Forums

Update on 787 Battery Problems

Started by Joe Gwinn March 24, 2013
I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week.  On pages 28-29,
there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and
proposed fixes.  

What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that
there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with
the actual Yuasa-made production battery.  They were tested
independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested
together.

Anyway, the fixes are basically to isolate the cells better so if one
self-destructs, it cannot take the other cells with it, venting of
smoke overboard, better electrical insulation all around, and a lot of
black-box data recording so they can figure out root cause next time.

Joe Gwinn

<http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_18_2013_
p28-559071.xml>
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:45:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

>I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29, >there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and >proposed fixes. > >What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that >there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with >the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested >independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested >together.
Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test the charger and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery simulator after that. -- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators Custom timing and laser controllers Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
On 2013-03-24 16:24, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:45:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote: > >> I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29, >> there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and >> proposed fixes. >> >> What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that >> there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with >> the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested >> independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested >> together. > > Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test the charger > and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery > simulator after that. > >
Surely you are joking? I hope. Jeroen Belleman
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 16:35:44 +0100, Jeroen <jeroen@nospam.please>
wrote:

>On 2013-03-24 16:24, John Larkin wrote: >> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:45:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29, >>> there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and >>> proposed fixes. >>> >>> What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that >>> there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with >>> the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested >>> independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested >>> together. >> >> Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test the charger >> and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery >> simulator after that.
>Surely you are joking? >I hope. >Jeroen Belleman
Investigators report and details on the burning of the building and the alleged culprit or scapegoat depending on your point of view: <http://cdn.nextgov.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/012213bb1a.pdf> <http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=66f459f8-4d6b-452b-961a-6b80dc4830a1> However, I know nothing about how the battery assemblies were subsequently tested. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:45:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:

