Japan 787 probe finds thermal runaway in battery
TOKYO (AP) - An investigation into a lithium ion battery that overheated on a Boeing 787 flight in Japan last month found evidence of the same type of "thermal runaway" seen in a similar incident in Boston, officials said Tuesday.
The Japan Transportation Safety Board said that CAT scans and other analysis found damage to all eight cells in the battery that overheated on the All Nippon Airways 787 on Jan. 16, which prompted an emergency landing and probes by both U.S. and Japanese aviation safety regulators.
They also found signs of short-circuiting and "thermal runaway," a chemical reaction in which rising temperature causes progressively hotter temperatures. U.S. investigators found similar evidence in the battery that caught fire last month on a Japan Airlines 787 parked in Boston.
Photos distributed by the Japanese investigators show severe charring of six of the eight cells in the ANA 787's battery and a frayed and broken earthing wire - meant to minimize the risk of electric shock.
All 50 Boeing 787s in operation are grounded as regulators and Boeing investigate the problem. The Japanese probe is focusing on flight data records and on the charger and other electrical systems connected to the damaged battery.
Lithium ion batteries are more susceptible to catching fire when they overheat or to short-circuit than other types of batteries. Boeing built in safeguards to gain safety certification for use of the relatively light and powerful batteries to power various electrical systems on the 787, the world's first airliner made mostly from lightweight composite materials.
Investigators earlier said they found no evidence of quality problems with production of the 787's batteries by Kyoto, Japan-based, GS Yuasa, whose own aerospace ambitions are on the line.
Yuasa said Tuesday that its April-December net profit fell 3.6 percent to 5.5 billion yuan ($59.6 million) from a year earlier, as demand for batteries lagged due to sluggish demand in Japan and overseas.
The company has struggled to turn its lithium ion business to profitability. In April-December its lithium ion business posted a 7.2 billion yen ($78.2 million) loss, it said, compared with an operating loss of 3.26 billion yen in the full-year that ended March 31, 2012.
The Japan Transportation Safety Board said that CAT scans and other analysis found damage to all eight cells in the battery that overheated on the All Nippon Airways 787 on Jan. 16, which prompted an emergency landing and probes by both U.S. and Japanese aviation safety regulators.
They also found signs of short-circuiting and "thermal runaway," a chemical reaction in which rising temperature causes progressively hotter temperatures. U.S. investigators found similar evidence in the battery that caught fire last month on a Japan Airlines 787 parked in Boston.
Photos distributed by the Japanese investigators show severe charring of six of the eight cells in the ANA 787's battery and a frayed and broken earthing wire - meant to minimize the risk of electric shock.
All 50 Boeing 787s in operation are grounded as regulators and Boeing investigate the problem. The Japanese probe is focusing on flight data records and on the charger and other electrical systems connected to the damaged battery.
Lithium ion batteries are more susceptible to catching fire when they overheat or to short-circuit than other types of batteries. Boeing built in safeguards to gain safety certification for use of the relatively light and powerful batteries to power various electrical systems on the 787, the world's first airliner made mostly from lightweight composite materials.
Investigators earlier said they found no evidence of quality problems with production of the 787's batteries by Kyoto, Japan-based, GS Yuasa, whose own aerospace ambitions are on the line.
Yuasa said Tuesday that its April-December net profit fell 3.6 percent to 5.5 billion yuan ($59.6 million) from a year earlier, as demand for batteries lagged due to sluggish demand in Japan and overseas.
The company has struggled to turn its lithium ion business to profitability. In April-December its lithium ion business posted a 7.2 billion yen ($78.2 million) loss, it said, compared with an operating loss of 3.26 billion yen in the full-year that ended March 31, 2012.
Wait...where are all the union thugs who were blaming this on non-union workers a couple of weeks ago?
If politics and profit were not a factor, they would use this "learning experience" to upgrade what they thought was a state of the art battery. New technology was announced at UW regarding using a tin anode on this type of battery and greatly increasing it's capability last October. It seems like even if it's unfinished, there might be a way to get this upgrade into a plane that is supposed to be "state of the art". Maybe it would have been that four years ago. They need things like the battery to be modular so that it's easier to change out defective components.
