November 10, 2015

Exploding Fuel Cell AIP. Safer alternative of LIBs in Soryus

Explosion of Fuel Cell AIP 

S comments that submarines that use Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) have a superior performance in high speed situations and flexibility in operation compared with lead-acid battery (LAB) submarines with air independent propulsion (AIP). AIP is not as useful as extra battery capacity for relatively high speed cruising and quick recharging, because:

i) output of AIP is low and nearly constant (eg. 240kW for Stirling AIP of Soryu)
ii) Stirling AIP needs liquid oxygen (LOx) and kerosene which cannot be supplied by other ships. 
iii) LIBs need no fuel other than standard diesel for the diesel engines. Such fuel can be supplied by ships.
iv)  AIP uses particularly explosive chemicals, which are dangerous.

[Pete Comment - Here is a http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/55236/hhis-submarine-saw-explosion-hydrogen-tank November 4, 2015 report of an explosion of a fuel cell AIP hydrogen tank which occurred on November 3, 2015 very likely on a South Korean Son Won-Il Type 214 (KSS-II) submarine being constructed at HHI. The Chang Bogos (KSS-Is) don't have AIP:


"The explosion took place in Hyundai Heavy Industries’ submarine under construction on Tuesday [November 3], according to a local media outlet Money Today.

According to the report, the explosion occurred at the submarine at HHI's plant located in Ulsan on Monday morning. The fire was suppressed in 30 minutes and there was no casualty.

The explosion reportedly took place during the process of extracting remaining gas in hydrogen tank installed in the submarine. A local submarine does not generally [or ever] use nuclear energy as motive power but hydrogen fuel cells are installed in the tank instead.

"We are not able to disclose which type of submarine had the explosion accident," said the company's official, adding, "There will no problem in meeting the construction schedule.""  ENDs
-------------------------------------------------------

Soryu Table

SS
No.
Building
No.
Pennant
No.
Name/Namesake
LAB or LIB & AIP *
Laid Down
Laun
-ched
Commi-ssioned
Built
By
16SS
8116
SS-501
Sōryū (そうりゅう) / Blue Dragon
LAB + AIP
March 2005
Dec 2007
March
2009
MHI
17SS
8117
SS-502
Unryū (うんりゅう) / Cloud Dragon
LAB + AIP
March 2006
Oct 2008
March
2010
KHI
18SS
8118
SS-503
Hakuryū (はくりゅう) / White Dragon
LAB + AIP
Feb 2007
Oct 2009
March
2011
MHI
19SS
8119
SS-504
Kenryū (けんりゅう) / Sword Dragon
LAB + AIP
March 2008
Nov 2010
March
2012
KHI
20SS
8120
SS-505
Zuiryu (けんりゅう) / Sword Dragon
LAB + AIP
March 2009
Oct 2011
March
2013
MHI
22SS
8122
SS-506
Kokuryū (こくりゅう) / Black Dragon
LAB + AIP
January 2011
Oct 2013
March
2014
KHI
23SS
8123
SS-507
Jinryū (じんりゅう)/ Benevolent Dragon
LAB + AIP
Feb 2012
Nov 2014
March
2016?
MHI
24SS
8124
SS-508
Sekiryu
/Holy Dragon
LAB + AIP
2013
2 Nov 2015
2017
KHI
25SS
8125
SS-509
Soryu Mark 1 not yet named
LAB + AIP
2014
2016?
2018
MHI
26SS
8126
SS-510
Soryu Mark 1 not yet named
LAB + AIP
2015
2017?
2019
KHI
27SS
8127
SS-511
Soryu Mark 2 
LIB only
2016?
2018?
2020?
MHI
28SS
8128
SS-512
Soryu Mark 2 
LIB only
2017?
2019?
2021?
KHI
29SS
8129
SS-513
LIB only
2018?
2020?
2022?
MHI







1AU?


 1st Australian class?

2022?
2024?
2026?



















The following details provide an insight on future Soryu design and battery issues. This level of detail may gain considerable importance if Australia finally chooses an "Australian Soryu" design after the SEA 1000 CEP process. The information below is drawn from several of S's Comments on Submarine Matters here and here with several translation-changes be Pete for clarity.


