A report of the UPS 747 freighter carrying lithium ion batteries as cargo. Fire started in batteries shortly after takeoff, plane tried to return to airport (Dubai). Pilots donned goggles and oxy masks but controls failed, couldn't see the instruments (smoke) and gear would not lower. It crashed killing both crew. "new report on the fatal crash of a UPS jet carrying a large shipment of rechargeable lithium batteries suggests that safety issues still remain for transporting these flammable devices, which are used to store energy not only for mobile phones and laptops but also a growing fleet of plug-in vehicles. The crash, which killed both pilots, occurred near Dubai on September 3, 2010. The Boeing 747-400F jumbo jet had departed Dubai International Airport on a cargo flight toward Cologne, Germany. At 32,000 feet, 22 minutes into the flight, the crew told air traffic control on the ground in Bahrain that warning systems on the cargo compartments indicated fire in the main deck, and that they needed to land as soon as possible. The plane turned back to Dubai, and the crew donned goggles and oxygen masks. Less than five minutes after the fire alarm, according to the report, smoke entered the cockpit, ultimately engulfing it and obscuring flight instruments. Landing gear stopped functioning, and the jet flew over the Dubai runway. The 747 ended up crashing just south of the airport on a military installation."
And those batteries were just cargo, wrapped up in boxes sitting in the cargo hold. Interesting thing is that apparently these batteries generate their own oxygen as part of the combustion process. Typical procedure for a fire on the main deck of a freighter is to climb/descend to 25000k ft (approx) and then depressurize, thus hopefully starving the fire of an oxidizer. Obviously this won't work with Li, and main deck cargo holds typically do not have fire suppression. FedEx now uses special containers that are each individually connected to a fire suppression system, although not sure of the effectiveness with Li fires. Some summary info from the FAA on Li batteries http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/systems/Lithium-ion_battery_04112006.pdf
Early Chevy Volts had a few battery fires which seem to have been mitigated. (One may have been caused by a collision) Haven't heard much about those on the news so they must have done something right. I think Rifledriver's analogy of an Li battery akin to a can of gas is fairly accurate when it comes to basic stability in form until limits are exceeded, causing spectacular failures.
So... is it potentially a turbulence/vibration issue that could be setting off the batteries? Thanks! All the best, Andrew.
Thank you for your comments. Your last sentence is a concern because I can see that happening in real life with a nervous "truck" driver not wanting to get in trouble. Pete
I would have to agree. Lithium Ion batteries need top of the line battery management systems that monitor that each cell is being charged and discharged equally as well as sensors that monitor if the cell is heating up at accelerated rate. I have battery operated power tools that use Lithium Ion power and there are sensors that will shut down the tool if the battery pack becomes unbalanced or it the pack starts to heat up. It has not happened many times except when I am working to tool to death. for myself it is not a problem I just switch battery packs and continue on. On the 787 I know the JAl battery was in the rear avionics bay and the ANA was in the front bay. I am not sure if there are multiple battery packs in each bay or not. I have a feeling the issue is with the Mfg. of the battery with sensors sending false readings to the battery management system allowing the pack to thermally run away.
That was my thought too. From my knowledge of Li batteries I am not thrilled large ones are being used in passenger airliners. When a battery melt down starts it can be very hard to stop. I am much less concerned by fuel leaks and I have great respect for petro chemical fires. I also have great respect for Boeing but allowing their use was a dumb move on the FAA's part.
The ANA front battery had overheated and swollen. Then leaked to the exterior of the plane. Does not appear that there was a fire. Yuasa is waiting (it seems) for Thales to comment. Article: "The main battery beneath the cockpit of the Boeing 787 forced to make an emergency landing in Japan was swollen from overheating, a safety official said Thursday, as aviation regulators worldwide joined the U.S. and Japan in grounding the technologically advanced aircraft because of fire risk. U.S. officials, and a Boeing engineer, are due in Japan on Friday to assist with Japan's investigation into the All Nippon Airways 787 that landed in western Japan after a cockpit message showed battery problems and a burning smell was detected in the cockpit and cabin. The battery in an electrical room beneath the cockpit was swollen and had leaked electrolyte, safety inspector Hideyo Kosugi said on Japanese broadcaster NHK. Investigators found burn marks around the battery, though it was not thought to have caught fire. Kosugi also said the electrolyte liquid leaked through the electrical room floor to the outside of the aircraft, Kyodo news agency reported. GS Yuasa Corp., the maker of the lithium ion batteries used in the 787s, said it was helping with the investigation but that the cause of the problem was unclear. "We still don't know if the problem is with the battery, the power source or the electronics system," said Yasushi Yamamoto, a spokesman the company which is based in Kyoto, Japan. "The cause of the problem is not clear," he said. Thales, which makes the battery charging system, has not commented so far."
