two years due to fires caused by lithium battery cargo although exact proof of the fire source can be difficult.

A fire in an accessible location such as an aircraft cabin or anywhere can be fought. If you are on an airline or wherever and see this, water is the best method to fight it despite the fact that water is normally not used for electrical fires. This cools down the fire source. Of course it could be any cold non-flammable liquid that you use. Apparently covering with ice is not recommended due to its insulating effect. That is what the experts say. I suppose a constant flow of cold water is better that a pile of ice.

[loopy]

This from today's Aviation Week Bulletin:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 543271.xml

Business Aviation Wary Of New Batteries
By John Croft , Fred George
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology


February 04, 2013
In late 2011, the FAA mandated that Cessna CJ4 operators replace their lithium-ion batteries.Cessna Aircraft

John Croft Washington andFred George Savannah, Ga.

Two years ago, Boeing, Cessna and Gulfstream were the leading edge for introducing lithium-ion main-ship batteries into new aircraft in the civil aviation market. But by late 2011, evidence had emerged that the technology was not yet mature, spurring business aircraft makers Gulfstream and Cessna to return to more traditional, lower-performance and heavier batteries for the G650 and CJ4, respectively. Boeing however went forward with its original choice of lithium-ion batteries for the 787 widebody, a decision that is now under the microscope given the grounding of the fleet (see p. 20).

Gulfstream decided to switch battery types barely a year before the G650's final FAA certification in September 2012, and Cessna abandoned the lithium-ion batteries on the nascent CJ4 fleet less than two years after first delivery. The abrupt reversal followed a November 2011 FAA emergency airworthiness directive (AD) involving a thermal runaway and fire in a CJ4 battery on the ground. Both Cessna and Gulfstream say they could revisit lithium-ion battery technologies in the future but offered no timetables.

They are not alone. Embraer too is planning to use lithium-ion batteries and associated electronics built by Meggitt subsidiary Securaplane on the new Legacy 500 and 450 business jets, slated for entry into service in late 2013 and 2014, respectively. Securaplane was also to be the supplier of lithium-ion batteries and systems for the G650. Embraer is holding to its plans at the moment, though officials say the company is watching closely the FAA's deliberations on the Boeing batteries.

Gulfstream's decision to switch batteries so close to the final certification of its flagship $65 million G650 ultra-long-range business jetsurprised some industry insiders. The company had declared its intention to use lithium-ion batteries in marketing materials starting in 2008, and in June 2011 selected Securaplane to supply the main battery as well as the emergency and flight-control backups, along with integral charging and control electronics. In January 2012, the FAA granted “special conditions” that Gulfstream could use to certify the lithium-ion batteries, virtually the same nine conditions that Boeing had received for the 787 batteries in 2007 (see p. 22).

Gulfstream launched an internal battery-test program in parallel with a flight-test effort that used legacy nickel-cadmium batteries in the flight-test aircraft. According to Gulfstream officials, the lithium-ion battery could not pass the gauntlet of internal tests, and in late 2011, they decided the technology was too unstable. Securaplane documents show that Gulfstream was to use a lithium-iron-phosphate coating on the cathode and says the alternative nickel-cadmium batteries weigh 150 lb. more. The 787's batteries use a lithium-cobalt oxide powder as a cathode coating. As a comparison, a lithium-ion battery using a cobalt oxide cathode has five-times the energy density of a nickel-cadmium battery, though nickel-cadmium has twice as many cycles of battery life.

Like Gulfstream, Cessna knew the risks of lithium-ion batteries but believed that its chemical formula and extensive company-funded testing rendered them safe. In August 2009, the FAA approved special conditions allowing Cessna to certify the batteries, pending certification tests.

Post-Boeing's 787 battery incidents, Cessna has not commented on the type of lithium-ion battery it used for the CJ4. However, a research paper written in part by its then-principal engineer for technical development, John Gallman, discusses the nanoscale phosphate-based lithium-ion cathodes Cessna used and the rigorous ground- and flight-testing program it conducted. Testing was based on a modified version of RTCA guidelines for nickel-cadmium batteries as lithium-ion-specific guidelines had not yet been completed. The installed batteries and charging systems for the CJ4 were built by A123 Systems. Gallman left Cessna in 2011 to become division director of Mid-Continent Instruments' True Blue Power, a distributor of A123 batteries.

