DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

ESG 201 – Group 9

Boeing 787 Dreamliner – Lithium-Ion Battery Issue

 

 

 

 

 

Group Members –

Harshdeep Banwait

Kiranjit Singh

Gregory Lattari

Robyna Mamoor

Alia Rafiq

 

 

Quite recently, airplane manufacturing giant The Boeing Company, more popularly known as just Boeing faced a lot of controversy after about 50 Boeing 787 Dreamliners was made to ground their flights after their Lithium-Ion batteries burnt out during their respective flights. This case study would look into the primary causes of this fire, highlighting the importance of the mechanical and thermal properties of the material and offer possible solutions to this problem.

“Learning and innovation go hand in hand. The arrogance of success is to think that what you did yesterday will be sufficient for tomorrow.” (William Pollard). Sadly enough this quote spreads across a broad spectrum of almost every failure we have today. As technology continues to make our day-to-day life easier, it also begins to create a large amount of problems that sometimes end in catastrophic disasters.

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner has been an outstanding example of how technology can be a little less than perfect for what we are using it for. According to Boeing's website itself. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner has “Unparalleled Performance.” These planes can carry up to 300 people over 8000 nautical miles while using 20% less fuel than similarly sized airplanes. The lightweight design is a contributing factor to its small weight and fuel-efficiency.  This information is great for someone who is looking into these aircraft and wants to get a general reason to buy or fly on this aircraft, but when this plane was ready to fly, the information above would have no bearing on what began to happen to this aircraft when real flights began to take place.

            As it is known, airplanes use an incredible amount of energy in order to have the ability to fly. The amount of power needed to control onboard computers, HUD’s and every convenience given to the passengers in flight is a lot. These batteries are also crucial to everyone’s life because they are also there to provide power if the engines failed in the middle of the flight. As our technology has begun to get better with time, we have found new ways to make our energy come at a cheaper, more efficient rate. Boeing was on the forefront of this technology and made the 787 using Lithium-ion batteries. As opposed to the older style Nickel-cadmium battery, new lithium-ion batteries charge at a faster rate and hold more charge than its older brother.

            Boeing was happy for this technology and they put it in the 787’s. This decision ended up costing them millions of dollars and quite possibly their reputation. Despite prior issues with the 787 catching fire while stationary in airports, the flights continued. On January 16, 2013 All Nippon Airways (ANA) 787 had to make an emergency landing at Takamatsu Airport on Shikoku Island. This stop had to be made because the pilots were given a warning that the electrical compartments were filling with smoke. This is not the type of news you want while flying an airplane full of people. They made the emergency landing and everyone was evacuated safely.  This led to the Federal Aviation Administration to ground all Boeing 787s being flown ("787 Dreamliner.")

            After research ensued the reason behind the overheating was found out to be thermal runaway. Thermal runaway refers to a situation where an increase in temperature changes the conditions in a way that causes a further increase in temperature, often leading to a destructive result ("Thermal Runaway Definition and Meaning.")  This excess heat is what caused the aircrafts to catch on fire. The burning of metal and plastic caused the smoke that began to fill the plane. Once the heat became too extreme, emergency precautions had to be taken in order to avoid a total catastrophe.  

The failure of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner lithium ion battery did not only have tremendous impacts on the engineering field, but it also had quite an impact on the business sector, as well as leaving lasting impressions on society and the media. While the immediate consequence of the overheating of the battery leading to electrical fires amplified fear and controversy in society and the media, ultimately the issue had negative effects on the business of the airline and aircraft industries, as well as putting a spotlight on the way future aircrafts would be designed and tested in the engineering field in an attempt to be sure that such a failure would not occur again in the future.

            The failure of the Boeing lithium ion battery put the name and reputation of Boeing at risk. Since there are regulators around the world investigating the cause of the failure of the system, the image of the company has been tarnished to some extent. After the All Nippon Airways flight 692 debacle, where an unscheduled, emergency landing had to be made at Takamatsu airport in Japan and all one hundred and twenty nine passengers aboard the plane had to be evacuated from the Boeing aircraft, many people look at Boeing airplanes in a different light (Madslien). Customers and flyers will take the risk of failure that Boeing has presented with their planes with the new lithium ion batteries into consideration before determining on which airline and which aircraft they will choose to fly with. The story also caused great embarrassment for the airline as it was blasted in the media, in turn causing All Nippon Airways executives to hold a press conference and apologize profusely for the landing.

