Why Are the Batteries in Boeing's 787 Burning?

[marmar]

(Bloomberg Businessweek) Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner has not had a charmed birth. While some of its problems—a windshield crack, minor fuel leaks—can easily be dealt with, the issues that have arisen with the plane’s batteries are much more serious.

In two incidents in recent weeks, lithium-ion batteries malfunctioned—the battery in a 787 on the tarmac in Boston caught fire, and a second 787 was forced to make an emergency landing Wednesday morning in Japan, when smoke from the battery made its way into the cockpit. That led to a worldwide grounding of Dreamliners while authorities investigate the batteries and other 787 systems.

It isn’t the first time this type of battery has shown itself to be combustible. Recent years have seen reports of lithium-ion batteries catching fire or exploding in smartphones and laptop computers. What is it about these batteries that makes them so prone to blowing up?

The first thing to know about lithium-ion batteries (li-ion batteries, for short) is that lithium is extremely flammable. The other thing to know is that li-ion batteries carry much more energy per weight than any other battery; in technical parlance, they have a higher energy density. That’s why they’re the battery of choice in everything from iPhones to laptops to electric cars, whose designers want to get the greatest potential power out of the smallest, lightest power source. In the Dreamliner, the use of li-ion batteries was part of what made the plane so much lighter—and therefore more fuel-efficient than its predecessors. ....................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-18/why-the-batteries-in-boeings-787-are-burning#r=rss

[Cooley Hurd]

1. Why did the Hindenburg explode?

Because it was chock full o' exploding stuff - Hydrogen.

[2on2u]

2. It burned, and the jacket was made of the stuff of rocket fuel..... the hydrogen was almost

not a factor.... try again.

[Cooley Hurd]

7. Try again?

Um, who the fuck are you to speak to me like that, anyway?

Try again, twobie.

BTW, thanks for reminding me of why DU is so sucky now.

_|_

[2on2u]

9. Better watch it there fella..... suckiness is in the mind of the sucker. Try again.

http://piboulder.wordpress.com/2006/10/22/was-hydrogen-the-cause-of-the-hindenburg-fire/

I saw an episode of “Secrets of the Dead” on PBS last weekend, called “What Happened to the Hindenburg?” It was very interesting. It’s the story of Dr. Addison Bain, a retired NASA scientist, researching the disaster. He knows it’s the cause of people’s fears of hydrogen as a potential fuel. He calls it “the fuel of the future”. The investigation that was conducted in the U.S. at the time blamed free hydrogen, presumably from a leak in one of the hydrogen cells in the ship, and possibly a static electricity discharge on the ship, for the explosion. Bain worked extensively with hydrogen during his tenure with NASA, and understands its properties. Something in the official story didn’t sit right with him. He presents a convincing case that hydrogen was not the initiator of the fire, but rather it was the doping mixture put on the outer skin of this particular airship.

According to Bain’s theory, a combination of chemistry, and the physics of electricity initiated the fire. It started with the skin, and spread to the hydrogen cells, which then caused the hydrogen to ignite. Bain likened the doping material used on the Hindenburg to solid rocket fuel, since it contained iron oxide and powdered aluminum, among other chemicals. Both of these metal compounds are used in the solid rocket boosters of the space shuttle. He coupled this with the weather conditions on the day of the landing. The atmosphere in the area was likely electrically charged, due to nearby thunderstorms, and a thunderstorm which had produced precipitation had just passed. He postulates that the airship frame, and the outer skin had become electrically charged. The outer skin was probably wet. Bain claims that the wetness caused the skin, which was made up of fabric panels and had been painted in the doping material, to be unevenly grounded when the landing lines were dropped in preparation for landing. The frame was designed to be grounded, because the engineers knew that it was possible it might become electrically charged in the atmosphere. Bain claims the engineers did not anticipate these conditions, however. The theory goes that some of the panels did not ground their static charge easily when the frame was grounded, due to some panels being wet, and others not. This created an uneven charge between these charged panels and the rest of the ship, which probably caused one or more of the panels to electrically discharge via. arcing, which would’ve produced a lot of heat, igniting the doping material on the panels. The fire started in the tail and made its way to the front of the ship in less than 1 minute.