The CJ4's phosphate-based lithium-ion batteries weighed 30 lb. less than the equivalent nickel-cadmium battery that was available. Though packing about half the energy density of a cobalt oxide cathode battery, the phosphate-based chemistry has four-times the number of life cycles while having “inert” failure modes, according to Gallman.

The inertness of failure modes came into question however in the fall of 2011 when a maintenance worker hooked an “energized ground power unit” to a CJ4 battery and a fire reportedly broke out after thermal runaway in the battery. In early October that year, the FAA issued an emergency AD that required operators to replace lithium-ion batteries with the nickel-cadmium option.

[Chris]

Elon Musk: Boeing 787 battery fundamentally unsafe
·
BY: ZACH ROSENBERG WASHINGTON DC
11:19 29 Jan 2013
Source:

The lithium ion batteries installed on the Boeing 787 are inherently unsafe, says Elon Musk, founder ofSpaceX and owner of electric car maker Tesla.
"Unfortunately, the pack architecture supplied to Boeing is inherently unsafe," writes Musk in an email to Flightglobal.
"Large cells without enough space between them to isolate against the cell-to-cell thermal domino effect means it is simply a matter of time before there are more incidents of this nature," he adds.

Both Boeing and Tesla use batteries fueled by lithium cobalt oxide, which is among the most energy-dense and flammable chemistries of lithium-ion batteries on the market. While Boeing elected to use a battery with a grouping of eight large cells, Tesla's batteries contain thousands of smaller cells that are independently separated to prevent fire in a single cell from harming the surrounding ones.
"Moreover, when thermal runaway occurs with a big cell, a proportionately larger amount of energy is released and it is very difficult to prevent that energy from then heating up the neighboring cells and causing a domino effect that results in the entire pack catching fire," says Musk.

An aerospace-capable version of Tesla's battery has been developed for use in SpaceX's Falcon 9 space launch vehicle. SpaceX, also owned by Musk, competes with Boeing/Lockheed Martin joint venture United Launch Alliance for customers. Boeing has thus far declined offers of assistance from Tesla and SpaceX, says Musk.
"They [Boeing] believe they have this under control, although I think there is a fundamental safety issue with the architecture of a pack with large cells," writes Musk in an email. "It is much harder to maintain an even temperature in a large cell, as the distance from the center of the cell to the edge is much greater, which increases the risk of thermal runaway."

©Boeing

Musk's assessments of battery cells were confirmed by Donald Sadoway, a professor of electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
"I would have used the same words," says Sadoway. "I'm glad someone with such a big reputation put it on the line."

"He's engineered [Tesla's battery] to prevent the domino effect, while Boeing evidently doesn't have that engineering," adds Sadoway.

As a fleet-wide grounding enters its third week, the battery failures on 787s flown by Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airways eariler this month remain under investigation by the US National Transportation Safety Board. Japanese inspectors have cleared the maker of the battery, GS Yuasa, of any defects before the unit leaves the factory. But both Japanese and US investigators continue to examine and test the batteries to understand why they failed after they were integrated into the 787 electrical system and operated on commercial flights.
The NTSB, for example, has began a detailed examination of an undamaged 787 battery at a US Navy laboratory, hoping to "uncover signs of any degradation in expected performance".
Investigators are trying to find the answer to a problem that eluded Boeing and the FAA in the certification phase, even though the manufacturer and the regulator were well aware of the risks posed by lithium-ion batteries.

Mike Sinnett, Boeing's 787 chief project engineer, explained the careful design philosophy employed for the 787's battery system, the first to serve as a starter for an auxiliary power unit and emergency power back-up in a commercial aircraft.
"I design a cell to not fail and then assume it will and the ask the next 'what-if' questions," Sinnett said. "And then I design the batteries that if there is a failure of one cell it won't propagate to another. And then I assume that I am wrong and that it will propagate to antoher and then I design the enclosure and the redundancy of the equipment to assume that all the cells are involved and the airplane needs to be able to play through that."

[the cool one]

Thanks Chris;

That's what I was looking for. From the article it seem that experts in the field of batteries design are on the same line of thinking as I am. The last paragraph pretty much sum it up. The engineer who designed this battery went to quite a length and process to deliver this light weight high energy battery. Unfortunately his assumptions and design limit were insufficient as proven by the fact these batteries type did not perform to specs when put to work for what it was designed to do. Assumptions are assumptions but facts are facts. The later almost always is right.

I am confident that Boeing will resolve this issue in due time but for now they are walking around with a black eye. For an all electric airplane this is not a minor problem. The battery is the heart! Can't live without it.

