Results for “Fluid management” — Page 11

NASA NTRS1989

CryoTran user's manual, version 1.0

The development of cryogenic fluid management systems for space operation is a major portion of the efforts of the Cryogenic Fluids Technology Office (CFTO) at the NASA Lewis Research Center. Analytical models are a necessary part of experimental programs which are used to verify the results of experiments and are also used as a predictor for parametric studies. The CryoTran computer program is a bridge to obtain analytical results. The object of CryoTran is to coordinate these separate analyses into an integrated framework with a user-friendly interface and a common cryogenic property database. CryoTran is an integrated software system designed to help solve a diverse set of problems involving cryogenic fluid storage and transfer in both ground and low-g environments.

Cowgill, Glenn R.↗

NASA NTRS2019

LTF/Fluid and Cryogenic Systems Branch

Functions of the Branch: Cross-Cutting Fluids Engineering; Research and Technology Development of Cryogenic Fluid Management (CFM) Systems; Component and System level; Design, Development Test and Evaluation (DDT&E) for Fluid, CFM, Propellant and Gaseous Systems; Fluid Component Specification and Selection; Code Compliance of Pressurized Systems; Fluid/Cryogenic System Performance Analysis and Trade Studies; Hazards Analysis and Risk Assessment of Fluidic Systems; Fluids Modeling and Simulation Capabilities

Fluid↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development and Validation of Two-Phase CFD Models for Key Elements of Propellant Tank CFM Operations in 1G and Microgravity – An Overview

This paper presents an overview of the state-of-the-art two-phase CFD models that have been developed for various propellant tank storage and transfer operations in 1g, partial gravity and microgravity. The models are developed in the framework of the industry standard ANSYS/Fluent CFD code, the capabilities of which have been significantly enhanced and customized through incorporation of unique submodels via User Defined Functions (UDF)s to satisfy the requirements of its intended variable gravity Cryogenic Fluid Management (CFM) applications. These models/submodels have been validated against experimental data that cross spatial scales, fluid types, and gravity levels in order to properly anchor the models’ physical and numerical fidelity. The CFM application/processes that have been modeled include tank self-pressurization, tank autogenous pressurization, tank pressure control using both subcooled jet mixing and droplet spray injection mechanisms, tank chilldown/filling, tank drainage, tank slosh for both volatile and non-volatile fluids. The strength and shortcomings of the two-phase models for each application is highlighted and discussed briefly.

Propellant Storage & Pressure Control↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development and Validation of Two-Phase CFD Models for Key Elements of Propellant Tank CFM Operations in 1G and Microgravity –An Overview

This paper presents an overview of the state-of-the-art two-phase CFD models that have been developed for various propellant tank storage and transfer operations in 1g, partial gravity, and microgravity. The models are developed in the framework of the industry standard ANSYS/Fluent CFD code, the capabilities of which have been significantly enhanced and customized through the incorporation of unique submodels via User Defined Functions (UDF)s to satisfy the requirements of its intended variable gravity Cryogenic Fluid Management (CFM) applications. These models/submodels have been validated against experimental data that cross spatial scales, fluid types, and gravity levels in order to properly anchor the models’ physical and numerical fidelity. The CFM application/processes that have been modeled include tank self-pressurization, tank autogenous pressurization, tank pressure control using both subcooled jet mixing and droplet spray injection mechanisms, tank chilldown/filling, tank drainage, tank slosh for both volatile and non-volatile fluids. The strength and shortcomings of the two-phase models for each application are highlighted and discussed briefly.

Computational Fluid Dynamics↗

NASA NTRS2006

Liquid Hydrogen Sensor Considerations for Space Exploration

The on-orbit management of liquid hydrogen planned for the return to the moon will introduce new considerations not encountered in previous missions. This paper identifies critical liquid hydrogen sensing needs from the perspective of reliable on-orbit cryogenic fluid management, and contrasts the fundamental differences in fluid and thermodynamic behavior for ground-based versus on-orbit conditions. Opportunities for advanced sensor development and implementation are explored in the context of critical Exploration Architecture operations such as on-orbit storage, docking, and trans-lunar injection burn. Key sensing needs relative to these operations are also examined, including: liquid/vapor detection, thermodynamic condition monitoring, mass gauging, and leak detection. Finally, operational aspects of an integrated system health management approach are discussed to highlight the potential impact on mission success.