As is documented in this article on Wikipedia, there are those who disagree with this theory, saying that the doping material, while combustive, doesn’t burn very long, and they estimate it would’ve taken an hour for the skin to burn from back to front. I haven’t read their work, but my guess is they’re just considering the skin by itself, not the hydrogen gas, which contributed to the fire after it started, according to Bain’s theory. As was documented in the show, an interesting twist emerged in Bain’s research. It turns out one of the Hindenburg’s engineers did a test on two small zeppelin models shortly after the disaster. One was fashioned after an earlier airship model, and one was modeled after the Hindenburg, using identical materials as were used on the full size ships.

He made both airships wet, and caused them to become electrically charged, creating the conditions that he suspected existed at the time of the accident. He grounded both of them. The older model, which did not use the volatile doping material on its skin did nothing. The Hindenburg model immediately caught fire. This would seem to confirm Bain’s theory. The reason this test did not become known is that the Zeppelin company chose not to make it public. Bain offered up the idea that perhaps this was done for insurance reasons. It was less damaging to them to let hydrogen take the blame. The thing was, the airship industry died as a result. No one felt safe flying in them after this incident. It may have died anyway, because airplanes were beginning to take civilian passengers at this point. They provided faster transport.

[Cooley Hurd]

11. "I saw an episode..."

Well, aren't YOU now the expert!



The fucking zeppelin EXPLODED. You're seen the pics, haven't you, twobie?

[2on2u]

14. The hydrogen eckploded.... yes sir. Try again.

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1237.htm

There was a catch, but with all that hydrogen who would notice it? It is that materials don't burn in hydrogen. It's only hydrogen itself that burns, once it's mixed with oxygen. Then it creates a near-colorless blue flame -- nothing like the great fireball we remember each May 6th. Hydrogen-filled airships have been brought down by anti-aircraft guns without catching fire.

The first woman balloonist, Madam Blanchard, died in 1817 when she ignited the hydrogen in her balloon with a fireworks display. But the balloon didn't burn. Rather, the hydrogen burned off and the balloon dropped to a rooftop. She died only when the wind caught the unburned deflated gas bag and dragged her over the edge.

Now Malcolm Browne summarizes recent experiments being done to see why the Hindenburg burned the way it did. The result is something I should be poignantly aware of from my own model airplane building. I covered those models with damp tissue paper that dried taut as a drum. Then I drenched the paper in acetone-based airplane lacquer -- what everyone used to call dope. If you put a match to a model airplane, it went up just like the Hindenburg.

The Hindenburg's frame was likewise covered with canvas that'd been soaked in that same acetone lacquer. Worse than that, the lacquer had particles of aluminum mixed in with it to give the ship its silvery shine. At high temperatures, aluminum adds to the flammability. So the real fire hazard wasn't the hydrogen inside, it was the dirigible's skin.

[Cooley Hurd]

16. Oy vey. Look at this picture, twobie:

That is not the dope exploding, that is the hydrogen exploding.

Try again, twobie.

[2on2u]

19. It's hard to admit when you have been had. Try again.

http://www.seas.ucla.edu/hsseas/releases/blimp.htm

By studying that newsreel footage, examining the chemical composition of the skin and delving into the records of the German firm which built the Hindenburg, however, they pulled together three independent pieces of compelling evidence indicating hydrogen could not have been the culprit.

Newsreel footage contradicts the hydrogen theory, said Van Vorst, who studied individual frames of the footage. "The picture indicates a downward burning. Hydrogen would burn only upward!"

In addition, Van Vorst pointed out, "hydrogen burns with a colorless flame," yet witnesses compared flames aboard the Hindenburg "with a fireworks display." There is also a remarkable similarity between what can be seen in the newsreel footage of the Hindenburg and the photos and witness descriptions of fires aboard airships containing no hydrogen, but covered with similar materials, Van Vorst said.

Furthermore, the substance used to coat the cotton skin — a process known as "doping" which makes the fabric taut and more durable — was extremely flammable. A combination of iron oxide, cellulose acetate and aluminum powder, "the total mixture might well serve as a respectable rocket propellant," Van Vorst said.

[Cooley Hurd]

20. No, it's hard to admit when you're a conspiracy theorist that will take any alternative explanation.

...as the truth, twobie.

Yes, now it's YOUR tun to try again.

