From Anonymous’s comments on February 12, 2017.
Thanks to Anonymous for estimating performance for a submarine that will have new
Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) no AIP – see Table
1. The first such submarine can be called a “Soryu Mark 2” (see Table 2) and it is designated 27SS which is likely to be launched between October
and December 2017.
Anonymous, in Table 1,
then makes a traditional Lead-acid Batteries (LABs) only (no AIP) comparison. Japan’s Oyashio class (launched 1996 to 2006) were Japan’s last submarines that were LABs only. The
Oyashios preceded the LAB-AIP Soryu Mark 1s (see Table 2).
Submarine/Measure
|
LIBs only Soryu Mark 2, eg. 27SS
|
LABs only Oyashio class
|
Nominal voltage per unit battery-module [1]
|
36V
|
2V
|
Max submerged period at 4 knots [2, 3]
|
7 to 9 days
|
3 to 3.5 days
|
Standard submerged period at 4 knots [4]
|
6 to 8 days
|
1 to 1.5 days
|
Standard period at 18 knots (within a longer
mission submerged)
|
3 to 4 hours
|
1 hour
|
Battery Recharge times over 60 day mission
|
8 to 10 times
|
40 to 60 times
|
Battery Recharge periods (surfaced or snorting)
|
1 to 2 hours
|
5 to 10 hours
|
[1] Values are based on various pieces of data for LIBs and LABs. LIB-modules and
LAB-modules are connected in parallel and in series, respectively. Example:
total voltage of 100 LAB-module (2V) connected in series is 200V = 2V
x 100.
[2] Data for LABs is based on various simulations of submarine
propulsion.
[3] Data for LIBs is based on comparison with data for LABs.
[4] As complete discharge shortens the life of batteries, I assume
90% of LIBs are discharged and 30% of LABs.
SORYU-Oyashio TABLE 2 (as at February 21, 2017)
SS
|
Build No
|
Pennant
|
MoF approved amount ¥ Billions & FY
|
LABs, LIBs, AIP
|
Laid Down
|
Laun
|
Commi-ssioned
|
Built
|
5SS
|
8105 Oyashio
|
¥52.2B
|
LABs only
|
Jan 1994
|
Oct 1996
|
Mar 1998
|
KHI
| |
6SS-15SS
|
8106
|
SS-591-600
|
¥52.2B per sub
|
LABs only
|
15SS Feb
2004 | 15SS Nov 2006 |
15SS
Mar 2008 |
MHI
|
16SS
Soryu Mk 1
|
8116
|
SS-501
|
¥60B FY2004
|
LABs + AIP
|
Mar 2005
|
Dec 2007
|
Mar
|
MHI
|
17SS
|
8117
|
SS-502
|
¥58.7B FY2005
|
LABs + AIP
|
Mar 2006
|
Oct 2008
|
Mar
|
KHI
|
18SS
|
8118
|
SS-503
|
¥56.2 FY2006
|
LABs + AIP
|
Feb 2007
|
Oct 2009
|
Mar
|
MHI
|
19SS
|
8119
|
SS-504
|
¥53B FY2007
|
LABs + AIP
|
Mar 2008
|
Nov 2010
|
Mar
|
KHI
|
20SS
|
8120
|
SS-505
|
¥51B FY2008
|
LABs + AIP
|
Mar 2009
|
Oct 2011
|
Mar
|
MHI
|
No
|
No 21SS built
| |||||||
22SS
|
8121
|
SS-506
|
¥52.8B FY2010
|
LABs + AIP
|
Jan 2011
|
Oct 2013
|
Mar
|
KHI
|
23SS
|
8122
|
SS-507
|
¥54.6B FY2011
|
LABs + AIP
|
Feb 2012
|
Oct 2014
|
7 Mar 2016
|
MHI
|
24SS
|
8123
|
SS-508
|
¥54.7B FY2012
|
LABs + AIP
|
Mar 2013
|
2 Nov 2015
|
Mar? 2017
|
KHI
|
25SS
|
SS-509
|
¥53.1B FY2013
|
LABs + AIP
|
22 Oct 2013
|
12 Oct 2016
|
Mar? 2018
|
MHI
| |
26SS
|
8125
|
SS-510
|
LABs + AIP
|
2014
|
Oct-Nov
|
Mar 2019?