Moran, Matthew E.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Feasibility and Utility of a Cryogenic Integrated RCS

Traditional in-space propulsion systems use storable propellants, such as MMH/NTO, for applications beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Modern advancements in Cryogenic Fluid Management (CFM) technologies opens the door for use of more efficient cryogenic propellants, such as LOX/LCH4 or LOX/LH2, in these long-duration missions beyond LEO. As these Main Propulsion Systems (MPS) transition to cryogenic propellants, a cryogenic solution for Reaction Control Systems (RCS) becomes attractive for several reasons. A mixed-fluid vehicle solution with cryogenic (cool) MPS and storable (warm) RCS complicates thermal management. Additionally, a vehicle with common cryogenic propellant across the MPS and RCS could take advantage of shared hardware such as tanks, thermal management equipment, and pressurization system, reducing mass and development time. The fluid system design proposed in this presentation features shared hardware, leading to the designation of Cryogenic Integrated Reaction Control System (iRCS). The iRCS design stores cryogenic propellant in the low-pressure (10’s psia) MPS tanks, creates steady high-pressure (100’s psia) flow through an electric pump (e-pump), feeds pulse-firing RCS thrusters, and returns any excess flow to the tank through a pressure control device on a recirculation line. This iRCS design is inspired by the automotive fuel-rail, where similar elevated-pressure and pulse-firing requirements are levied. This design has several inherent advantages. Because this design is pump-fed rather than pressure-fed, heavy, high-pressure propellant storage is not required. The RCS propellant can therefore be stored by increasing MPS tank volume. Furthermore, by increasing the pressure of the circulated fluid through an e-pump, the propellant quality moves further into the sub-cooled regime. Sub-cooled liquid is desirable for accurate pressure and flow control at the thruster inlet. Lastly, the iRCS allows the distribution system hardware to maintain cryogenic temperatures by slowly recirculating liquid in a low-energy “Idle Mode”. Altogether, the iRCS concept enables a more efficient cryogenic vehicle design.

Integrated Reaction Control System↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Feasibility and Utility of a Cryogenic Integrated RCS

Traditional in-space propulsion systems use storable propellants, such as MMH/NTO, for applications beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Modern advancements in Cryogenic Fluid Management (CFM) technologies opens the door for use of more efficient cryogenic propellants, such as LOX/LCH4 or LOX/LH2, in these long-duration missions beyond LEO. As these Main Propulsion Systems (MPS) transition to cryogenic propellants, a cryogenic solution for Reaction Control Systems (RCS) becomes attractive for several reasons. A mixed-fluid vehicle solution with cryogenic (cool) MPS and storable (warm) RCS complicates thermal management. Additionally, a vehicle with common cryogenic propellant across the MPS and RCS could take advantage of shared hardware such as tanks, thermal management equipment, and pressurization system, reducing mass and development time. The fluid system design proposed in this presentation features shared hardware, leading to the designation of Cryogenic Integrated Reaction Control System (iRCS). The iRCS design stores cryogenic propellant in the low-pressure (10’s psia) MPS tanks, creates steady high-pressure (100’s psia) flow through an electric pump (e-pump), feeds pulse-firing RCS thrusters, and returns any excess flow to the tank through a pressure control device on a recirculation line. This iRCS design is inspired by the automotive fuel-rail, where similar elevated-pressure and pulse-firing requirements are levied. This design has several inherent advantages. Because this design is pump-fed rather than pressure-fed, heavy, high-pressure propellant storage is not required. The RCS propellant can therefore be stored by increasing MPS tank volume. Furthermore, by increasing the pressure of the circulated fluid through an e-pump, the propellant quality moves further into the sub-cooled regime. Sub-cooled liquid is desirable for accurate pressure and flow control at the thruster inlet. Lastly, the iRCS allows the distribution system hardware to maintain cryogenic temperatures by slowly recirculating liquid in a low-energy “Idle Mode”. Altogether, the iRCS concept enables a more efficient cryogenic vehicle design.

Integrated↗

NASA NTRS2010

Effectiveness of Needleless Vial Adaptors and Blunt Cannulas for Drug Administration in a Microgravity Environment

Fluid Isolation in the medication vial: Air/ fluid isolation maneuvers were used to move the medication to the septum end of vial. This isolation may be achieved in multiple ways based on the experience of the astronaut with fluid management in microgravity. If vial adaptors/blunt cannula or syringe assembly is inserted into the to vial before fluid isolation commences, the stability of this assembly should be considered in an effort to limit the risk of "slinging off" of the vial during isolation. Alternatively, fluid isolation can be performed prior to attaching the syringe/vial adaptor assembly. Terrestrial practices for medication withdrawal from a nonvented vial require injection of an equivalent amount of air as the expected medication volume prior to withdrawing liquid. In microgravity, this action is still valid, however the injection of additional air into the vial creates a multitude of micro bubbles and increases the volume of medication mixed with air that then must be withdrawn to achieve the desired drug volume in syringe. This practice is more likely to be required when using vials >30ml in size and injection volumes >10mL. It is felt that based on the microgravity flight, the practice of air injection is more of a hindrance than help.

Hailey, M.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

Cameron J. Hines↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boiloff Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗

NASA NTRS2025

Simulations of Large-Scale Zero Boiloff, Densification, and Solidification of Hydrogen

An Integrated Refrigeration and Storage (IRAS) experimental system called the Ground Operations and Demonstration Unit for Liquid Hydrogen (GODU-LH2) demonstrated the ability store cryogens in a zero boiloff (ZBO) process, and to densify liquid hydrogen by reducing the temperature and pressure down to the triple point resulting in solidification. The incompressible Navier-Stokes was utilized to simulate ZBO, densification, and solidification of liquid hydrogen (LH2) in the IRAS tank. The simulations were performed using a commercially available Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) pressure-based mass and momentum flow model and an enthalpy-porosity energy model. Results demonstrated the simulation’s ability to predict time-dependent flow and temperature fields and solid-liquid phase locations for hydrogen during ZBO, densification, and solidification. The simulations showed good agreement with experimental data, with errors within acceptable ranges for temperature and pressure predictions, provided detailed insights into natural convection and solid-liquid phase change dynamics. These findings are critical for the design of future cryogenic fluid management systems.

Computational Fluid Dynamics↗

NASA NTRS1996

Interface Configuration Experiments (ICE) Explore the Effects of Microgravity on Fluids

The Interface Configuration Experiment (ICE) is actually a series of experiments that explore the striking behavior of liquid-vapor interfaces (i.e., fluid surfaces) in a low gravity environment under which major shifts in liquid position can arise from small changes in container shape or contact angle. Although these experiments are designed to test current mathematical theory, there are numerous practical applications that could result from these studies. When designing fluid management systems for space-based operations, it is important to be able to predict the locations and configurations that fluids will assume in containers under low-gravity conditions. The increased ability to predict, and hence control, fluid interfaces is vital to systems and/or processes where capillary forces play a significant role both in space and on the Earth. Some of these applications are in general coating processes (paints, pesticides, printing, etc.), fluid transport in porous media (ground water flows, oil recovery, etc.), liquid propellant systems in space (liquid fuel and oxygen), capillary-pumped loops and heat pipes, and space-based life-support systems. In space, almost every fluid system is affected, if not dominated, by capillarity. Knowledge of the liquid-vapor interface behavior, and in particular the interface shape from which any analysis must begin, is required as a foundation to predict how these fluids will react in microgravity and on Earth. With such knowledge, system designs can be optimized, thereby decreasing costs and complexity, while increasing performance and reliability. ICE has increased, and will continue to increase this knowledge, as it probes the specific peculiarities of current theory upon which our current understanding of these effects is based. Several versions of ICE were conducted in NASA Lewis Research Center's drop towers and on the space shuttle during the first and second United States Microgravity Laboratory missions (USML-1 and USML-2). Additional tests are planned for the space shuttle and for the Russian Mir space station. These studies will focus on interfacial problems concerning surface existence, uniqueness, configuration, stability, and flow characteristics.

Source record↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling Self-Pressurization and Spray Bar Pressure Control of A Cryogenic Storage Tank in Normal Gravity