I read on one of these comments that Japan was having these batteries made in China. Is that true? It would have been a good thing if Boeing could have kept this achievment under their own roof and in this country, as would have been done in the past.
I'm getting tired of these $%&(*^!@ing batteries on these #$&!(*%!%ing planes!!
So once again, why are these planes still grounded? Standard NiCad batteries have been flying in aircraft for over 50 years. They are likely an off the shelf item, and should have been already approved for the 787, or did we just not want to try that? Stupid is as stupid does.
If it were that easy dont you think they would have already done that??? The problem is the 787 battery is 32vdc while the NiCad batteries on legacy airplanes are 28vdc. Also, you dont get as much energy from NiCad as you do from Lithium Ion batteries.Â
There is a cover-up underway about these batteries.. see: http://lithium-ion.weebly.com
I'm no expert on planes, But there are a few still buzzing over the top of us with batteries right? Why don't they use a proven system that is already in place? Seems logical to me.
Because there is no proven system that is already in place. The battery on teh 787 is 32vdc compared to a legacy airplane that uses a 28v battery.
They might have to treat the batteries like fuel tank issues from now on !
So,....why can't they design a coolant system around the battery that would keep thermal runaway from happening in the first place? (My husband's idea in case no one has thought of this already!!)
 @Brier Donna Your husband is a genius...why is he unemployed again?
did any one think? sea level to 30.000 feet expand the cells then contract fool the compute.mmmmmmmm maby?
I wonder if the battery failures could be related to pressure compensation issues. They seem to fail on the ground, when atmospheric pressure would be greatest, and in the Boston case, after flight, when internal temperature would likely be highest. I know nothing about the design of these batteries, but if they became hot in flight, which would cause the intermals to expand somewhat, and then came under external pressure as the aircraft decended, might this cause overheating as internal components were forced together?
Â
I'm sure the hundreds of engineers working on this are laughing at my ignorance. Although, I must admit I laughed when their big solution was to put a stronger box around the battery.....
Â
Â
Is there not a temperature sensor on the batteries that will alert the pilot and copilot to an sharp increase in the battery's temperature? Or have a max temp that a battery can reach before the sensor is triggered...seems like an all important yet simple safety implementation.Â
 @MossMan You know, with all the details in the articles about the numerous safety and monitoring systems that not only did their jobs, but were damaged as a result of the battery failures, you'd think people would have read about the existence of such a system at least once...
Â
Which came first the chicken or the egg? The battery or the battery charger?
 @al_wa The burning barrels, of course!
We need to ban Japan. Too dangerous and causes too many issues in our society. We should also vote to make Japan illegal.Â
 @Komo206 Let's make you illegal, then. That way all of your issues in today's society your comment causes will no longer be an issue.
 @Donkey Kong You have now been banned from this site.
 @R.  @Komo206 Do we need to send you both to your rooms!?
 @Vertically Inclined  @R. Oh, we understand the sarcasm alright, and it's completely idiotic.
 @Vertically Inclined Thank you for the explanation. No, I have not seen this statement before. My apologies to Komo206
 @R. I do believe you are not catching the sentiment of original post.  hint:  It's an ironic statement regarding the flippant "lets ban _____" tendencies of the public and government as of late.
 @Komo206 Apparently you're feelings get hurt quit easily. You are the one that should be banned from this site.
Well at least when your driving down the road and you have "thermal runaway" or your battery craps out you can coast over to the side of the road and live. In an airplane...
Do you hear that sound??
Â
It's the muffled sound of all the union hater/bashers trying to conjure up another BS statement to inject here to somehow blame both the IAM and SPEEA for an aircraft program that was outsourced.
Â
But don't worry, once the problem is figured out by both the IAM and SPEEA employees the planes will be rolling out the door once again and at a higher rate.
 @Handsup70 I thought it was the sound of a Dreamliner barfing the batteries out the side of the fuselage.
Maybe the union workers dropped their thermals into the batteries and they tried to run away.Â
 @Handsup70 So, what roles do the IAM and SPEEA play in this battery problem solving, exactly? Are they the ones designing the workaround or a solution? Or are they the ones standing on the street corner with signs and a burning barrel?