Sounds like they need a fireproof, leakproof box to put those batteries in. At least then when they go poof it won't do any harm.
+1 Would certainly avoid some nasty **** "flooding" the bottom of the bay..... [Edit; Not to mention "leaking completely thru the fuselage"!] Except, I guess many of 'em are strung in series on a single charging/load circuit - If one goes poof it's only a matter of time before the charger gets confused and tries to overcharge the remainder (Don't ask me how I know! ) I suspect each "containment vessel" would need dedicated sensors for heat/fire + a suppression system and a way to take the bad one out of circuit. I could be wrong, but believe that these things also still need to vent (?) ie, a hermetically sealed box ain't gonna cut it. Cheers, Ian
I would think the forward batteries are located in the E&E compartment but i dont know that for sure and yes its pressurised. On the older Boeing aircraft they have a hatch in the cockpit to access the E&E compartment for various inflight reasons.
Wondering about the charging system... Thales, I believe... Only time I've had a battery overheat and 'swell up' is the the voltage regulator going off the charts, putting 18V into a 12V system. The battery case was like hot jello. But, those were Optimas... don't know if there's any connection to a Lithium-Ion...
I'm no guru, so take FWIW..... Yer average Optima is *way* more tolerant of mistreatment than these things. Look at 'em a little cross eyed, and they'll get hot. Get them out of 'balance' with their buddies, and they get really pissed.... Overcharge 'em a little and they catch fire...... Coming soon and already used in R/C electric, Li-Po cells. These should only be charged inside an armored case however. But, they can handle oodles of power........ Cheers, Ian
Ops, meant to note before the previous rant, +1 on Thales. Had a quick poke at their site. No news. They seem very military focused too from my brief visit. The tinfoil hat brigade will be screaming 'conspiracy'!'. Their silence is ominous IMESHO A brief 'we're cooperating with everyone' would help. Or is not that they way these things work? Cheers, Ian
Even though they seem to avoid the subject it looks to be French in genisis. More fuel for the tin foil hat guys.
Found this on Wiki... "The World Banks Integrity Unit has blacklisted Thales from any of the World Banks projects because of its use of large-scale bribery." There are several other items about Thales and bribery in Taiwan and other places. They apparently have a huge 'slush' fund. Not squeaky clean.
FWIW, Boeing is using the Cobalt Oxide variety of LiIo batteries. These have high energy densities, but are prone to thermal runaways - upon heating up, they release even more energy (ie they blow up). Why Boeing didn't use the much safer iron phosphate LiIo cells remains their secret. (a nice graph on heat release rates of different LiIo chemistries can be found in this article in J. Power Sources, Fig. 7)
They need to redesign the battery carrier area so they can be jetisoned quickly ... I'm semi-serious here, but I also assume the plane needs these batteries. Basically fleet should be grounded and production halted until 100% resolved. Pete
The problem with switching to a different design of battery is the fact that they need different chargers also most others will be of a larger form factor and might not be able to fit into the space allocated in the avionics bays that the current battery uses. The other down side is weight would go up and in that would just cancel out some of the benefits that the 787 design. Also changing the battery and management systems will require a long testing and certification process. GS Yuasa is stating that it could take months to get to the bottom of what is happening... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-17/gs-yuasa-may-take-months-to-complete-boeing-787-battery-probe.html A little off topic here but in my work I deal with Yuasa batteries on a daily basis. I have found that the GS variety tend to have a shorter life span over the US made Exide Yuasa brand battery of the same size and construction.
