Boeing 787 investigation turns to battery maker
TOKYO (AP) - Japanese and U.S. investigators began a probe into the maker of the lithium ion batteries used in Boeing's grounded 787 jets.
Tsutomu Nishijima, a spokesman for GS Yuasa, the battery manufacturer, said investigators visited the company's headquarters in Kyoto, Japan, on Monday and that Yuasa was cooperating with the probe.
All 50 of the 787 Dreamliners that Boeing has delivered to airlines were grounded after an overheated battery forced the emergency landing of an All Nippon Airways 787 flight last week in western Japan. Boeing has halted deliveries of new planes until it can address the electrical problems.
Monday's investigation involved an introductory meeting and factory tour, with deeper studies into product quality and other issues to follow as the probe continues, said Tatsuyuki Shimazu, the chief air worthiness engineer at the Civil Aviation Bureau's Aviation Safety Department.
Two investigators from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and an investigator from Japan's government were conducting the probe into how the batteries are made and assembled and into any quality issues, he said.
"We are in the midst of collecting information, so as to whether there is a problem or not has not yet been determined," Shimazu said.
Nishijima of GS Yuasa said he could not comment on details of the investigation.
The burned insides of the ANA battery showed it received voltage in excess of its design limits. However, a battery that caught fire in a Japan Airlines Boeing 787 in Boston earlier this month was found not to have been overcharged.
U.S. government investigators said there could still be problems with wiring or other charging components.
In the U.S., investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board planned to meet Tuesday with officials from Securaplane Technologies Inc., manufacturer of the charger for the 787s lithium ion batteries, at the company's headquarters in Tucson, Ariz., board spokeswoman Kelly Nantel said.
Tsutomu Nishijima, a spokesman for GS Yuasa, the battery manufacturer, said investigators visited the company's headquarters in Kyoto, Japan, on Monday and that Yuasa was cooperating with the probe.
All 50 of the 787 Dreamliners that Boeing has delivered to airlines were grounded after an overheated battery forced the emergency landing of an All Nippon Airways 787 flight last week in western Japan. Boeing has halted deliveries of new planes until it can address the electrical problems.
Monday's investigation involved an introductory meeting and factory tour, with deeper studies into product quality and other issues to follow as the probe continues, said Tatsuyuki Shimazu, the chief air worthiness engineer at the Civil Aviation Bureau's Aviation Safety Department.
Two investigators from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and an investigator from Japan's government were conducting the probe into how the batteries are made and assembled and into any quality issues, he said.
"We are in the midst of collecting information, so as to whether there is a problem or not has not yet been determined," Shimazu said.
Nishijima of GS Yuasa said he could not comment on details of the investigation.
The burned insides of the ANA battery showed it received voltage in excess of its design limits. However, a battery that caught fire in a Japan Airlines Boeing 787 in Boston earlier this month was found not to have been overcharged.
U.S. government investigators said there could still be problems with wiring or other charging components.
In the U.S., investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board planned to meet Tuesday with officials from Securaplane Technologies Inc., manufacturer of the charger for the 787s lithium ion batteries, at the company's headquarters in Tucson, Ariz., board spokeswoman Kelly Nantel said.
This is another shining example of what happens when we award contracts to the lowest bidders...
Regardless of the merits of the various battery technologies, they need to just replace them with NiCadâs for the time being and get on with flying passengers.  Oh and remember the Engineers are the ones who specified these batteries.    Â
 @oldster70 I suspect that Boeing has a team working right now on how to make that happen.
They will need to adapt the existing battery/battery chargers to the 787 electrical system. They will certainly take a weight and size hit for the swap, but a short term solution is better than none at all.
 @oldster70 Power Density is one of the critical factors. You need both current and voltage for a specified period of time and you can't necessarily get all three from NiCad batteries in the same space designed for LiON
That's some pretty light duty wiring unless there's more hidden somewhere. I don't see anything that looks like a power buss, which I would expect in any battery of this size. Not that a proper power buss would prevent self destruction, it wouldn't. It just looks mighty light for any battery with any real power capacity.