>I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29, >there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and >proposed fixes. > >What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that >there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with >the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested >independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested >together. > >Anyway, the fixes are basically to isolate the cells better so if one >self-destructs, it cannot take the other cells with it, venting of >smoke overboard, better electrical insulation all around, and a lot of >black-box data recording so they can figure out root cause next time. > >Joe Gwinn > ><http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_18_2013_ >p28-559071.xml>
Your is the best response in the entire thread. Design a battery, and give it a set of specs that it "meets or beats". Except with batteries, they usually do not have a very wide window past "meets". So, then one buys or designs a battery charging and maintenance system that meets the full rate charging requisite specs for the battery on grounded craft. Then you lock that rate out when flying and program an in-flight maximum sustaining charge rate. OR, you design a charger that is for in flight only and it NEVER can be made to charge at a greater than an optimal while-in-use rate, and make the full rate charger a ground only piece of gear. But hell... NEVER test the two as bought, as built devices together! Never put *THAT* system through deep cycling or high current draw use, much less failure mode tests! NO... DO NOT DO THAT!!!
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:22:02 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 16:35:44 +0100, Jeroen <jeroen@nospam.please> >wrote: > >>On 2013-03-24 16:24, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:45:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29, >>>> there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and >>>> proposed fixes. >>>> >>>> What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that >>>> there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with >>>> the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested >>>> independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested >>>> together. >>> >>> Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test the charger >>> and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery >>> simulator after that. > >>Surely you are joking? >>I hope. >>Jeroen Belleman
Sorry, no joke. I read that in Aviation Week, a very reliable source. -- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators Custom timing and laser controllers Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:06:59 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:22:02 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 16:35:44 +0100, Jeroen <jeroen@nospam.please> >>wrote: >> >>>On 2013-03-24 16:24, John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:45:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29, >>>>> there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and >>>>> proposed fixes. >>>>> >>>>> What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that >>>>> there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with >>>>> the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested >>>>> independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested >>>>> together. >>>> >>>> Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test the charger >>>> and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery >>>> simulator after that. >> >>>Surely you are joking? >>>I hope. >>>Jeroen Belleman
>Sorry, no joke. I read that in Aviation Week, a very reliable source.
<http://www.aviationweek.com/topicsevents/Boeing787.aspx> <http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_18_2013_p28-559071.xml> The agency's investigation found among other things no record of the final production-standard charging system having been tested with the actual GS Yuasa-made battery. According to the NTSB report, Securiplane, the charging system developer, tested the unit with a simulated electric load instead of an actual battery. The company apparently took this precaution after having earlier suffered a fire at its facility during battery testing. Yikes... -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message 
news:u1duk89dv67ald09dgn6cu6dpvlpjeab3m@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:06:59 -0700, John Larkin > <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:22:02 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 16:35:44 +0100, Jeroen <jeroen@nospam.please> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>On 2013-03-24 16:24, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:45:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages >>>>>> 28-29, >>>>>> there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and >>>>>> proposed fixes. >>>>>> >>>>>> What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was >>>>>> that >>>>>> there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system >>>>>> with >>>>>> the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested >>>>>> independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested >>>>>> together. >>>>> >>>>> Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test >>>>> the charger >>>>> and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used >>>>> a battery >>>>> simulator after that. >>> >>>>Surely you are joking? >>>>I hope. >>>>Jeroen Belleman > >>Sorry, no joke. I read that in Aviation Week, a very reliable source. > > <http://www.aviationweek.com/topicsevents/Boeing787.aspx> > > <http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_18_2013_p28-559071.xml> > The agency's investigation found among other things no record of > the final production-standard charging system having been tested > with the actual GS Yuasa-made battery. According to the NTSB > report, Securiplane, the charging system developer, tested the > unit with a simulated electric load instead of an actual battery. > The company apparently took this precaution after having earlier > suffered a fire at its facility during battery testing. > Yikes... > > --
Sure would feel a lot safer if they would throw a few car batteries in there. I mean, it is just used to start a small APU turbine, right? This must be a political need to help save the failing Lithium (car) battery industry, right?
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:17:45 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:06:59 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:22:02 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 16:35:44 +0100, Jeroen <jeroen@nospam.please> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>On 2013-03-24 16:24, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:45:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29, >>>>>> there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and >>>>>> proposed fixes. >>>>>> >>>>>> What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that >>>>>> there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with >>>>>> the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested >>>>>> independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested >>>>>> together. >>>>> >>>>> Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test the charger >>>>> and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery >>>>> simulator after that. >>> >>>>Surely you are joking? >>>>I hope. >>>>Jeroen Belleman > >>Sorry, no joke. I read that in Aviation Week, a very reliable source. > ><http://www.aviationweek.com/topicsevents/Boeing787.aspx> > ><http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_18_2013_p28-559071.xml> > The agency's investigation found among other things no record of > the final production-standard charging system having been tested > with the actual GS Yuasa-made battery. According to the NTSB > report, Securiplane, the charging system developer, tested the > unit with a simulated electric load instead of an actual battery. > The company apparently took this precaution after having earlier > suffered a fire at its facility during battery testing. >Yikes...
Yikes squared. I tell all my engineers and test people that when something weird happens, even if it goes away, Investigate! It will probably happen again. NASA lost two shuttles by looking away from problems. -- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators Custom timing and laser controllers Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:36:16 -0400, "tm" <No_one_home@white-house.gov> wrote:

> >"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message >news:u1duk89dv67ald09dgn6cu6dpvlpjeab3m@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:06:59 -0700, John Larkin >> <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:22:02 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 16:35:44 +0100, Jeroen <jeroen@nospam.please> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>On 2013-03-24 16:24, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:45:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages >>>>>>> 28-29, >>>>>>> there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and >>>>>>> proposed fixes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested >>>>>>> independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested >>>>>>> together. >>>>>> >>>>>> Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test >>>>>> the charger >>>>>> and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used >>>>>> a battery >>>>>> simulator after that. >>>> >>>>>Surely you are joking? >>>>>I hope. >>>>>Jeroen Belleman >> >>>Sorry, no joke. I read that in Aviation Week, a very reliable source. >> >> <http://www.aviationweek.com/topicsevents/Boeing787.aspx> >> >> <http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_18_2013_p28-559071.xml> >> The agency's investigation found among other things no record of >> the final production-standard charging system having been tested >> with the actual GS Yuasa-made battery. According to the NTSB >> report, Securiplane, the charging system developer, tested the >> unit with a simulated electric load instead of an actual battery. >> The company apparently took this precaution after having earlier >> suffered a fire at its facility during battery testing. >> Yikes... >> >> -- > >Sure would feel a lot safer if they would throw a few car batteries in >there. I mean, it is just used to start a small APU turbine, right? This >must be a political need to help save the failing Lithium (car) battery >industry, right? > > >
To save weight and fuel. Every pound costs something absurd like a million dollars over the life of a plane. -- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators Custom timing and laser controllers Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators