Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Tanks”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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↗
DOE OSTI2024

Waste Retrieval Enhancements to Achieve Preliminary Cease Waste Removal in Savannah River Site Liquid Waste Tanks 9H and 10H – 25348

The Liquid Waste (LW) contractor at the Savannah River Site (SRS) is Savannah River Mission Completion (SRMC). The LW Mission is tasked with processing legacy nuclear waste stored in underground waste tanks for final disposition. The Concentration, Storage, and Transfer Facilities (CSTF) contain 43 active waste tanks and 8 closed waste tanks between the two tank farms, F-Area Tank Farm (FTF) and H-Area Tank Farm (HTF). The first steps in the Waste Retrieval and Tank Closure (WRTC) process are the waste removal campaigns, consisting of either salt dissolution or sludge mobilization. Two tanks that are rapidly approaching the final closure determination and have demonstrated considerable success with salt dissolution are Tanks 9 and 10. The closure of these tanks is a high priority for the LW Mission due to the greater environmental risk they pose since both tanks reside within the water table and contain active leak sites from the primary tank to the annulus space. Tanks 9 and 10 have each recently completed their respective salt dissolution campaigns and achieved the Preliminary Cease Waste Removal (PCWR) milestone.

Stetson, Jacqueline G.↗
DOE OSTI2025

Integrity Monitoring, Prediction and Assessment, Corrosion Control, and Repair of the Hanford Storage Tanks – 25213

The Hanford Nuclear Reservation site contains approximately 211 million liters of radioactive and chemically hazardous waste arising from nuclear weapons production, beginning with World War II, and continuing through the Cold War [1]. The waste is stored in 177 carbon-steel underground storage tanks, of which 149 are single-shell tanks (SSTs) and the remaining are double-shell tanks (DSTs). The mission of an ongoing River Protection Project is to retrieve the waste from the underground storage tanks and then treat and immobilize (i.e., vitrify) it for disposal. Waste from the older SSTs is being progressively retrieved into the newer DSTs for storage pending treatment, immobilization, and disposal. Figure 1 depicts a typical DST design [2]. The tank is approximately 23 m in diameter and 9 m high and has a domed structure and has a capacity of 4000 m3. The tank wall and floor vary in thickness between approximately 10 mm and 25 mm depending on location. The thicker wall sections are near the curved transition between the tank wall and the floor, while the thinner sections are located near the top of the tank wall. The tank floor thickness varies from 25 mm at the tank center to 10 mm near the tank wall. The tanks were constructed of either ASTM A516 Grade 65 or ASTM A537 Class 1 carbon steel and were post-weld heat treated to reduce the risk of SCC.

Shukla, Pavan K. [Savannah River National Laborato↗
NASA NTRS2003

Strain-Gauge Measurement of Weight of Fluid in a Tank

A method of determining the amount of fluid in a tank is based on measurement of strains induced in tank supports by the weight of the fluid. Unlike most prior methods, this method is nonintrusive: there is no need to insert instrumentation in the tank and, hence, no need to run wires, cables, or tubes through the tank wall. Also unlike most prior methods, this method is applicable even if the fluid in the tank is at supercritical pressure and temperature, because it does not depend on the presence of a liquid/gas interface (as in liquid-level-measuring methods). The strain gauges used in this method are of two types: foil and fiber-optic. Four foil gauges and one or more fiber-optic gauges are mounted on each of the tank-supporting legs. An additional fiber-optic gauge is mounted on an object, made of the same material as that of the tank-supporting legs, that is not subjected to any mechanical load. The reading obtained by the additional fiber-optic gauge is used to compensate for apparent strains caused by changes in temperature. The signals from the foil and fiber-optic gauges are conditioned, then digitized for input to a computer. As the tank is filled or emptied, the deformation in each leg increases or decreases, respectively. Measured deformations of all legs are added to obtain a composite deformation indicative of the change in weight of the tank plus fluid. An initial calibration is performed by recording data at two points (usually, empty and full) for which the mass or weight of fluid is known. It is assumed that the deformations are elastic, so that the line passing through the two points can be used as a calibration curve of mass (or weight) of fluid versus deformation. At the time of reporting the information for this article, a set of foil gauges had been tested on the supports of a 500-gallon (1,900-liter) tank. The gauges were found to be capable of measuring the deformations (up to 22 microstrain) that occurred during filling and emptying the tank. The fluid masses calculated from the gauge readings were found to be accurate within 4.5 percent. It has been estimated that once the fiber-optic gauges are put into operation, it should be possible to determine fluid masses with 3 percent or less. It may be possible to increase accuracy further by increasing the signal-to-noise ratio through the use of more deformable tank supporting legs.