This paper presents computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models for simulating self-pressurization and spray-bar pressure control processes in a large-scale liquid hydrogen storage tank under normal gravity conditions. For self-pressurization, the model employs the kinetics-based Schrage equation alongside the volume-of-fluid (VOF) method to account for interfacial mass transfer. The CFD predictions of pressure and temperature are compared with experimental data from the Multipurpose Hydrogen Test Bed (MHTB) experiment, and the predicted interfacial mass transfer rates are also presented. A CFD model simulating pressure control using a spray bar has also been developed. An Eulerian-Lagrangian approach models the interactions between discrete droplets and the continuous ullage (vapor) phase. The spray model is coupled with the VOF method by tracking droplets in the ullage and removing them when they reach the liquid interface. The T-sat model calculates droplet-ullage heat and mass transfer, where droplets warm up to the saturation temperature corresponding to the ullage vapor pressure before evaporating while remaining at the saturation temperature. The evolution of tank pressure, vapor temperature, and liquid temperature predicted by the CFD model is validated against data from the MHTB spray-bar mixing experiment. Overall, the CFD models agree with experimental data, demonstrating their capability to simulate self-pressurization and pressure control processes in large-scale cryogenic storage tanks. These models can be valuable tools for designing and optimizing cryogenic fluid management systems in future applications.

Computational Fluid Dynamics↗

NASA NTRS2004

Current Status of Joint AFRL/NASA Microgravity Spray Cooling Research Activities

The Air Force Research Lab and the NASA Glenn Research Center are cooperatively examining spray cooling in a low and a variable gravity environment by conducting experiments principally aboard the NASA Reduced Gravity Aircraft. The objective of these research activities is to examine an effective high-heat flux, high-power thermal management technology using spray cooling for both aircraft and space-based platforms. Previous studies have demonstrated that two phase heat transfer and fluid management are issues that need to be examined. This effort has obtained preliminary results which confirm these concerns. More research is planned.

Michalak, Travis↗

NASA NTRS2000

Magnetically Actuated Propellant Orientation, Controlling Fluids in a Low-Gravity Environment

Cryogenic fluid management (CFM) is a technology area common to virtually every space transportation propulsion concept envisioned. Storage, supply, transfer and handling of sub-critical cryogenic fluids are basic capabilities that have long been needed by multiple programs and the need is expected to continue in the future. The use of magnetic fields provides another method, which could replace or augment current/traditional approaches, potentially simplifying vehicle operational constraints. The magnetically actuated propellant orientation (MAPO) program effort focused on the use of magnetic fields to control fluid motion as it relates to positioning (i.e. orientation and acquisition) of a paramagnetic substance such as LO2. Current CFM state- of-the-art systems used to control and acquire propellant in low gravity environments rely on liquid surface tension devices which employ vanes, fine screen mesh channels and baskets. These devices trap and direct propellant to areas where it's needed and have been used routinely with storable (non-cryogenic) propellants. However, almost no data exists r,egarding their operation in cryogenics and the use of such devices confronts designers with a multitude of significant technology issues. Typical problems include a sensitivity to screen dry out (due to thermal loads and pressurant gas) and momentary adverse accelerations (generated from either internal or external sources). Any of these problems can potentially cause the acquisition systems to ingest or develop vapor and fail. The use of lightweight high field strength magnets may offer a valuable means of augmenting traditional systems potentially mitigating or at least easing operational requirements. Two potential uses of magnetic fields include: 1) strategically positioning magnets to keep vent ports clear of liquid (enabling low G vented fill operations), and 2) placing magnets in the center or around the walls of the tank to create an insulating vapor pocket (between the liquid and the tank wall) which could effectively lower heat transfer to the liquid (enabling increased storage time).

Martin, James J.↗

NASA NTRS1981

An experiment to evaluate liquid hydrogen storage in space

The design and verification of a Cryogenic Fluid Management Experiment for orbital operation on the Shuttle is described. The experiment will furnish engineering data to establish design criteria for storage and supply of cryogenic fluids, mainly hydrogen, for use in low gravity environments. The apparatus comprises an LAD (liquid acquisition device) and a TVS (thermodynamic vent system). The hydrogen will be either vented or forced out by injected helium and the flow rates will be monitored. The data will be compared with ground-based simulations to determine optimal flow rates for the pressurizing gas and the release of the cryogenic fluid. It is noted that tests on a one-g, one-third size LAD system are under way.

Eberhardt, R. N.↗

NASA NTRS1991

CFM technology needs for future space transportation systems

Several technological capabilities must be developed to realize the vision of the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI). Cryogenic fluid management (CFM) is one technology area common to virtually every space transportation propulsion concept envisioned. The physics of storage, supply, transfer, and handling of subcritical cryogenic fluids in the reduced gravity environment of space present fundamental challenges. The CFM state of the art relative to future mission requirements is reviewed and associated technology challenges are outlined.

Hastings, L. J.↗