Looking at the material from a mechanical point of view, the containment of the battery compartment wasn’t strong enough either. The outer case for the battery was made out of high grade plastic to keep the weight at the minimum, but this put the overall containment at a risk because of the fact that due to constant heating and cooling, the case expanded and contracted repeatedly leading to a lot of fatigue stress and it gave up much before than it should have. As we know, the overheating of plastic materials causes it to expand and change size, and when the battery cools down, the overall size is reduced since the material contracts. When this phenomenon happens repeatedly one flight after the other, it results in a lot of fatigue stress over the material and causes it to fracture. Even though plastic has high elastic strength, much higher than high-grade steel, the stress caused due to the constant change in size is still something that it can’t handle.          

The failure of Boeing’s aircraft also served to amplify a common misconception that society holds on flying. It gave more reason for the public to believe flying to be a more dangerous mode of transportation versus driving, even though in reality it has been estimated that there are approximately 40,000 deaths per year in automobile accidents versus about 200 a year in air transport in the United States (Patterson).

            The most certain impact that the Boeing Dreamliner battery issue had was on the economic status of the aircraft and airline business. Not only did Boeing suffer from the loss of revenue, but the airlines that were customers of Boeing’s aircrafts did as well. After the problems with the lithium ion batteries was discovered Boeing grounded the entirety of its 787 Dreamliner fleet, causing airlines to lose or not receive their aircrafts, decreasing by quite a bit the amount of flights that an airline would offer, and thereby causing the loss of much revenue for the airline.

            All Nippon Airways, an enthusiastic Boeing customer that was hit hard by the battery problems on the Dreamliner jets, reported to the press that the grounding of its 787 fleet hurt their revenue by about $15.4 million in January in 2013, causing much anxiety and doubt on the airline’s future earnings (Tabuchi). All Nippon had a fleet of 17 Dreamliners delivered in late 2011, making it the world’s largest operator of Boeing’s new jet. In this way it makes sense for the airline company to be hit so hard by the grounding of the fleet. There were other airlines that were also hit hard by the grounding of their 787 Dreamliner fleets as well. Japan Airlines stated the grounding of their fleet would cost the airline company approximately 700 million yen in revenue, which is about $7.5 million in US dollars (Tabuchi). The airline reported that net profit fell 3.7 percent, to 140.6 billion yen, in the first three quarters, through December 2012, of its fiscal year. To make financial matters worse for Boeing, Japan Airlines expressed their desire to seek compensation from Boeing for their loss of revenue, which would hit the aircraft maker even harder.

            Ultimately, the Boeing Dreamliner 787 lithium ion battery failure had lasting consequences of the engineering field in that it cast doubt on the appraisal of new technologies. It also raised fundamental questions about how federal regulators certify new technology and how they balance advances in airplane design and engineering all the while with ensuring safety in commercial flying (Mouawad). In addition to finding out what went wrong, such similar issues in the future would be examined in a federal investigation and at future Senate hearings. The Boeing disaster with their new, advances lithium batteries was a project that was started with good intentions in an effort to make planes lighter, sleeker, more technologically advanced, and less dependent on airplane fuel, yet it didn’t work out. This failure is going to be scrutinized for quite a while in the future, causing much uncertainty and skepticism on future engineers who try to make a similar prototype work. In addition to the hardships that they would have to face, the failure of the lithium battery would bring cause to reform the engineering design and testing process, adding more laws and regulations to the system in an effort to be sure that such a disaster on such a large scale would not happen again in the future.

Ever since they started surfacing, Boeing has tried to belittle all the complications and drama surrounding the Dreamliner’s battery issues. In a recent news report, Boeing’s engineering leader for the 787, Richard J. Horigan reported that the root cause of the smoldering batteries in a couple of Dreamliner’s may never be known because the evidence was destroyed by all the heat and subsequent damage. Though, one possible reason cited is venting of the lithium ion battery cell, which in turn released excessive electrolytes leading to a short circuit and eventually a fire.

The Dreamliner’s batteries are a part of the plane’s high-capacity electrical system and the risk is magnified by the fact that the 787 uses up to 5 times more electricity for its control system as compared to any other airliner. These batteries are also used to start the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) located at the end of the plane. The danger is enhanced by the fact that a lithium battery fire can generate heat as high as 2000 F (~1093 C); which is about four times higher than the melting point of 787’s composite skin.