Japan has an advantage over the French and German contenders in being able to integrate an Australian "soryu" into an ongoing continuous build program. By continuous build this does not mean Australian submarines will be built in Japan. It means is that Japan is constantly redesigning improved submarines and designing key technologies (such as Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs)).

Japan’s MHI and KHI are careful to build submarines on time and on budget with submarines being launched within the planned year and month.

The versions of the Soryu preceding any Australian Soryu (maybe to be called "1AU" or "SEA 1000"?) will be 27SS, 28SS and 29SS (see table). 27 to 29SS will be Lithium-ion battery (LIB) submarines which will replace the Soryu's existing Lead-acid batteries (LAB) and the Stirling AIP. A more powerful diesel engine will, via a generator, charge the LIBs.

"wispywood2344" has drawn and labeled this very useful diagram of the Soryu.  A larger version of the diagram is at http://blog.livedoor.jp/wispywood2344/others/Soryu_cutaway.svg
---


It is not yet known how often (every 7 - 10 years?) LIBs will need to be replaced on Japanese or Australian Soryus. This is because LIBs are new technology and may be used in different ways by different navies. 

Access To Replace LIBs

To permit replacement of LIBs using the mid access hatch (diagram above) there would need to be below the mid access hatch a hatch:


i) on the floor of the officer’s accommodation (6)
ii) on the floor of the mess/galley (7)
iii) between fore and aft batteries sections (5 and 8)
iv)  (on the Australian Soryu) also a hatch between the aft battery section (8) and new battery section (10)

As the LIB cell modules are too heavy for manhandling they are moved on the submarine aisles by using horizontal and vertical hydraulic jacks.

If the Australian Soryu “SEA 1000” concept is the expected 6 - 8 meters longer than 29SS, more LIBs can fit into the design.

[Pete has added - Here is the lowering of LAB cell modules through the mid section hatch and down into the battery section of a South Korean Chang Bogo Type 209 submarine
https://youtu.be/yE9lmXHpRho?t=1m35s   through to 1 minute 58 seconds]

Placing More LIBs (240) On Australian Soryus

On 27 to 29SS and the Australian Soryu an extra 240 LIB cell modules may be placed in the space (see section 10 of diagram (below) where the AIP's LOx tank assembly was. When those 240 are added to the existing 2 x 240 LIB cell modules existing battery spaces the submarines can have a total of 720 cells . 

240 comes from Japanese Ministry of Defence Standard NDS F8016B “General rules for design of equipment with small stray magnetic field”, 5.3”Arrangement of main batteries for submarine” which specifies that submarine generally equips with directly connected 240 single cells as a group. 

720 cells may mean an increased endurance (perhaps talking 2 to 3 weeks).



How it works. When snorting/snorkelling air is drawn into the diesels turning the generator, then the Motor to power the battery. When sub is fully submerged battery drives the motor, which turns propeller. The Soryu does not have reduction gearing system, as stepless speed control is conducted in the motor. (Diagram courtesy MARINEBIO)
---

Maximum Range and Power Using LIBs

S estimates 720 cells will give Soryus 3 - 4.5 times longer submerged range than current Soryus using LABs alone. S estimates energy density of LIBs is 2-3 times higher than current LABs. LIBs will permit higher fully submerged speeds the submarine has a new generator system and new motor(s).  

S comments: If we adopt simple cubic rule between speed and power, maximum speed will be estimated to be 29-33knot/h for an extremely short period. S thinks actual speed will be lower than estimated value, but still high compared to LAB subs.

S assumed maximum power of 18,000-27,000kW@15min [for 15 minutes] is possible for propulsion motors operated by LIBs (5900kW@15min for current LABs submarine). However issues such as increased need for cooling and friction should be considered:

i)  there would be high temperatures at "silent mode operation" where auxiliary fans and oil pumps ( for bearings) have been stopped, and
ii)  increased energy for cooling and friction losses. 

S thinks safe-efficient levels of maximum power of motors and maximum speed may be at a lower 12,000kW, yielding 25knot@1hour. 

This compares with maximum fully submerged speed 18knot@1h for perhaps for the current Soryu and "dash" speed 20knot@15min.