|
KHI
| |
27SS
Soryu Mk 2
|
8126
|
SS-511
|
LIBs only
|
2015
|
Oct-Dec 2017
|
Mar
2020
|
MHI
| |
28SS
Soryu Mark 2
|
8127
|
SS-512
|
¥63.6B FY2016
|
LIBs only
|
2016?
|
2018?
|
Mar 2021?
|
KHI
|
29SS
New Class
|
?
|
?
| ¥76B FY2018 |
LIBs only
|
?
|
?
|
2023?
|
MHI?
|
Table courtesy of exclusive information provided to Submarine Matters. LABs = lead-acid batteries, AIP=air independent propulsion, LIBs=lithium-ion batteries. ¥***B = Billion Yen.
Anonymous and Pete
28 comments:
Hi Pete
Before revision
Table 1 (Nominal voltage/LIBs) 36V
[1] Values are based on various pieces of data for LIBs and LABs. LIB-modules and LAB-modules are connected in parallel (series) for generating voltage of nearly same the magnitude. Reasons for higher nominal voltage per unit of LIB-module includes improvements in circuit breakers.
Aefore revision
Table 1 (Nominal voltage/LIBs) 108V
[1] Values are based on various pieces of data for LIBs and LABs. LIB-modules and LAB-modules are connected in parallel and in series, respectively. Example: total voltage consisted of 100 LAB-module (2V) connected in series is 200V = 2V x 100.
Regards
Hi Pete.
As I wrote in my blog,[1] the Japanese submarine LIB module is "3-parallel / 10-series (3P10S)" type.
So the nominal voltage of it is around 40V.
[1]http://blog.livedoor.jp/wispywood2344/archives/55579874.html
Regards
Wispywood2344
PS
Today GS Yuasa Technology announced that they will start production of the first batch of submarine LIB used for 27SS in the next month.[2]
[2]http://www.gs-yuasa.com/webdata/img/gs170211450409/pdf_gs_170209501220.pdf
@Pete:
I haven't been keeping up on the comments - while it seems clear that LIB would have a greater energy capacity than LAB, how do the two compare in terms of charge time? IE, if I have to charge only 10 times versus 60, that is an advantage assuming the time needed to charge is similar. If I take twice as long to charge my LIB bank versus LAB, my indiscretion time is 1/3 that of LAB. Not to say that LIB is not advantageous, I just was wondering if anyone had any guesses on the charge rate of the batteries (this would vary with the installed diesel power obviously) since that would be a big component of the indiscretion rate of a single patrol.
Cheers,
Josh
GS Yuasa, the same manufacturer responsible for the Boeing 787 Lithium battery fiasco. I hope this time around, folks have looked MUCH closer at the risks of fire and run away.
In sail boats, you can charge faster LIB than LAB but you need to have very high current alternators which means bigger generators. That is probably why the Soryu LIB have bigger exhausts.
KQN
Hi Anonymous [at 21/2/17 11:11 PM]
Thanks for the correction. I have changed the article text accordingly.
Regards
Pete
Hi Wispywood2344
Re: "Japanese submarine LIB module is "3-parallel / 10-series (3P10S)" type.
So the nominal voltage of it is around 40V.
[1] http://blog.livedoor.jp/wispywood2344/archives/55579874.html "
Good natured discussion with Anonymous may be required :)
Thankyou for
"Today GS Yuasa Technology announced that they will start production of the first batch of submarine LIB used for 27SS in the next month.[2]
[2] http://www.gs-yuasa.com/webdata/img/gs170211450409/pdf_gs_170209501220.pdf "
Though http://www.gs-yuasa.com/webdata/img/gs170211450409/pdf_gs_170209501220.pdf is in Japanese it can be translated with Google Translate.
Regards
Pete
Hi Josh
I don't know the answers to your questions.
The Anonymous who provided the data used in Table 1 may be able to respond.