Figueroa, Jorge↗
NASA NTRS1992

Method of delivering lunar generated fluid to earth orbit using an external tank

A method and apparatus are provided for delivering lunar generated fluid to Earth orbit from lunar orbit. Transport takes place in an external tank of a shuttle which has been suitably outfitted in Earth orbit for reusable travel between Earth orbit and a lunar orbit. The outfitting of the external tank includes the adding of an engine, an electrical system, a communication system, a guidance system, an aerobraking device, and a plurality of interconnected fluid storage tanks to the hydrogen and oxygen tanks of the external tank. The external tank is then propelled to lunar orbit the first time using Earth-based propellant. In lunar orbit, the storage tanks are filled with the lunar generated fluid with the remainder tank volumes filled with lunar generated liquid oxygen and hydrogen which serve as propellants for returning the tank to Earth orbit where the fluid is off-loaded. The remaining lunar generated oxygen and hydrogen is then sufficient to return the external tank to lunar orbit so that a subsequent cycle of fluid delivery is repeated. A space station in a higher Earth orbit is preferably used to outfit the external tank, and a lunar node in lunar orbit is used to store and transfer the fluid and liquid oxygen and hydrogen to the external tank. The lunar generated fluid is preferably .sup.3 He.

Butterfield, Ansel J.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Liquid Hydrogen Propellant Tank Sub-Surface Pressurization with Gaseous Helium

A series of tests were conducted to evaluate the performance of a propellant tank pressurization system with the pressurant diffuser intentionally submerged beneath the surface of the liquid. Propellant tanks and pressurization systems are typically designed with the diffuser positioned to apply pressurant gas directly into the tank ullage space when the liquid propellant is settled. Space vehicles, and potentially propellant depots, may need to conduct tank pressurization operations in micro‐gravity environments where the exact location of the liquid relative to the diffuser is not well understood. If the diffuser is positioned to supply pressurant gas directly to the tank ullage space when the propellant is settled, then it may become partially or completely submerged when the liquid becomes unsettled in a microgravity environment. In such case, the pressurization system performance will be adversely affected requiring additional pressurant mass and longer pressurization times. This series of tests compares and evaluates pressurization system performance using the conventional method of supplying pressurant gas directly to the propellant tank ullage, and then supplying pressurant gas beneath the liquid surface. The pressurization tests were conducted on the Engineering Development Unit (EDU) located at Test Stand 300 at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). EDU is a ground based Cryogenic Fluid Management (CFM) test article supported by Glenn Research Center (GRC) and MSFC. A 150 ft3 propellant tank was filled with liquid hydrogen (LH2). The pressurization system used regulated ambient helium (GHe) as a pressurant, a variable position valve to maintain flow rate, and two identical independent pressurant diffusers. The ullage diffuser was located in the forward end of the tank and was completely exposed to the tank ullage. The submerged diffuser was located in the aft end of the tank and was completely submerged when the tank liquid level was 10% or greater. The ullage diffuser tests were conducted as a baseline to evaluate the performance of the pressurization system, and the submerged diffuser tests showed how the performance of the pressurization system was compromised when the diffuser was submerged in LH2. The test results are evaluated and compared, and included in this report for various propellant tank fill levels.