Used lead-acid batteries for one or several? Collins submarines. Description is "They were/are manufactured in Australia [probably by PMB Defence] weigh something like 3 tons each cell and are about 1.5m high and a metre wide...The entire battery weighs in at about 450 tons [150 cells] (Photo and description overclockers forum Comment #9)
---

Reduction of Stray Magnetic Field Using LIBs

A stray magnetic field is undesirable in batteries. Reduction of stray magnetic field must be considered in cell arrangement and cell-to-cell connection according to Japanese Ministry of Defence Standard NDS F8016B. Rules of the arrangement and the connection are as follows:

i) width of each column of cell module should be the same.  (240 = 20 columns x 12 cell modules) was decided based on these rule. In this case colums of 20 satisfies rule. 
ii) numbers of each column are desirably multiples of four or must be at least an odd number (20 = 4 x 5) and number (12) of cell module in a column satisfies rule 
iii) desirable numbers of cell modules in a column are multiples of four. (12 = 4 x 3). Logically speaking, if the rules are satisfied, other arrangements such as three groups of 24 columns or four groups of 16 columns are possible.
iv) polarity cancellation of a pair of neighbouring columns should be conducted by cross connection of these columns, and so on.

S and Pete

16 comments:

Anonymous said...


Hi Pete

I think that there was some wrong in construction by HHI, not by TKMS except initial failure more than 10 years ago. And, what I meant in my previous comment was risk of hydrogen.

Soryu does not have reduction gearing system, because the stepless speed control for each 1min-1 by the rotation speed fine tuning transmitter is conducted in AC motor.

Current Soryu has 2 diesel-electric generators (No.1&2), 4 Stirling AIP generators (No.1-4), and 2 (fore&aft) cell module groups and two combination of circuit (generator 2 + AIP 2&4 + aft cell module group, generator 1 + AIP 1&3 + fore cell module group). Circuit systems consisting of 2 diesel-electric generators/4 cell module groups or 3 diesel-electric generators/3 cell module groups seem to show better circuit and magnetic balances than that consisting of 2 diesel-electric generators/3 cell module groups. But, latter system seems to have better spacing of submarine section than two formers. Trade-off between of circuit/magnetic balances and number/spacing of section will be considered.

Regards
S

wispywood2344 said...

Hi Pete.

According to "Ships of the world vol.713", batteries of Soryus are lined up like this.
(14 cells are lined up side by side.)
http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/wispywood2344/imgs/3/2/323c0666.png

If you need further information, please check this article.
http://blog.livedoor.jp/wispywood2344/archives/54964300.html

According to my estimation, in exchange for Stirling AIP system, about 240 LIB modules can be installed in bottom layer of 4th compartment .
The middle and upper layers of the compartment can be used as accomodation.
(It is said that Soryus' accomodation area is TOO small.)

Regards

wispywood2344

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete and wispywood2344

I am afraid that I cannot accept cell module arrangement proposed by wispywood2344. Because the proposed arrangement has following issues: i) difficulty of install and maintenance of cell modules and monitoring cell module situations, and ii) generation of stray magnetic field.

Regards
S

Peter Coates said...

Hi S [at November 11, 2015 at 10:26 PM]

Thanks for your advice on the explosion. Yes the purehydrogen stage of fuel cell AIP functioning is most dangerous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine#AIP advises: "Although hydrogen–oxygen propulsion had been considered for submarines as early as World War I, the concept was not very successful until recently due to fire and explosion concerns. In the Type 212 this has been countered by storing the fuel and oxidizer in tanks outside the crew space, between the pressure hull and outer light hull. The gases are piped through the pressure hull to the fuel cells as needed to generate electricity, but at any given time there is only a very small amount of gas present in the crew space."

I have now noted lack of reduction gearing in the text.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi S and wispywood2344

Thanks for the information on battery positioning.

I'm no expert so by all means discuss the likely placement.

What are the problems and dangers of having a stray magnetic field?

Regards

Pete

MHalblaub said...

Dear Pete,

It looks like someone is trying to make the fuel cell technology quite dangerous. Provided is one accident during repairs.

I can provide links to two smoking 787s and a burned down to the ground test facility due to LIBs.

Japan has an ongoing production for domestic submarine? I am not impressed. Germany has an ongoing export of submarines.

The future for submarines are fuel cells and LIBs will replace LABs. Fear about new technology is common especially in cases someone is not able to handle them.

Regards,
MHalblaub

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete, wispywood2344,MHalblaub


To Pete (Stray magnetic field & ferromagnetism)
Earth has magnetic field (geomagnetic fields). If the material with stray magnetic field or ferromagnetism (ex., submarine) exists in the geomagnetic field, the magnetic vibration in the geomagnetic field (magnetic anomaly) which may be detected by magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) generates. So, reduction of stray magnetic field and ferromagnetism is very important for submarine.

Energization or change of energization produce or change the magnetic field (stray magnetic field) outside of electric equipment (ex., cells, generators, motors, etc.). Stray magnetic field from cell modules can be effectively reduced by proper arrangement of cell module and wiring, but, inadequate arrangement and wiring cause large magnetic anomaly.

Issue of hull ferromagnetism can be overcome or reduced by adoption of non-magnetic material (titanium, austenite stainless steel, etc) or double hull structure consisting outer non-magnetic hull and inner magnetic pressure hull.

To wispywood2344 (Module cell arrangement)
My reply (November 12, 2015 at 1:21 AM) was a bit blunt, I am sorry. I cancel out statement ‘ii) generation of stray magnetic field”, because my model also generates stray magnetic field. In a cell module column, spacing of neighboring two cell modules should be minimum, but central two cell modules are separated by the aisles for maintenance in my model.

In the cell module arrangement without the maintenance aisles, tens of cell modules will be taken out from submarine to exchange only one cell module in some cases.

To MHalblaub (Fuel Cell)
I admit that fuel cell shows excellent performance in low speed region and I appreciate methanol reforming fuel cell by TKMS and combination of fuel cell and LIBs.

Regards
S

Peter Coates said...

Hi MHalblaub

Yes the accident was during repairs rather than caused by the crew in an actual operational 214.

It is also notable that http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/55236/hhis-submarine-saw-explosion-hydrogen-tank seems to be the only English language report of the explosion - and very brief at that. No announcement of an official inquiry. This may suggest a coverup - perhaps due to someone smoking? unsafe practices? or grinders/cutters/welders creating sparks?

A problem with the 787 LIBs may have been that they were two light hence prone to rapid heating and too high a temperature (leading to burning). Hopefully the heavier weight of submarine LIBs and greater and less rushed introduction of them will mean that submarine LIBs are safe(er).

Soryu 27SS, which may be commissioned in 2020, may be the first operational submarine to use LIBs. Hopefully the Japanese Navy will quickly indicate if there have been any surprises or safety issues with the LIBs.

Australia may end up fitting or retrofitting fuel cell AIP to the "SEA 1000s" depending on the perceived threat of ASW sensors (especially China's and Russia's).

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi S [at Nov 13, 12:05AM]

Thanks for stray magnetic field information. I assume that no matter how much demagnetising of the steel hull is done before a mission stray magnetic field may reveal the sub.

If feasible maintenance aisles in the cell arrrangement may be essential to avoid major time delays (in an emergency) just to remove one cell module.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Collins submarine use LABs of PBM which are very different from Japanese LABs [1]. PBM is one of the most to be impacted companies by the result of CEP, because all of submarine contenders propose LIBs". Japan should listen to request from such companies.

[1] http://www.defencesa.com/upload/media-centre/publications/fac/3295/Techport%20Australia%20Brochure%20June%202015.pdf “TECHPORT AUSTRALIA”, Page 12, Picture

Regards
S

Peter Coates said...

Hi S [at Nov 14, 3:59PM]

Yes it would appear PBM (mentioned on page 12 of http://www.defencesa.com/upload/media-centre/publications/fac/3295/Techport%20Australia%20Brochure%20June%202015.pdf ) may need to talk to all three CEP contenders because some Australian entity will need to be the local supplier/stockpiler of LIBs (in Techport and/or Fleet Base West) and be a source of expert advice on submarine LIBs.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Change of hull architecture as well as four major improvements (new torpedo, further reduction of vibration, new sonar system, and enhanced snorkel system) will be conducted in 29SS. I introduce abstract of project plan related to the architecture change. We can expect that 29SS shows nearly same size but longer compartments than current Soryu. Performance of new architecture including crushing strength will be demonstrated and validated based on experiment of prototype.