Regards
Pete
Hi Pete
I adopt the arrangement of 12-raw by 24-coluumn of LIB-modules (each LIB-module houses 10 battery packs, each battery pack consist of 3 single batteries).
There are two possible model of connection, i.e., 3P10S type (3 single batteries connected in paralle, 10 battery packs connected in series) and 3S10S type (3 single batteries connected in series, 10 battery packs connected in series).
In 3P10S type, voltage is nearly same as that of LABs, and existing electric system without change. Parallel connection of single batteries is effective to prevent polar inversion at recharge. That’s why I used to support 3P10S type.
But, circuit breaker was altered, suggesting implicitly significant inclease in voltage, and likely model is 3S10S type rather than 3P10S type. Issue of polarity inversion can be fixed by setting controller in battery pack or using other equipment. Voltage of 3S10 type is significantly higher than that of 3P10S type.
Regards
Hi Pete
As reference case, charge times of LAB and LIB are 5-10 hours (0.2C-0.1C) and 1-2 hours (0.5-1C), respectively.
Regards
Thanks Anonymous [at 22/2/17 9:28 PM]
I've placed those figures in Table 1.
Regards
Pete
Hi Pete.
In various official documents about the JMSDF submarines and their LIBs, following 7 facts are clearly stated;
=====
A : The anode material of the LIB is carbon.
B : A battery pack is consisted of 3 cells.
C : A LIB module includes 10 battery packs.
D : In a LIB module, there are 10 voltage measuring points to monitor each battery pack.
E : In a LIB module, all battery packs are connected in series.
F : The maximum input voltage of a motor-driving-inverter-group of 27SS is near to that of 26SS.[1]
G : There are 320 LIB modules in a battery group of 27SS.
=====
Based on these facts, let's think about the electrical connection in a battery group of 27SS;
I : "A" means that LTO is not used in the anode, therefore the maximum charging voltage per cell is at least 3.5V.
II : "B" , "C" and "D" mean that the internal connection in a battery pack is "3P".[2]
III : (II) and "E" mean that a LIB module is "3P10S" type.
IV : (I) and (III) mean that the maximum charging voltage per LIB module is at least 35V.
V : "F" means that the maximum operation (charging) voltage of a LIB-module-row of 27SS is near to that of a LAB-module-row of 26SS.[3]
VI : (IV) and (V) mean that 16 LIB modules are connected in series in a LIB-module-row.
From (VI) and "G", it is concluded that the electrical connection in a battery group of 27SS is "16rows-20columns".
[1]See schematic diagrams of the electric propulsion system.
26SS http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/wispywood2344/imgs/f/0/f04e4b6b.png
27SS http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/wispywood2344/imgs/3/1/3126e4b7.png
[2]If the internal connection in a battery pack is "3S", it is necessary for safety to measure the voltage of each 3 cells in a battery pack, so there must be 30 voltage measuring points in a LIB module.
[3]It is obvious because all Soryus use the same diesel generators.
Regards
Wispywood2344
Hi Wispywood2344 [at 24/2/17 12:05 AM]
Thanks for the information and your analysis.
I must admit I cannot understand submarine battery and electrical technology. But many readers will be able to understant it.
Regards
Pete
Hi Pete 24/2/17 12:05 AM
Unless alternation of cuircuit breaker means alternation of its testing voltage, concept of unchanged maximum input voltage of a motor-driving-inverter-group and 3P10S is reasonable.
I calculated the minimum height of fore battery section (5 in figure [1]) for 16-raw model of LABs based on various values [2]. The calculated iminimum height seems to be too high to realize heights of control and radio sections (3 and 4 in figure [1]) informed by pictures or viedeos.
[1]https://gentleseas.blogspot.jp/search?updated-min=2015-12-31T05:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2016-09-26T19:27:00%2B10:00&max-results=50&start=56&by-date=false
"Pressure Hull Alloys Debate: Titanium Alloy versus Steel Alloy” Cutaway diagram of Soryu submarine
[2]Size of beam, thickness of sound absorber on hull, thickness of hull, height of hull stiffener, thickness of two floors of control and radio sections, dimension and arrangment of LABs.
Regards
Hi Anonymous [at 25/2/17 1:04 AM]
To argue the physical-arrangement of battery modules in a battery room of Soryu Mk.2, we should be aware of these 2 facts;
A : "Electrical connection of battery modules in the electrical propulsion system" and "physical arrangement of battery modules in a battery room" are not synoymous.
B : Inner-hull structure (dimensions of each section) of Soryu Mk.1 is already known, but that of Soryu Mk.2 is still unknown.
Regards
Wispywood2344
Hi Pete and Wispywood2344 [25/2/17 7:05 PM]
A: Agree
I do not think that physical arrangement of battery modules in a battery room uniquely determines electrical connection of battery modules in the electrical propulsion system.
B: Partialy agree
I do not think that inner and outer diameters of ring shaped hull stiffener alter for Soryu MK2. If these diameters change, whole design of submarine should be reviewed, it is beyond the scope of modification.
Bay the way, I am guessing that increase in numbers of LIBs does not explain the weight gain of 29SS, and I assume increase in numbers of hull stiffener which can explain the weight gain.
Regards
Hi Anonymous [at 25/2/17 1:04 AM]
Tanks for your comments.
A more specific address for ""Pressure Hull Alloys Debate: Titanium Alloy versus Steel Alloy” Cutaway diagram of Soryu submarine" is https://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2016/09/pressure-hull-alloys-debate-titanium.html ,
Regards
Pete
Hi Wispywood2344 [at 25/2/17 7:05 PM]
Thanks also for your comments. You are helping make matters of batteries and electricals clearer to readers.
Regards
Pete
Hi Pete
I correct nominal voltage for unit battery-module in Table 1 (before correction 108V, after correction 36V).
For convenient understanding, I explain background of discussions on connection and arrangement of LABs/LIBs.
One of important features of Soryu submarine is adoption of Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor (PMSM) [1] drived by alternative current (AC). Then, direct current (DC) from battery system is converted into AC by inverter with specified voltage range. Voltage of battery system must be within this voltage range. In the case of 26SS equipped with LABs in two identical battery sections, LAB-modules are connected in series in each section. In the case of 27SS equipped with LIBs, if LIB-modules are connected in series like LAB-modules, voltage of LIB sytem is considerably higher than the voltage range of inverter. New connection of battery system is designed.
[1] http://www.microchip.com/design-centers/motor-control-and-drive/motor-types/pmsm
Regards
Hi Anonymous [at 26/2/17 8:57 PM]
Thanks - I have changed Table 1 accordingly.
Thanks also for the Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor (PMSM) information. Here is a photo of a PMSM of the type that may go into Australia's Shortfin future submarine https://www.echodeschtis.com/region/maubeuge-et-ses-environs/jeumont/vente-exceptionnelle-de-douze-sous-marins-en-australie-jeumont-electric-participera-a-leur-construction-146793.php
Regards
Pete
Hi Pete
I have got new image of structure of 27SS (LIB-Soryu) by considering various factors on battery arrangement including effectiveness of space use, vertical balance of stray magnetic field and lowering of gravity center. While 26SS (LAB-AIP-Soryu) consists of six compartments as show in figure [1], I think 27SS consists of five compartments like Oyashio whose structure lacks Starling Generators (9) and LOx Tanks/Cold Boxes (10). Oyashio equips with 20-column by 12-raw of 240-battery modules in each battery section (5, 8), and 27SS may equip with 20-, 24- or 28-colunm by 12-raw in each battery section (5, 8).
[1]http://gentleseas.blogspot.jp/2016/09/pressure-hull-alloys-debate-titanium.html
"Pressure Hull Alloys Debate: Titanium Alloy versus Steel Alloy” Cutaway diagram of Soryu submarine
Regards
Hi Anonymous [at 28/2/17 8:26 PM]
Thanks for the info. Your reasons for a 5 compartment 27SS look logical.
Regards
Pete
Hi Pete
I am expecting that sturucture of 27SS is resemble to, but shorter than that of SEA1000 concept [1] which consist of five sections. Comparison SEA1000 [1] with 26SS [2] may provide clear image on 27SS.
[1] http://defense-studies.blogspot.jp/2015/10/japan-offers-advanced-science-to-build.html
SEA1000 concept from Japan at PACIFIC 2015 (photo : Navy Recognition)
[2]http://gentleseas.blogspot.jp/2016/09/pressure-hull-alloys-debate-titanium.html
"Pressure Hull Alloys Debate: Titanium Alloy versus Steel Alloy” Cutaway diagram of Soryu submarine
Regards
Hi Pete
I assumed operation (70days-operation = 20days-travel + 50days-surveillance) by using two model submarines with same dimension based on J-submarine which adopts three shift work system; type 1 (AIP for 30days-submerge, 480LABs) and type 2 (non-AIP, 600LIBs).
I assumed followings: i) 70% of liquid oxygen (LOx) is consumed in surveillance period (this amount corresponds to 20days-submerge), ii) 30% of LOx is not consumed, iii) AIP and LAB operations are repeated, iv) each shift equlity shares recharge of LABs, v) maximam surbmerge periods are 1 and 6 days for LAB and LIB, respectively.
In this case, recharge of AIP-LAB submarine may be conducted once every 1-1.5 days, and LIB-submarine achieves performance of this level.
I do not think that 70% of LOx is consumed within first 20days in 50days-surveillance and that reacharge at every shift is conducted fot remaining 30days.
Japan offered TLO (lithium titanate) LIBs. Energy density of TLO is twice of LABs, and not high as a LIB. But, TLO shows excellent saty and exremely long life. TLO may operate for 30 years without battery exchange, and cheaper than LAB in terms of life cycle cost. Japan considered maintenance and budget situations of Australia very well. Japan did not think to earn money in the submarine deal at all.
Regards
Hi Anonymous [at 16/3/17 8:30 PM]
Thanks for the data/estimates.
It would best if we could turn it into a new (assuming 70 day mission) performance table.
It will take considerable effort. But will be worth it.
I will start building a table tomorrow.
Regards
Pete
Hi Pete
As AIP submerge period of Soryu MKI (AIP-LABs) is said to be as short as two weeks, AIP is possiblily not used for ordinary operation. But it does not mean AIP is useless, because Soryu MKI can submerge for two weak, only one time.
Reason why JMSDF gave up AIP for Soryu MKII (LIBs) are not clear. Possible reasons are i) bad endurance of Soryu (AIP-LABs) thanks to two huge LOx tanks, ii) low frequency of AIP use, iii) complexed operation of diesel generation-AIP-LABs, and iv) demand for high speed performance, etc.
Tweleve years ago, JMSDF demonstrated that energy density of protype LIBs showed twice higher than that of LABs. LIBs for Soryu MKII are obviously much better than thier protype.
Regards
Hi Pete
Though combination of AIP and LIBs is attractive, AIP is excluded in Soryu MKII. JMSDF gave priority to increased LIBs (+40%) than AIP. This selection maybe based on low utitization ration of AIP and needs of high speed performance.
Through anylsis of submarine performance under water, I found strange fact, i.e., performance of Shortfin.
TYPE 216 and J-sub equipped with FC-AIP/LIBs and LIBs may show excellent indiscretion ratio such as once-2days-recharge or better within shorter period. These two submarines are based on existing submarines with poven performance.
If Shorfin equips with only LABs, question arises on selection, because its indiscretion reatio is worth such as at least once-half day, and is paper plan. Also, a senior officer said there was no SSN plan, because Australia had not nuclear facilities or engineers.
I am very interested in whether DCN proposed LAB-only-submarine or better submarine (FC-LABs, FC-LIBs or LIBs), because long development time can hide inconvenient facts by addition of better performance.
People may say Austria is very clean on business. May be it is true. But, I remember recent cases of DCN/Malaysia and TKMS/Israel submarine businesses.
Regards
Hi Pete
I was doubtful the opinion of JMSDF that Soryu was a best convensinal submarine. But, now I change my mind. JMSDF is right.
Judging form various informations, Soryu submerges much deeper than any European submarine, is quite and has powerful torpedo.
Regards
Nice informative blog.
Post a Comment