This issue along with the three years delay on delivery of this airplane is not something Boeing can claim to be proud of. They are known to poke fun at Airbus industries during their plant tours. I see a crow flying overhead Seattle area.

If anyone visit their plant in Everett you would know how proud they are of their history.....and rightly so........up to now.

Thanks guys/gals

out.

[Shadowfax]

In my experience - engineers tend to be over-educated or too proud to see what lessor folk have already figured out. Lithium batteries of any chemistry are frickin sensitive and dangerous - yes dangerous - if not handled very carefully. 1000's of careless common folk have already learned this lesson - some from laptops but especially in the RC world.

I've read the posts about cellphone and even laptop batts etc but that isn't the same as the high-C batts used in the 787 or RC world. Smaller batteries, especially in cell phones are light duty single cell units - typically not drawing more than 0.25C. What is "C" - that's the amount of current any battery can deliver based on it's chemistry and MaH size. A 1000 Mah batt at 1C can safely provide 1 amp of power for about 6 minutes. A typical cellphone battery is 500MaH and only has to provide a max of .025 amps and can do so for hours - at this rate it will rarely ever heat up or even chance thermal runaway. Smaller single cell packs also have excellent cooling opportunities no matter how cramped the device. Comparing them to the needs of a 787 is ridiculous to the extreme.

High C rated Lithium batteries are another story and the bigger the "pack" the worse it gets EXPONENTIALLY - RC airplane guys have known this for years. I run "small" RC packs of 35C and 6000 Mah - that's good for a continuous 210 amps of raw DC power - more than enough to arc weld 1" steel! Lithium batteries will happily discharge almost all their current even faster given the chance - guys have been electrocuted by batteries powering their "toy" airplanes. When they awoke the usual scenario was the airplane or garage or house was on fire because when lithium batteries over discharge they go into thermal runaway - ain't no stopping them either once it starts.

Another thing the RC guys have found out (the hard way) is that C ratings based on chemistry don't scale up with capacity very well. Sure the engineers say a certain chemistry can handle 35C discharge rates based on small packs, but once you make the pack bigger (more storage capacity - think of it like a bigger gas tank) suddenly the pack won't handle higher C discharge rates very well at all - its all about internal resistance of the pack itself and internal cooling. The bigger the individual cell the higher the internal resistance required to give up/move it's electrons and hence the higher the internal temperature gets. Pretty basic electricity concepts really.....

Our first warning of a pack pushed too hard is a "puffed up" battery - once that happens it must be destroyed in a very specific manner. BTW this can happen in an instant of over drawing or over charging - something to be included in the 787 pre-flight??? Using a puffed pack almost always and quickly ends in a rapid combustion event. The AMA and MAAC just released a study on this very fact - using big packs is not as efficient as using multiple smaller packs in series. The downside to using multiple smaller packs in series is re-charging them - it takes more time and requires dedicated multiple chargers.

For Boeing, I'm guessing they were sold the same bunch of BS RC guys were about 3 years ago - huge packs capable of huge amp draws. If Boeing were to use multiple smaller packs with appropriate guards and chargers, I'm guessing the costs of the electronics would very quickly outweigh the weight benefits to be had. While it's hard to explain to other common folk in a post, after using BIG high C lithium packs for years, I simply cannot believe Boeing chose wisely to use Lithium batteries in a passenger airplane.

I have a steel case where I store and charge these things! The golden rule is never ever ever leave them unattended during the charge cycle.......

[the cool one]

I see that the authorities have approved a limited flight testing now. They must have found a way to control thermal runaways or a way to keep the batteries cool.
Regardless its great news for Boeing and all airlines who have their fleet grounded.

Anyone has pictures of the lined B787 on the ramp at Boeing or Everett Field ready to be handed over? It must be some numbers since they cannot fly them off and the production line is not slowing down but rather increasing.

Of course they can use the Halifax model for parking space during 911.

Comments?

[captcrunch2013]

The article http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 543271.xml
is excellent.

I've experimented with batteries for decades.
The problem appears to be multiple causes and probably some
manufacturing problems.

The monitoring needs to be on every cell and all the cells combined.

It is very easy to overcharge, if one cell fails, it can send the entire battery
into thermal runaway. When the battery container can't contain that problem
then is serious.

This solution to this problem will make fascinating reading.

the more we protect out batteries from high level charging the safer we will be.