Stephens, J. R.↗
DOE OSTI2025

A Review of Tank 48H Treatment of Tetraphenylborate with Permanganate

Tank 48H contains roughly 270,000 gallons of radioactive waste material. The waste stored in this tank was to be processed in multiple stages utilizing facilities at the Savannah River Site (SRS) almost 30 years ago. The In-Tank Precipitation Process (ITP) was initiated in Tank 48H, which precipitated highly radioactive cesium-137 using sodium tetraphenylborate (NaTPB). While the process succeeded in precipitating the Cs, Sr, and other actinides, it also generated an unexpectedly large amount of benzene. The evolved benzene created a safety concern and made the waste incompatible with further downstream processing. This halted the ITP, and a new method of treatment was required to continue processing the legacy waste contained in Tank 48H. A myriad of treatment options have been proposed with multiple teams of researchers assembled to work on this highly complex issue over the last few decades. This review investigated one potentially viable treatment option, in-tank oxidation with sodium permanganate. Permanganate has been well known in literature as a strong oxidizing agent for organic compounds, as well as being utilized at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in other processes. A small number of studies have been conducted utilizing waste simulants to evaluate the use of permanganate as an oxidant for tetraphenylborate (TPB). A search of the literature and data from these studies indicates that permanganate could be a viable treatment for destruction of TPB in Tank 48H. While the scoping studies had a small number of individual experiments and nonideal conditions, the permanganate decomposed up to 90% of the TPB. A free hydroxide concentration above 1.0 M is required for tank corrosion control. Simulant studies indicate no decrease in TPB decomposition by permanganate until pH 14. The simulant studies show an increase in TPB decomposition as the temperature of the solution is increased to 40 °C. The post-reaction analysis of previous simulant tests did not look at all of the organic degradation products. Investigations into what these organic products are and in what quantity will help guide determinations as to whether the downstream processing facilities are able to handle the material that will be generated. Study on the time frame for the reaction between permanganate and TPB should be investigated as the literature reports only extend out to two weeks reaction time. The permanganate treatment conditions indicate no corrosion control concerns and a longer timescale reaction may be needed for in-tank treatment. In addition, further study would be useful to identify a lower boundary condition for the ratio of TPB and oxidant. The simulant tests applied large excesses of permanganate, and this may be unnecessary. The size constraint of the tank means that there will be practical limitations on the amount of sodium permanganate that can be added to the tank. The amount of permanganate should be minimized as much as possible while still ensuring decomposition of the TPB to minimize the amount of manganese dioxide solids generated.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
NASA NTRS2004

Polymer/Silicate Nanocomposites Used to Manufacture Gas Storage Tanks With Reduced Permeability

Over the past decade, there has been considerable research in the area of polymer-layered silicate nanocomposites. This research has shown that the dispersion of small amounts of an organically modified layered silicate improves the polymer strength, modulus, thermal stability, and barrier properties. There have been several reports on the dispersion of layered silicates in an epoxy matrix. Potential enhancements to the barrier properties of epoxy/silicate nanocomposites make this material attractive for low permeability tankage. Polymer matrix composites (PMCs) have several advantages for cryogenic storage tanks. They are lightweight, strong, and stiff; therefore, a smaller fraction of a vehicle's potential payload capacity is used for propellant storage. Unfortunately, the resins typically used to make PMC tanks have higher gas permeability than metals. This can lead to hydrogen loss through the body of the tank instead of just at welds and fittings. One approach to eliminate this problem is to build composite tanks with thin metal liners. However, although these tanks provide good permeability performance, they suffer from a substantial mismatch in the coefficient of thermal expansion, which can lead to failure of the bond between the liner and the body of the tank. Both problems could be addressed with polymersilicate nanocomposites, which exhibit reduced hydrogen permeability, making them potential candidates for linerless PMC tanks. Through collaboration with Northrop Grumman and Michigan State University, nanocomposite test tanks were manufactured for the NASA Glenn Research Center, and the helium permeability was measured. An organically modified silicate was prepared at Michigan State University and dispersed in an epoxy matrix (EPON 826/JeffamineD230). The epoxy/silicate nanocomposites contained either 0 or 5 wt% of the organically modified silicate. The tanks were made by filament winding carbon fibers with the nanocomposite resin. Helium permeability was measured by Northrop Grumman, showing that the leak rate/day of the nanocomposite matrix tank was approximately 80-percent less than that of the neat epoxy matrix tank.

Campbell, Sandi G.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Integral Radiator and Storage Tank

A simplified, lightweight system for dissipating heat of a regenerative fuel- cell system would include a heat pipe with its evaporator end placed at the heat source and its condenser end integrated into the wall of the regenerative fuel cell system gas-storage tanks. The tank walls act as heat-radiating surfaces for cooling the regenerative fuel cell system. The system was conceived for use in outer space, where radiation is the only physical mechanism available for transferring heat to the environment. The system could also be adapted for use on propellant tanks or other large-surface-area structures to convert them to space heat-radiating structures. Typically for a regenerative fuel cell system, the radiator is separate from the gas-storage tanks. By using each tank s surface as a heat-radiating surface, the need for a separate, potentially massive radiator structure is eliminated. In addition to the mass savings, overall volume is reduced because a more compact packaging scheme is possible. The underlying tank wall structure provides ample support for heat pipes that help to distribute the heat over the entire tank surface. The heat pipes are attached to the outer surface of each gas-storage tank by use of a high-thermal conductance, carbon-fiber composite-material wrap. Through proper choice of the composite layup, it is possible to exploit the high longitudinal conductivity of the carbon fibers (greater than the thermal conductivity of copper) to minimize the unevenness of the temperature distribution over the tank surface, thereby helping to maximize the overall heat-transfer efficiency. In a prototype of the system, the heat pipe and the composite wrap contribute an average mass of 340 g/sq m of radiator area. Lightweight space radiator panels have a mass of about 3,000 g/sq m of radiator area, so this technique saves almost 90 percent of the mass of separate radiator panels. In tests, the modified surface of the tank was found to have an emissivity of 0.85. The composite wrap remained tightly bound to the surface of the tank throughout the testing in thermal vacuum conditions.

Burke, Kenneth A.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Oxygen Storage Tanks Are Feasible for Mars Transit

The Mars transit tanks will probably be titanium lined, composite over wrapped pressure vessels (COPVs) similar to those used in the space shuttle and International Space Station(ISS). Since the mass of a storage tank is proportional to the mass of the gas it contains, the required oxygen will use about the same mass of tanks regardless of the number and size ofthe tanks. Using existing relatively small COPVs is possible. Pressure vessels can fail due torupture and leakage but no failures have occurred in space and the expected failure rates are very low. Since one or two spare tanks are required for reliability, using smaller tanks can reduce the total mass. For a Mars round trip, the mass of oxygen and tanks including spares is roughly equal to the mass of the ISS Oxygen Generation Assembly (OGA) and its spares. Since the OGA must orbit Mars and be returned to Earth, while half the storage tanks are emptied on the way to Mars and can be abandoned, storage tanks have a significant launch mass advantage over the OGA. Storage tanks are simpler, more reliable,and have fewer failure modes than an OGA. They would have smaller design and development costs and need less crew time and maintenance. Oxygen storage tanks are feasible for Mars transit and are attractive compared to the ISS OGA.

Jones, Harry W.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Numerical Modeling of No Vent Filling of a Cryogenic Tank

This paper presents a multi-node finite volume model of the chilling and filling of a cryogenic tank using the Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program (GFSSP), a general purpose flow network code. Vented Chill and No Vent Fill (VCNVF) tests were conducted at Marshall Space Flight Center where a flight-like tank was filled with liquid nitrogen from a supply tank. In the VCNVF tests, the tank was partially chilled while the vent valve was open. After the partial chilling, the vent valve was closed and the tank was filled without any venting. An integrated numerical model of the test set up was developed. The model included the transfer line from the supply tank, the target tank with the spray nozzle and solid walls, and the discharge line with the vent valve. The tank was discretized into multiple fluid nodes and branches to represent the ullage and liquid nitrogen and multiple solid nodes to represent the tank wall and structure. The heat transfer between solid to fluid was calculated from pool boiling correlations which include film, transition, and nucleate boiling, as well as natural convection during pre- and post-boiling. The model also accounts for the condensation of vapor in the tank when it comes in contact with the liquid spray. The predicted pressure, resident mass, wall and ullage temperature in the tank were compared with the test data.