 @MajorSkeptic You can find a photo of the opposite side of the battery that shows the connection and cut cables at this link.... http://www.komonews.com/news/boeing/Safety-official-Battery-in-787-swollen-from-overheating-187291991.html?tab=gallery&c=y&img=10
 @MajorSkeptic If you look closely, there seem to be large metal straps interconnecting the individual cylindrical cells, and which extent to the control board and perhaps out through the case. These straps may in fact be fusible, although there seem to be remnants visible under the charred plastic on cinderella there. The straps are barely discernible through the translucent plastic cover, but they do appear to hook the cells in a series set of 16. The lightweigh wiring seems to tap the inter-cell points for individual cell monitoring.
@JLS1950@MajorSkeptic  I believe there are 8, LVP 65 cells.
Nominal voltage 3.6 x 8 =Â 28.8 Vdc , fully charged 8 x 4.2 = 33.6 Vdc
Â
http://www.gsyuasa-lp.com/aviation-lithium-batteries
 @JLS1950 Temperature sensors are of little use as Lithium batteries are endothermic during charging, meaning they tend to cool. To some degree the resistance heating offsets this. The battery becomes exothermic in overcharge and at that time it may be too late to do anything.
 @al_wa  @MajorSkeptic That indeed may be - it hard to see clearly through the semi-translucent plastic cover. Nevertheless, it looks like they are connected by large aluminum or copper or other metal "straps".
The big issue with LiIon is that the electrolyte is highly flammable, has a low flashpoint, and a higher boiling point - and the batteries can get really hot when charged rapidly. The reduced air pressure in the aircraft (usually 10,000 feet equivalent or about 1/2 sea-level pressure) could affect cooling of the batteries, or could lower the boiling point of the electrolyte. Boiling electrolyte = increased pressure = leaks = fire because the electrolyte is already well above flashpoint.
If they do not already have them, they really need to have temperature sensors inside every cell to detect when they are getting too hot and shut down the charging current. IMHO.
 @MajorSkeptic The wiring you see is for monitoring, charging, and controlling. the main battery cable is on the opposite side of the battery case and is 2/0 cable
Again I have to speak of my disappointment in Boeing for trying something that has had such a checkered history. That type if battery was in the laptop recall and phone recall. Either the manufacturer assured them that it was ok to use them now or there are some serious defects in the manufacturing process. Either way Boeing has a problem even if it is not from their own manufacturing processes. What bugs me the most is the way these news hogs are so willing ot jump on Boeing when it is in fact one of their suppliers that is at fault.
 @LongBeachBum The buck stops at the top. In the final analysis it matters little who screwed up, it is who fixes it that counts and that will ultimately boil down to Boeing.
 @al_wa  @LongBeachBum Yeah, and with their engineer union set to go on strike, I think Boeing screwed the pooch by not accepting the unions offer to take the already agreed to changes and extend the current contract another 4 years.
 @LongBeachBum My dad and I have been talking about this issue since the story broke. The unions tried to tell Boeing not to outsource the manufacture of parts, mainly due to shaky quality control some places have, but they didn't listen. Outsourcing may save the company money, but I think it ends up costing them in the long run when crap like this happens.
 @MoonDragonWitch  @LongBeachBum Moon....Boeing has never built batteries. Like the engines, it is one of the components that will always come from a supplier.
I suspect that what will happen here is that they'll get the jets back up and running soon with a different battery, but the FAA will likely (at least temporarily) reduce the ETOPS rating of the 787 as a result of this.
al_wa, thanks for the intelligent post. I would add, though, that there are many other safer chemistries other than A123's. Along with other people who make a lithium iron phosphate type (like Valence, BYD, etc), there are:
Nickel Cobalt Manganese: Dow-Kokam, Imara Corp, soon NissanÂ
Lithium Manganese Oxide: Enerdel, NEC, SamsungÂ
Lithium Titanate Oxide: Altairnano, Toshiba, Enerdel
Â
So, my simple point is, there are a LOT of other manufactuers out there with lots of SAFER chemistries Boeing could have used. It will be interesting to see if Boeing will be forced by the FAA to make such a change.