[2on2u]

21. Didn't work, there is enough there to show you flubbed up royally. But wait, there's more...

contrary to your popular belief.

http://www.seas.ucla.edu/hsseas/releases/blimp.htm
Contrary to popular belief — and the findings of two official investigations — the material used to coat the "skin" of the airship, not hydrogen, was the cause of the disaster, said William D. Van Vorst, professor emeritus of chemical engineering at UCLA and Addison Bain, former manager, Hydrogen Programs Kennedy Space Center, NASA.

Their findings are revealed in a paper titled "Hydrogen and the Hindenburg," to be presented at a symposium in Antalya, Turkey, June 18-20.

A stately and luxuriously appointed airship some 804 feet long, this "Titanic of the skies" was destroyed by a flash fire in 1937 while landing in New Jersey after making its 10th transatlantic crossing. Thirty-five of the 97 people aboard and one ground crew member were killed when the zeppelin burst into flames and was rapidly consumed by the fire.

Two boards of inquiry seeking an explanation for the disaster concluded, "Some hydrogen had, in a manner never explained, become free, was ignited electrostatically and exploded," Van Vorst said. And for more than 60 years, the word "hydrogen" has evoked the newsreel images of the huge craft being consumed by a fireball as it drifted to the ground.

[Cooley Hurd]

22. In the face of photographic evidence, you still cling to your CT...

As I ask of all suspected CTers, what is your opinion of WTC7's destruction?

[2on2u]

23. Yes, change the subject, nice try. n/t

[Cooley Hurd]

25. No, just establishing your mindset...

...because, apparently, I'm arguing with someone who denies what their lying eyes are telling them.

LZ-129 exploded. As many pictures show. The cause of the spark is still in question, but LZ-129 exploded, as the photographs show.

ZR-2, ZR-4 and ZR-5 were all lost in horrific crashes - and all had the same doped fabric as LZ-129. With the destructive forces of the twisting metal during each of the crashed, not one of them burned. Why?

Get the facts and then tussle with the people who actually know...

[green for victory]

34. lots of people have their minds made up and no amount of facts

will stop them from posting rolling laughing icons, or mocking that which they do not understand. It's too bad this bs is allowed. Who knows how many posters it is driving away. It's like an invasion of rolling laughing zombies.

Woo Hoo Ima rollin tonite!

[Cooley Hurd]

35. ROFL smiley is reserved for those who make laughable comments...

You, apparently, thought that THREE rofl smilies trump all others.

You win!

[krispos42]

51. "Mythbusters" explored this as well

Their conclusion was that the metallic coating on the Hindenburg was a contributing factor to the disaster in that is was also combustible.

[Science Geek]

3. Bag full of Hydrogen...

That bag full of Hydrogen might have been fine, had it not been painted with rocket fuel.

The silvery coating on the outside of the Hindenburg contained exceedingly fine ground aluminum powder suspended in pine pitch, it was the trifecta of flammability. Any small spark coming in contact with powdered aluminum will cause it to burn at an astounding pace. In fact, powered aluminum tamped into a solid and set with a binder is the fuel that was used in the solid rocket boosters of all of the space shuttles. Once it starts burning, it burns so hot that it is nearly impossible to extinguish, it will burn under water.

[Cooley Hurd]

10. If it was so dangerous, then why did the Akron and the Macon NOT burn?

They simply fell into the sea - in a crushing twist of metal that I'm sure sparked like hell on the way down as it twisted and broke apart.

Man, people see one lame History Channel special and they think they know the truth.

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. The Akron and Macon were filled with helium, not hydrogen-the US wouldn't sell He to Germany.

Can we assume your other posts are of similar accuracy?

[Cooley Hurd]

42. They were wrapped in the same doped fabric as LZ-129, LZ-127, etc...

No Zeppelin (American or otherwise) with doped fabric but WITHOUT hydrogen "exploded".

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. Helium would act as a fire retardant for as long as it was of sufficient concentration.

[Confusious]

31. No

Proponents of this hypothesis point out that the coatings on the fabric contained both iron oxide and aluminum-impregnated cellulose acetate butyrate (CAB).[citation needed] These components remain potentially reactive even after fully setting. In fact, iron oxide and aluminum can be used as components of solid rocket fuel or thermite. For example, the propellant for the Space Shuttle solid rocket booster includes both "aluminum (fuel, 16%), (and) iron oxide (a catalyst, 0.4%)". However, the coating applied to Hindenburg's covering did not have a sufficient quantity of any material capable of acting as an oxidizer,[27] which is a necessary component of rocket fuel.[28]

While not issuing an opinion about whether it was the hydrogen or the treated skin of the airship that ignited first, the TV show "MythBusters" explored the incendiary paint hypothesis. Their findings indicated that the aluminum and iron oxide ratios in the Hindenburg's skin, while certainly flammable, were not enough on their own to destroy the zeppelin. Had the skin in fact contained enough metal to produce pure thermite, the Hindenburg would have been too heavy to fly. The MythBusters team also discovered that the Hindenburg's coated skin had a higher ignition temperature than that of untreated material, and that it would initially burn slowly, but that after some time the fire would begin to accelerate considerably. From this, they concluded that those arguing against the incendiary paint theory may have been wrong about the airship's skin being inflammable due to being separated in different layers. The Mythbusters concluded that the paint may have contributed to the disaster, but that it was not the sole reason for such rapid combustion.[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster

[Xipe Totec]

5. Piling on. Forgive me - The outer coating was thermite

The outer silver coating of the craft was basically thermite.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

[Cooley Hurd]

8. That's not why the fucking thing exploded...

It might've burned, but the explosion we all know so well by Led Zepplin's first album was caused by the hydrogen.

[Xipe Totec]

15. So you believe...

Which is your right under the 1st amendment...

Facts may prove otherwise, but belief does not require proof.

Cheers!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster

[Cooley Hurd]

18. Not "belief". Photographic evidence shows LZ-129 exploded.

Did the doped fabric burn? Yes, as show in this picture:


Did the doped fabric cause this?


Of course not. THAT was the hyrdogen combusting.

[TheProgressive]

30. You can mention to your debate partner that cars have been made...

that burn..... hydrogen.... <sniker>

[Cooley Hurd]

33. But hydrogen doesn't "ecksplode"!

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. That's the doped fabric+ the gas bags, not the hydrogen. Hydrogen burns with a colorless flame...

...which you would know if you've ever seen video of a Space Shuttle launch- the smoke at those was from the
solid rocket boosters.

[Cooley Hurd]

41. ?

Hydrogen+air produces flame. Every b&w pic of the accident shows bursting flame. Also known as "explosion".

Doped fabric will burn like a mofo, but will not explode spectatcularly like in (almost) every picture of the Hindenburg accident.

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. It will when you have plentiful amounts of gaseous H2 for an accelerant.

[Cooley Hurd]

44. That, by definition, is a hydrogen explosion.

[2on2u]

46. Ooooh...... a nerve. Ouch. n/t

[Cooley Hurd]

47. Hardly...

[2on2u]

48. What happened here is I was dwelling on the initial cause.... whilst missing the point you

were making about the large flare up/explosion that resulted. A simple misunderstanding, no harm done on my end, sometimes I think I should slap myself....

[greytdemocrat]

4. At least...

They pulled it before one went down in flames.

[oldhippie]

6. "What is it about these batteries that makes them so prone to blowing up? "

Chemistry?

[cbrer]

12. LIon batteries

Are sensitive to charge/discharge rates. As well as level of discharge they'll accept before shorting and turning thermally unstable (aka burning). So specific software is used to monitor and control charging systems.

While I don't know the Dreamliners specific design, I suspect they'll revisit the designs of those systems when augmenting, or redesigning the electrical system to prevent failure.

Of course the obvious question then becomes; Didn't Boeing and the FAA test this thing thoroughly before releasing it to commercial aviation? I've read several (inconclusive) articles that point to outsourcing critical technology manufacturing. But that's just a hill of beans until they KNOW WTF is happening.

Cheers

[Science Geek]

17. In a word, yes.

Metallic lithium is extremely flammable. It also provides the battery with a higher energy density, meaning it can generate more current for a longer period of time than other battery chemistries. This also means the battery has a lower internal resistance. And, batteries with low internal resistance will heat RAPIDLY if too much current is demanded of them even for a short time. NiCd is a low internal resistance battery too, and is liable to overheat and burst when shorted or placed in a very high over-current state, charging or discharging but NiCd resistance looks high when compared with LiIon and nickle and cadmium don't sustain combustion as does lithium.

