Results for “cooling tower” — Page 11

DOE OSTI2025

Combining Eddy Covariance Towers, Field Measurements, and the MEMS 2 Ecosystem Model Improves Confidence in the Climate Impacts of Bioenergy With Carbon Capture and Storage

ABSTRACT Carbon dioxide removal technologies such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) are required if the effects of climate change are to be reversed over the next century. However, BECCS demands extensive land use change that may create positive or negative radiative forcing impacts upstream of the BECCS facility through changes to in situ greenhouse gas fluxes and land surface albedo. When quantifying these upstream climate impacts, even at a single site, different methods can give different estimates. Here we show how three common methods for estimating the net ecosystem carbon balance of bioenergy crops established on former grassland or former cropland can differ in their central estimates and uncertainty. We place these net ecosystem carbon balance forcings in the context of associated radiative forcings from changes to soil N 2 O and CH 4 fluxes, land surface albedo, embedded fossil fuel use, and geologically stored carbon. Results from long term eddy covariance measurements, a soil and plant carbon inventory, and the MEMS 2 process‐based ecosystem model all agree that establishing perennials such as switchgrass or mixed prairie on former cropland resulted in net negative radiative forcing (i.e., global cooling) of −26.5 to −39.6 fW m −2 over 100 years. Establishing these perennials on former grassland sites had similar climate mitigation impacts of −19.3 to −42.5 fW m −2 . However, the largest climate mitigation came from establishing corn for BECCS on former cropland or grassland, with radiative forcings from −38.4 to −50.5 fW m −2 , due to its higher plant productivity and therefore more geologically stored carbon. Our results highlight the strengths and limitations of each method for quantifying the field scale climate impacts of BECCS and show that utilizing multiple methods can increase confidence in the final radiative forcing estimates.

Falvo, Grant [Department of Plant, Soil and Microb↗

NASA NTRS2002

Evolution of Topography in Glaciated Mountain Ranges

This thesis examines the response of alpine landscapes to the onset of glaciation. The basic approach is to compare fluvial and glacial laudscapes, since it is the change from the former to the latter that accompanies climatic cooling. This allows a detailed evaluation of hypotheses relating climate change to tectonic processes in glaciated mountain belts. Fieldwork was carried out in the eastern Sierra Nevada, California, and the Sangre de Cristo Range, Colorado, alongside digital elevation model analyses in the western US, the Southern Alps of New Zealand, and the Himalaya of northwestern Pakistan. hypothesis is overstated in its appeal to glacial erosion as a major source of relief production and subsequent peak uplift. Glaciers in the eastern Sierra Nevada and the western Sangre de Cristos have redistributed relief, but have produced only modest relief by enlarging drainage basins at the expense of low-relief topography. Glaciers have lowered valley floors and ridgelines by similar amounts, limiting the amount of "missing mass' that can be generated, and causing a decrease in drainage basin relief. The principal response of glaciated landscapes to rapid rock uplift is the development of towering cirque headwalls. This represents considerable relief production, but is not caused by glacial erosion alone. Large valley glaciers can maintain their low gradient regardless of uplift rate, which supports the "glacial buzzsaw" hypothesis. However, the inability of glaciers to erode steep hillslopes as rapidly can cause mean elevations to rise. Cosmogenic isotope dating is used to show that (i) where plucking is active, the last major glaciation removed sufficient material to reset the cosmogenic clock; and (ii) former glacial valley floors now stranded near the crest of the Sierra Nevada are at varying stages of abandonment, suggesting a cycle of drainage reorganiszation and relief inversion due to glacial erosion similar to that observed in river networks. Glaciated landscapes are quite distinct from their fluvial counterparts in both landforms and processes. Given the scarcity of purely fluvial, active mountain ranges, it is essential that glacial erosion be considered amongst the processes sculpting active orogenic belts.

Brocklehurst, Simon H.↗

DOE OSTI2020

Thermal shock resistance of multilayer silicon carbide receiver tubes for 800°C molten salt concentrating solar power application

CSP power tower receiver systems during rapid transient weather periods can be vulnerable to thermal shock conditions from rain that which can facilitate the onset of leaks and failures that can have catastrophic consequences. Silicon carbide (SiC) materials have attractive receiver application characteristics for being light weight, having high-strength and excellent thermal shock resistance performance which make them a particularly good fit for receiver absorber materials in CSP. In this investigation, the performance characteristics of Ceramic Tubular Products (CTP) SiC ceramic matrix composite (CMC), multilayered tubes were explored with respect to thermal shock performance for solar receiver applications in next generation CSP plants. Here, thermal shock testing was performed at the Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) Solar Furnace facility using a dynamic stage and thermal shock tube test setup. The tubes tested under incident solar heat flux of 100 W/cm2 were heated with inner tube temperatures reaching approximately 800 °C, with outer temperatures exceeding or just reaching 1000 El for the multilayer and monolithic SiC tubes respectively. The tubes were then quenched with simulated rain. The tubes were then cooled and subjected to hoop stress analysis using an Instron device to assess their subsequent mechanical strength. Furthermore, the on-sun study experimental results indicate an average of 24.2% and 97% higher hoop strength for the CMC tubes than those composed of monolithic SiC and aluminum oxide (A1203) respectively.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Initial Evaluation of CropManage Decision-Support Model for Vineyard ET Estimation