The United States National Transportation Safety Board chairman, Deborah Hersman talked about Boeing’s battery issues and said that they showed signs of short-circuiting and a phenomenon called thermal runaway. Now thermal runaway by definition refers to a repetitive cycle in which excessive heat causes even more heat until the running operation ceases or causes an explosion. The specific lithium ion battery combination used in the airplane (lithium cobalt oxide) is particularly prone to thermal runaway.  This phenomenon could have been started by a short circuit between the electrodes in a battery. It was surprising to learn that the safeguards already in place to stop the thermal runaway didn’t work. The short circuits that occurred can be a result of some damage to the battery or simply manufacturing defects that pierced a polymer barrier between electrodes in lithium ion batteries; something similar to what led to overheating in Apple and Dell products many years ago, which also resulted in massive recalls.

An MIT professor explained in an interview looking at the photos of the damage suggesting that such thermal runaway is practically designed into the 787 batteries because of the fact that they packed eight notebook-sized lithium-ion batteries right next to each other in a sealed metal box. The batteries thus are prone to heat up and the design made it difficult to vent the heat formed. Talking on this issue, Boeing officials said that they had implemented a computer-controlled system to monitor and stop such overheating and if that system did fail, Boeing’s design would channel the resulting smoke and flames outside the aircraft preventing it from entering in the main cabins. It goes without saying; their system failed and resulted in over 50-grounded aircrafts.

Talking about the engineering risk involved in this case, the 787 Dreamliner issue was an engineer’s nightmare. It’s an issue that isn’t that significant while actually designing the aircraft, but a nightmare when it surfaces because the whole world has its eyes on it. The Dreamliner was designed and manufactured in order to sustain the thermal runaway phenomenon for up to 10 million flight hours, but it gave up in much less than that, about 100,000 flight hours. According to many experts, the battery was a recipe for disaster and was meant to surface sooner or later and blow Boeing in the face. Unfortunately for Boeing, this happened much sooner than many would have anticipated.

But all these speculations came after the incident occurred and received so much attention from the media. Initially, as some Boeing officials suggested, the Dreamliner was prepared to face such mutilation having both a computer controlled system and a design to channel out the smoke. As per the officials, such an issue never came up during testing out the airplane and its design, or they would have taken full measures to take care of it. In their defense, something like this can’t be tested under factory conditions or test runs, but only when the plane is made to fly thousands of miles, every single day.

Analyzing this situation in terms of the risk equation, we see that the risk involved was exorbitant. Starting with the vulnerability factor, we’re talking about the life of hundreds of passengers flying thousands of feet above the earth, everything apart, this alone raises the risk at an alarming rate. A small fire in any part of the plane during its flight can prove to be fatal. The probability of occurrence of this issue wasn’t minimal either, this issue came in the limelight again and again as discussed earlier, raising the rik even more. Talking about the cost, even though the cost itself of the batteries compartment is in thousands of dollars, which in itself seems a lot, but the losses to the company because of this issue in terms of stock prices and order cancellations to researching and providing a solution of the problem range in billions of dollars, again raising our risk. If we talk about the mitigation efforts or preparedness by Boeing in this case, even after all the controversies and drama surrounding the situation, we have to give some credit to Boeing considering the fact that they not only installed a system to keep a check on the thermal runaway problem (which may not have worked, but we’ll give them points for trying at least), and then the way they’ve handled the problem since then, devoting 300,000 hours into researching the problem and then offering 300 technicians to go out to 9 different countries to install the solution. Even after all their efforts, the Consequences of failure and Risk in this case was beyond what Boeing could have expected.

To resolve the problem of the battery container fracturing again and again, Boeing is supposedly replacing the high-grade plastic cases with steel to provide much needed strength and toughness. This new case should be able to withstand the fatigue stress experienced by overheating, if any, of the batteries and should be able to contain the battery and its contents for a much longer period of time as compared to the first generation plastic ones.

After the battery failure, there was a major investigation to find out what had caused the battery fire.  There were a few different investigators, including Boeing: the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board), the Japanese Transport Safety Board and several other organizations.

Several causes were ruled out, including the excess voltage theory.  It was thought that the fire was due to an abundance of excess voltage; however, the battery did not exceed its designed voltage of 32 volts (Shalal-Esa and Henderson).  Japan's investigation found that there was some improper wiring involved.  The battery for the aircraft's auxiliary power unit was connected to the main battery.  This is improper wiring; this caused overheating.  There would have been a way to prevent this by use of a protective valve (Hennigan).

However, there was more analysis needed.  The NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) is still probing the root cause of the battery fire.  Investigators found a short circuit in one of the batteries, which may have been responsible for causing the fire (Attkisson).  However, Boeing stated that it was still too early to determine if the lithium ion battery problem came from some sort of design error or other manufacturing problem.

There was a major lawsuit involving the battery failure.  Michael Leon is a former employee of Securaplane Technologies in Tucson, Arizona.  Securaplane is a company that supplies avionic products for aircraft, like cameras, security systems, battery chargers, inverters, and more.  Leon was fired in 2007 because of misconduct.  The misconduct itself was not specified.   Michael Leon claimed that he was fired because he voiced concerns about the dangers of lithium ion batteries.  He spoke with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and then an investigation ensued (Reuters).

Leon also claimed that Securaplane shipped battery chargers that were vulnerable to malfunction.  However, he lost his case in court when the judge had ruled in favor of Securaplane.  The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) stated that the equipment that Leon was referring to were actually prototypes and not meant to be installed in any sort of aircraft.  Securaplane’s statement declared: "There is no connection between the Dreamliner battery issue and Michael Leon's dismissal from Securaplane" (Reuters).

There was a two day hearing in Washington where the safety board would examine the battery fires.  The point of the hearing was not to point blame, but to learn about how to design safer in the future. No root cause of the fire was found and it is still not known exactly why there was a battery fire.  Currently, there are still investigations concerning what went wrong (WJCT News).

During the hearing, it was decided that the original tests of the battery were inadequate.  The FAA should have required Boeing to retest battery using industry standards that were in effect after the regulators approved the 787 testing requirements.  Boeing is now using a newly designed battery with safety features; however, there is a question in why these safety features weren’t in the original design (WJCT News).

Boeing's argument is that the battery failure was a surprise and there was no way to test for it.  When the FAA approved of the batteries, the only information they had about lithium ion batteries was Boeing's own information and research.  This questions the flexibility and knowledge of the FAA and its requirements (WJCT News).

These incidents with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircrafts resulted in grounding of the aircrafts until the problem could be assessed and resolved. Boeing had deployed teams to help investigations being conducted by the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) and JTSB(Japan Transportation Safety Board), but the exact reasons for the problems encountered by the Dreamliner’s lithium ion battery have not been determined because of the damage the battery had inflicted on itself and electrical systems around it. It was clear that the problem resulted from overheating that took place in the battery and experts were been able to determine that thermal runaway occurred within the battery where a chemical reaction occurs in a hot environment causing temperature to rise even higher.

Boeing had chosen to use lithium-ion batteries as a part of its plan to move away from conventional onboard power systems that rely on auxiliary power units and pneumatics to more electric power systems. The goal was to create a lighter, cleaner and simpler system by replacing pneumatic units and piping with electrical versions and wiring. Lithium-ion batteries were chosen due to their high amperage, low weight and fast recharge times.

The issue that Boeing encountered with its use of lithium ion batteries has previously been seen in the heating problems that have affected such batteries in laptops and electric cars. In 2011, about two months after the Dreamliner was approved for service, a lithium-ion battery caught fire on a Cessna business jet which prompted the FAA to order that lithium-ion batteries be replaced with less hazardous cells on all of those jets. The FAA at that point had concluded that there were no extensive lessons to be learned in terms of lithium ion batteries being used in other planes. George Nield, associate administrator for commercial space transportation at the Federal Aviation Administration has stated that there may not have been much detailed discussion about the use of such batteries in the past but has assured that there will be as we go forward.

As a result of the two incidents, everyone in the space aviation industry is basically waiting and watching as to what the fate of the use of lithium ion batteries would be. New airplane models have rejected the use of lithium-ion batteries and favored the older yet still effective nickel-cadmium technology. One of these airplanes is the Airbus A350, a direct competitor to the 787 Dreamliner, which had originally intended to use lithium-ion batteries but opted out after Boeing’s problems had become clear.