There is a design flaw somewhere. Either the batteries are not being made to design standards, the design standards are wrong, or current demands of the battery are too high -- meaning the charge/discharge system on-board the jet has a design error... Rest assured, the problem is in one or more of those three factors.

[rightsideout]

13. Here's a thought

There's actually very little lithium in a lithium battery.

The issue comes with keeping the batteries cool and the cells balanced. When you have a series of lithium cells (3.2 volts each) to complete a battery pack each cell needs to be balanced. If not, one cell may charge faster than an adjacent one and you can go into thermal runaway if one cell is charging more than the others. So in addition to the charging there is the balancing. I imagine the batteries in the 787 are larger than a typical PC battery pack so they are larger batteries comprised of several cells. Alot of fires are due to charging or thermal runaway. And lithium can be a bitch to put out. It burns hot and melts and destroys everything around it.

So the key is proper thermal management and balancing.

[Science Geek]

24. Your points are right on!

Cell characteristic balancing is of critical importance when it comes to batteries comprised of LiIon cells.

Many electronic devices have a sticker that tells you not to mix cell types, it's the same principle.

As an example, if you have a rechargeable device, that uses two cells, and you use both a LiIon and a Nickel Metal Hydride cell, you are asking for serious problems.

[slackmaster]

26. Interesting article. I think the bottom line is the system wasn't adequately tested for safety...

...in the combination of physical environment and duty cycle that the batteries and related components are subjected to in a 787 in flight.

[Cooley Hurd]

27. That blows my mind, given Boeing's previous obsession with "worst case scenarios"

They beat the hell out of the Dash-80 and "The City of Everett" during flight testing.

I guess Boeing needs to resurrect the spirits of Bill Allen, Tex Johnston and Jack Waddell...

[slackmaster]

28. I hope their management team learns a lesson. This kind of thing is always a result of cost-cutting.

And I hope they get it fixed before someone gets killed.

[SidDithers]

29. I thought the Dash-80 was made by Bombardier?...

Edit: nevermind. I was thinking of the Dash-8.

Sid

[Cooley Hurd]

32. Yep, DH made the Dash-8 - I used to work with them...

The Dash-80 (my hyphen might be incorrect) was the prototype 707. Tex Johnston rolled her over Lake Washington to prove her robustness. Here's a cool video of it:

Good ol' Tex - just tryng to sell airplanes.

[A HERETIC I AM]

36. Johnston was quoted in one interview years ago.....

as saying "It was a one G roll. The airplane never knew it was upside down!"

I always thought that was a funny line.

[Cooley Hurd]

37. He was right, though. The great Bob Hoover used to pour tea during a roll...

[Cynicus Emeritus]

57. Great video

Thanks for posting that. An elderly neighbor and friend in his 90s flew B29s in WW2 and retired from UAL years ago as a DC8 captain. I want to show him the video.

[Cooley Hurd]

58. I'm sure he knows that the B-29 was rollable, too...

After all, it's a 1 G maneuver.

[cherokeeprogressive]

38. Because, no matter what anyone tells you... batteries are NOT a perfected science. n/t

[hobbit709]

49. Bottom line-too much heat, not enough cooling.

To save weight they probably didn't put in a big enough heatsink or other way of drawing off excess heat.

[Are_grits_groceries]

50. Overcharging.

I heard orbread that somewhere. Seems weird.

[jsr]

54. The Japanese suspect it was excessive voltage

based on their comparison of the battery from the All Nippon Airways flight and the battery from the Japan Airlines flight.

[Cynicus Emeritus]

52. Wasn't the 787 manufacture a globalized venture compared

to previous airliners built by Boeing? I haven't seen the media address this aspect and potential source of problems.

[marmar]

56. I think that was true for the 777 as well, but...........

it didn't have anything close to the troubles the 787 program has had.

[quinnox]

53. the first thought that comes

Is putting into a jumbo jet plane highly flammable batteries with known issues and problems might not have been the smartest idea in the world to start with. But I guess progress and technology must march on.

[customerserviceguy]

55. It might well have been a lack of adherence to safety procedure

This happened with two airliners owned by the same airline, it's quite possible that there was something that slipped through the cracks on the JAL side of things.

Look at all the space shuttle missions that didn't blow up, even before the Challenger. Sometimes you have a problem with an entire set of ultra-complex systems, and sometimes you have a problem with a particular individual or set individuals' practices with the use of high technology.