  Lets see,,,,, Today do I work on the Burning Barrel,,,,,, or,,, the Burning Battery ???Â
 @Donkey KongÂ
Â
That's a REALLY intelligent question Kong Dong.. You see we on the line have to troubleshoot problems and incorporate the fixes on the the thingys with wings on them. In this case the the thingy with wings on it happens to be an a-i-r-p-l-a-n-e.. Did I spell that out slow enough for you to understand?
Â
And yes, to answer your question it's the engineers and mechanics that are working the issues to be incorporated into the fix of said aircraft. It amazes me that you think we just sit around collecting a paycheck. If it were that easy you'd be doing it!
 @Handsup70  @Donkey Kong Right now it's more of a g-r-o-u-n-d- p-l-a-n-e.
Mission Control: We have ignition------------- Lift Off!!!!! Now that is Thermal Runaway.
Didn't the FAA give this battery clearance to resume flight, while keeping the 787 grounded?
Â
@aintno1special Not exactly. The FAA has separate rules for these batteries being flown as cargo. The FAA believes the conditions and circumstances for a non-operating battery is different from those actually in operation, hence the distinct rules. We expect to have more information on this overall issue on the news this evening.
 @Jeff Burnside, KOMO 4 News Investigative Reporter I was unaware that Komo paid attention to the posts, especially reporters.  Good to see, we (your customer) like feedback and discussion.
 @Jeff Burnside, KOMO 4 News Investigative Reporter TY for clearing that up. I was a little confused.
This so called Dreamliner is turing into a Nightmare for Boeing. See what happenes when you out source your product. You say the Unions were costing them too much. Lets see if this way of doing business is costing them too much. I sure hope Boeing survives this blunder.
 @Telman@ Survive?  No question about that.   The impact on 787 sales is the real question.  (forgoing the obvious statements about safety)
 @Telman@ I agree that outsourcing is causing many problems, but Boeing would be buying the batteries and probably most of the charging apparatus anyway, wouldn't they? I know Boeing does not manufacture batteries in-house. I guess we will have to wait and see what is causing the problem.
Â
You would think that the battery manufacturers could design a battery with internal safeguards against thermal runaway problems.Â
 @Telman@ "This so called Dreamliner is turing into a Nightmare for Boeing."  Yeah probably not.  This is one of those things that occurs when you have a brand new design of a highly complex machine.
"Thermal Runaway"Â
Translation:Â The damn thing got too hot.
@Mumblix Grumph - It's a bit more complex than that. "Thermal runaway" means a chemical reaction causes progressively hotter temperatures, in essence, a self-perpetuating feedback loop that does not end until the battery burns itself out. The key is what's causing that to start? They still don't know. Boeing told me they've assigned hundreds of engineers and others working around the clock.
@32jim2 @Jeff Burnside, KOMO 4 News Investigative Reporter ....
While everyone is obsessed with the batteries, what every happen about the two relatively major fuel leaks that happen in same time frame? Those have completely dropped off the radar.Â
 @Jeff Burnside, KOMO 4 News Investigative Reporter  @Mumblix So the batteries get fried, but they don't know whether it's a problem with the batteries or with the way they are used? I am getting mixed messages from all of the articles I have read here and elsewhere. Do they use this exact model of battery in other applications, or just on the 787 airplanes? Have other models of Yousa Lithium-Ion batteries had this problem? Maybe Lithium-Ion doesn't scale up in size very well? I know my cellphone sometimes gets VERY warm, and it's just a little skinny battery.Â
 @Mumblix Grumph thermal runaway from 'overcharging' sounds like someone goofed on the design of the voltage regulator.....
Â
 @Freespeech  @Mumblix Grumph All the test's indicate there was no overcharging that happened on the planes. Do you know something the investigators don't know yet?
 @aintno1special  @4ShotLatte They said "Thermal runaway from 'overcharging'". That sure "sounds like" a jump to conclusions and/or a misread of the article to me.
 @4ShotLatte  @Freespeech  @Mumblix Grumph The Stories I have read say that the batteries were not overcharged because they did not exceed 32v, but none mention the rate of charge.
 @4ShotLatte  They said "sounds like"...not "definitively means"...maybe you should cut back to 3 shots? :)