During the investigations of the Dreamliner’s lithium-ion batteries, it was revealed that Boeing had allotted the responsibility of manufacturing and testing the batteries to a French aerospace company Thales. Thales had then allotted the same task to the Japanese battery maker, GS Yuasa. When Thales was questioned, the company revealed that it had no experience with lithium-ion batteries in airplanes. Further investigation revealed that the FAA took no part in conducting tests of the battery technology and the test results had just been passed on to the FAA from GS Yuasa. Boeing acknowledged that the tests of the batteries had underestimated the risk of fire. Mike Sinnett had stated that calculations that had been made did not include the possibility of manufacturing flaws. A was held by the NTSB to determine how Boeing and the FAA failed to catch the flaws of the battery. From this surfaced a broader issue of how airplane manufacturers and regulators can keep up with technological innovations to ensure safety and proper regulation.

The grounding of the aircrafts had prevented the 50 current aircrafts bought by airlines from being used and held up deliveries for remaining orders. Boeing urgently needed to find a solution to its battery problems in order to get its planes flying again. Technical teams and development teams were deployed by Boeing to analyze potential faults and create possible solutions. Experts from the field have also suggested approaches Boeing could have taken to provide a fix for the battery problems and reviewed the approaches Boeing considered taking. In a report by Mike Sinnett, the vice president and 787 chief project engineer, released after the FAA approved the changes to be made to resolve the battery issue, it is pointed out that more than 200,000 hours of engineering was applied to find this set of solutions.

For its new battery design, Boeing included four new or revised tests bring the total number of tests being conducted to ten that were conducted over 14 days. The new design includes two new layers of insulation, one of which is phenolic glass laminate, electrical insulators are wrapped around each cell to isolate them from one another and prevent the spreading of a short circuit. Extra thermal and electrical insulation has been added in the battery case to dissipate heat. The wires inside the battery have been upgraded to make them more heat and chafing resistant. The battery case has been redesigned to keep the batteries away from other electrical components. The case itself has a stainless steel enclosure held by titanium fixtures. The case also has vents that allow moisture to drain from the bottom and to vent gases while preventing oxygen from getting to the batteries to support combustion.

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner’s battery failure incident resulted in the need for a redesign of the battery. Besides this, we have found that there is more of a need for strict regulation of airplane manufacturers. Improvements will also be needed for regulators in terms of testing and such in order for them to keep up with the technological advancements manufacturers are making and applying. These are some things that have come up from this incident that may ensure safety and prevent future failures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Drew, Christopher. "Dreamliner Troubles Put Boeing on Edge." The New York Times. The New York Times, 20 Jan 2013. Web. 2 May 2013.

Madslien, Jorn. "Boeing 787 Dreamliner: The impact of safety concerns." BBC News Business. BBC News, 17 Jan 2013. Web. 2 May 2013.

Mouawad, Jad, and Christopher Drew. "Boeing's Battery Problems Cast Doubt on Appraisal of New Technologies." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Jan 2013. Web. 2 May 2013.

Patterson, Thom. "Why Dreamliner batteries worry experts." CNN Travel. CNN, 17 Jan 2013. Web. 2 May 2013.

Tabuchi, Hiroko. "All Nippon Says Grounding of 787s Has Cost $15 Million ." The New York Times. The New York Times, 31 Jan 2013. Web. 2 May 2013.

Tabuchi, Hiroko. "Japan Airlines Says 787 Grounding Will Cost It $7.5 Million." The New York Times. The New York Times, 04 Feb 2013. Web. 2 May 2013.

Attkisson, Sharyl. "Investigators: Short Circuit in Dreamliner's Lithium Ion Battery Led to Fire." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 07 Feb. 2013. Web. 05 May 2013.

Hennigan, W.J. "Japan Traces Boeing 787 Problem to Improper Wiring, Report Says." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 20 Feb. 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2013.

"Reviewing Whistleblower Claims in 787 Case." Chicago Tribune. Reuters, 24 Jan. 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2013.

Shalal-Esa, Andrea, and Peter Henderson. "Dreamliner Probe Widens after Excess Battery Voltage Ruled out." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 20 Jan. 2013. Web. 23 Apr. 2013.

"WJCT NEWS | Tune In. Find Out." WJCT NEWS | Tune In. Find Out. N.p., 25 Apr. 2013. Web. 27 Apr. 2013.

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.