From “FY2012 Policy Report by Bureau of Finance and Equipment of Japanese Ministry of Defense”

(5-1b) Needs of implementation in FY2013
Inhibition of enlargement due to the improvement of submarine performance is urgent issue in terms of target strength and reduction of ship price. Since the result of the study will be reflected to the newly designed submarine by conducting this study from the FY2013, the study is needed to start in this fiscal year.

(5-1c) Reason for non-application of existing organization and equipment.
Although high density rigging of equipment is carried out to inhibit enlargement in modern submarine, the rigging already reaches a limit. In the next generation submarine with the new equipment such as the new sonar, enlargement of hull is concerned. For this reason, the extension of the compartment length which contributes to the streamlining of the equipment of submarine is considered. Solution by the current pressure hull architecture with larger reinforced materials is expected to cause enlargement and increased price of submarine. Adoption of new architecture is needed.

(5-2) Efficiency
In this study, the system design required for the prototyping and evaluation of components and equipment will be conducted, various models (machined model, welded assembly model) will be prototyped, and their crushing strength will be measured.

(5-3c) Confirmation of the effect
Prototyping and testing will be conducted from 2013 FY 2015 and from FY2014 to FY2015, respectively.
In it is planned to carry out the test.

(6) Timing of validation
Policy assessment (post-project evaluation) will be conducted in FY2016.

Regards
S

Peter Coates said...

Hi S [Nov 14, 11:39PM]

Thankyou for the details. I will put them in an article in the next few days.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Few days before, GS YUASA announced [1] that the company had succeeded to develop Lithium Sulfur Battery (LSB) with excellent charge-discharge performance. This LSB with lithium anode and sulfur/porous carbon composite shows high energy density of 1000mAh/g [2] and inhibits reduction of capacity with charge-discharge cycle. Submarines with LSB will show excellent performance from low to high speed regions. But, as metal Lithium is highly reactive to water, overcoming of safety issue will be a key element for practical application in submarine. Frankly speaking, it will be quite tough.

[1]http://www.gs-yuasa.com/jp/newsrelease/article.php?ucode=gs151114132202_191
[2]In the case of Japanese submarine with voltage of 450V, 1000mAh correspondsto 450kWh which is 10 times bigger than current LABs.

Regards
S

MHalblaub said...

Dear Pete,

the ROKS Chang Bogo Class may have a hull stretch with an AIP insert so it could also be a Type 209 submarine that caught fire.

The problem with LIBs Boeing used on the 787 was chemistry used was prone for thermal runaways but this LIBs offered a weight advantage. Airbus used LIBs of a different type on the A380. Any type of batteries for submarines had to be rock solid.

There were rumors about the second batch of Type 212 to receive LIBs but LABs were installed instead.

What about German AIP with Japanese LIBs on a French submarine?

Regards,
MHalblaub

Peter Coates said...

Hi MHalblaub [Nov 16, 8:19AM]

Its true that it could be a South Korean Chang Bogo (Type 209) being retofitted with AIP. Details have not been certain that S Korea is placing AIP in its Chang Bogos but S Korea may now be doing that to face the increasing Chinese and N Korean ASW threat.

Good that the Airbus LIBs did not heatup/burn like the 787's. I assume the 787's new LIBs are now safer?

True "Any type of batteries for submarines had to be rock solid." and Australia relies on the CEP contenders to fully trial the LIBs first. As Japan will be using LIBs operationally for years before the "SEA 1000" submarine Japan may have the advantage LIB-wise.

Well yes in order to maximise cost, complexity and permanent problems Australia may choose the French Shortfin with French diesels. France, being wise, will ask Germany to provide the AIP and Japan the LIBs. Two generations of Australia defence bureacrats and ASC crisis solvers will thereby gain assured employment.

Australia could buy no-frills (ie. no VLS) Soryus or 218s but that would make too much sense...

Regards

Pete