The CropManage(CM) decision-support web application was originally developed by U.C. Cooperative Extension to support evapotranspiration (ET) based irrigation scheduling and nutrient management of cool-season vegetables. The model uses prescribed crop phenology curves to develop daily estimates of fractional green canopy cover (Fc) within the field. Periodic Fc observations acquired by ground-based methods or imported from NASA’s Satellite Irrigation Management Support (SIMS) can be used to adjust the prescribed timeseries for such factors as weather anomalies or non-standard agronomic practice, as needed. Fc is then converted to daily crop coefficient (fraction of reference ET) values. The crop coefficient is combined with reference evapotranspiration, collected by the California Irrigation Management Information System, to derive daily ET estimates for the given field. Irrigation runtime recommendations are issued for a given date based on total ET since the last irrigation event (less any rainfall), and corrected for distribution uniformity of the water delivery system. In this project, CM was adapted to vineyards by adding sub-models to account for early-season depletion of stored soil moisture, cover crop presence, and intentional water stress. An initial trial was performed on a Central Coast winegrape vineyard, where an eddy covariance tower measured daily ET during from May-Dec 2020. Total ET for the period showed strong agreement between the tower-based measurements (443 mm) and the CM model (431 mm). The model tended to overestimate cumulative ET during mid-June by up to 30 mm (about 15%) and later underestimated cumulative ET by as much as 65 mm (about 23%) in late September, suggesting that additional model calibration is needed to improve simulation of within-season variability. Results will be reported for trials on additional vineyard sites conducted during the 2021 season.

Evaluation↗

NASA NTRS1985

Shortwave infrared 512 x 2 line sensor for earth resources applications

As part of the NASA remote-sensing Multispectral Linear Array Program, an edge-buttable 512 x 2 IRCCD line image sensor with 30-micron Pd2Si Schottky-barrier detectors is developed for operation with passive cooling at 120 K in the 1.1-2.5 micron short infrared band. On-chip CCD multiplexers provide one video output for each 512 detector band. The monolithic silicon line imager performance at a 4-ms optical integration time includes a signal-to-noise ratio of 241 for irradiance of 7.2 microwatts/sq cm at 1.65 microns wavelength, a 5000 dynamic range, a modulation transfer function, greater than 60 percent at the Nyquist frequency, and an 18-milliwatt imager chip total power dissipation. Blemish-free images with three percent nonuniformity under illumination and nonlinearity of 1.25 percent are obtained. A five SWIR imager hybrid focal plane was constructed, demonstrating the feasibility of arrays with only a two-detector loss at each joint.

Tower, J. R.↗

NASA NTRS2016

NASA's Hydrogen Outpost: The Rocket Systems Area at Plum Brook Station

"There was pretty much a general knowledge about hydrogen and its capabilities," recalled former researcher Robert Graham. "The question was, could you use it in a rocket engine? Do we have the technology to handle it? How will it cool? Will it produce so much heat release that we can't cool the engine? These were the questions that we had to address." The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Glenn Research Center, referred to historically as the Lewis Research Center, made a concerted effort to answer these and related questions in the 1950s and 1960s. The center played a critical role transforming hydrogen's theoretical potential into a flight-ready propellant. Since then NASA has utilized liquid hydrogen to send humans and robots to the Moon, propel dozens of spacecraft across the universe, orbit scores of satellite systems, and power 135 space shuttle flights. Rocket pioneers had recognized hydrogen's potential early on, but its extremely low boiling temperature and low density made it impracticable as a fuel. The Lewis laboratory first demonstrated that liquid hydrogen could be safely utilized in rocket and aircraft propulsion systems, then perfected techniques to store, pump, and cleanly burn the fuel, as well as use it to cool the engine. The Rocket Systems Area at Lewis's remote testing area, Plum Brook Station, played a little known, but important role in the center's hydrogen research efforts. This publication focuses on the activities at the Rocket Systems Area, but it also discusses hydrogen's role in NASA's space program and Lewis's overall hydrogen work. The Rocket Systems Area included nine physically modest test sites and three test stands dedicated to liquid-hydrogen-related research. In 1962 Cleveland Plain Dealer reporter Karl Abram claimed, "The rocket facility looks more like a petroleum refinery. Its test rigs sprout pipes, valves and tanks. During the night test runs, excess hydrogen is burned from special stacks in the best Oklahoma oil field tradition." Besides the Rocket Systems Area, Plum Brook Station also included a nuclear test reactor, a large vacuum tank, a hypersonic wind tunnel, and a full-scale upper-stage rocket stand. The Rocket Systems Area operated from 1961 until NASA shut down all of Plum Brook in 1974. The center reopened Plum Brook in the late 1980s and continues to use several test facilities. The Rocket Systems Area, however, was not restored. Today Plum Brook resembles a nature preserve more than an oil refinery. Lush fields and forests separate the large test facilities. Until recently, the abandoned Rocket Systems Area structures and equipment were visible amongst the greenery. These space-age ruins, particularly the three towers, stood as silent sentinels over the sparsely populated reservation. Few knew the story of these mysterious facilities when NASA removed them in the late 2000s.

Rocket Systems↗

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-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↗