 @battery_guy Thanks back at you. :)  I am not familiar with the other battery chemistries that you identified.  I believe the 787 battery cells are the GSYusa GSLVP65. This is a 65 amp-hr cell. You can find a link to the data sheet on their website in the upper right hand corner.    http://www.gsyuasa-lp.com/aviation-lithium-batteries
Â
Are any of the alternate chemistries you identified used in applications that have demonstrated the safety and reliability that would be required for commercial aircraft certification?
 Thanks again for your insight to other technologies.
 @battery_guy Lithium Titanate Oxide is an anode material. Lithium Cobalt Oxide, Lithium Manganese Oxide, and Lithium Iron Phosphate are common cathode materials. What cathode material is being used in a cell with a Lithium Titanate Oxide anode?
The investigators will get to the bottom of this and will find a root cause and will collectively/ultimately determine corrective action. I hope they find the cause of this anomaly soon. They will examine every single component in the battery/charging system, along with looking at the physical processes used to assemble the components, tools used, hardware used, software errors, testing proceedures, component handling, and FOD control processes....then comes the corrective action(s) to be implemented. Although the investigation is being conducted with a very high sense of urgency, I suspect it will be weeks or even months before these jets are back in the air. There's a lot at stake here at the end of the day.
Well if they are turning a eye to the manufacture of the batteries is it safe to assume they have eliminated the charging system first as an issue?...
 @Freespeech Don't believe too much from what you read in the news. I am pretty sure a lot of folks are visiting the battery charger supplier, Securaplane Technologies in Tuscon, Arizona and they are not basking in the sunshine.
Remember when they used to make fun of U.S. manufacturing for constantly "overbuilding" things....Wish we still had that going on...On the other hand, if you live on the cutting edge of technology, occasionally your going to get cut...
How about we stop outsourcing and start BUILDING these jets ourselves instead of just assembling!
Â
 @airplane chick the problem ain't the jet catching fire.. it is the batteries... I don't think where they are put together or originally built piecemeal is at issue here... only difference if more was built here they would have to deal with more union BS... no ty
Maybe if the Big Companies such as Boeing start research, development and manufacturing in the United States they may have not worked themselves into this corner.
 @Telman@ It's funny when both their unions tried telling the company that outsourcing the parts for the air planes was a bad idea, but they ignored them. Now it seems to be coming back and biting them in the butt.
If the battery problem is generic to the Lithium Cobalt Oxide battery technology, Boeing is in a world of hurt with no good options to recover. If the problem is with the charger hardware/software design they can correct that.
Â
A much safer technology, which was not available during the 787 design phase is the LFP Lithium Ferro Phosphate Â
( LiFePO4) is an intrinsically safer cathode material.  Charging a LiCoO2 and manganese spinel cell beyond 4.20 volts creates heat and potential thermal runaway resulting in self sustaining fire (generates it's own Oxygen from the breakdown of the Lithium Cobalt Oxide.) The Fe-P-O bond is stronger than the Co-O bond, so that when abused, (short-circuited, overheated, etc.) the oxygen atoms are much harder to remove.
Â
I know of no company that supplies an LFP battery that is mature enough for flight certification. The FLP batterry is not without it's problems. The Fisker Karma uses the A123 Systems Lithium Ferro Phosphate battery. To date, two of those cars has caught fire and A123 is in bankruptcy proceeding and Fisker has stopped production.
It really has to be one of just a few things: Â the battery's faulty or the regulator's over charging it. Â Probably going to run this down to a specific lot number of faulty component. Â For such an incredibly complex machine that's not too bad really.
 @NWFreeman I was just reading a book about the US side of the space race. One part that really jumped out was two engineers discussing what was an acceptable success rate for parts on the Atlas V with lander and capsule. They came up with 99.999% - which given the total number of parts, still left them with about 2,000 parts that could "acceptably fail"
Uh Oh