Alok Majumdar↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Numerical Modeling of No Vent Filling of a Cryogenic Tank

This paper presents a multi-node finite volume model of the chilling and filling of a cryogenic tank using the Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program (GFSSP), a general purpose flow network code. Vented Chill and No Vent Fill (VCNVF) tests were conducted at Marshall Space Flight Center where a flight-like tank was filled with liquid nitrogen from a supply tank. In the VCNVF tests, the tank was partially chilled while the vent valve was open. After the partial chilling, the vent valve was closed and the tank was filled without any venting. An integrated numerical model of the test set up was developed. The model included the transfer line from the supply tank, the target tank with the spray nozzle and solid walls, and the discharge line with the vent valve. The tank was discretized into multiple fluid nodes and branches to represent the ullage and liquid nitrogen and multiple solid nodes to represent the tank wall and structure. The heat transfer between solid to fluid was calculated from pool boiling correlations which include film, transition, and nucleate boiling, as well as natural convection during pre- and post-boiling. The model also accounts for the condensation of vapor in the tank when it comes in contact with the liquid spray. The predicted pressure, resident mass, wall and ullage temperature in the tank were compared with the test data.

Alok Majumdar↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Liquid Hydrogen Tank Chill and No-Vent Fill Prediction using Computational Fluid Dynamics

Cryogenic tank chill and fill is an important cryogenic fluid management (CFM) technology that supports and enables many of NASA’s long-duration space missions. For no-vent fill, the receiver tank pressure remains below the supply tank pressure during the entire duration of the fill so that the tank does not require venting. This is especially advantageous for tank fill operations in low gravity where the position of the liquid is not always known and venting the tank may cause loss of propellant by venting liquid. In lieu of expensive tests conducted on-orbit, accurate computational models capable of predicting receiver tank pressure during cryogenic propellant tank fill may be used to reduce system and propellant mass as well as mission risk. However, these numerical models must be validated or anchored to test data. This study presents a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model with conjugate heat transfer that is used to predict a liquid hydrogen tank chill and no-vent fill ground test conducted at Lewis Research Center (now Glenn Research Center) in 1991. The specific test case chosen for model validation implemented an upward-facing jet near the bottom of a cylindrical 34 liter tank. CFD predictions are compared to experimental measurements of tank pressure, fill level, fluid temperatures, and wall temperatures. The CFD results show reasonable agreement to the test data but overpredict the pressure collapse near the end of the fill despite the liquid jet penetrating the liquid-vapor interface. Several sensitivity studies are considered due to notable uncertainties in the experiment.

Computational Fluid Dynamics↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Liquid Hydrogen Tank Chill and No-Vent Fill Prediction Using Computational Fluid Dynamics

Cryogenic tank chill and fill is an important cryogenic fluid management (CFM) technology that supports and enables many of NASA’s long-duration space missions. For no-vent fill, the receiver tank pressure remains below the supply tank pressure during the entire duration of the fill so that the tank does not require venting. This is especially advantageous for tank fill operations in low gravity where the position of the liquid is not always known and venting the tank may cause loss of propellant by venting liquid. In lieu of expensive tests conducted on-orbit, accurate computational models capable of predicting receiver tank pressure during cryogenic propellant tank fill may be used to reduce system and propellant mass as well as mission risk. However, these numerical models must be validated or anchored to test data. This study presents a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model with conjugate heat transfer that is used to predict a liquid hydrogen tank chill and no-vent fill ground test conducted at Lewis Research Center (now Glenn Research Center) in 1991. The specific test case chosen for model validation implemented an upward-facing jet near the bottom of a cylindrical 34 liter tank. CFD predictions are compared to experimental measurements of tank pressure, fill level, fluid temperatures, and wall temperatures. The CFD results show reasonable agreement to the test data but overpredict the pressure collapse near the end of the fill despite the liquid jet penetrating the liquid-vapor interface. Several sensitivity studies are considered due to notable uncertainties in the experiment.

Computational Fluid Dynamics↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Liquid Hydrogen Tank Chill and No-Vent Fill Prediction using Computational Fluid Dynamics

Cryogenic tank chill and fill is an important cryogenic fluid management technology that supports and enables many of NASA’s long-duration space missions. For no-vent fill, the receiver tank pressure remains below the supply tank pressure during the entire duration of the fill so that the tank does not require venting. This is especially advantageous for tank fill operations in low gravity where the position of the liquid is not always known and venting the tank may cause loss of propellant by venting liquid. In lieu of expensive tests conducted on-orbit, accurate computational models capable of predicting receiver tank pressure during cryogenic propellant tank fill may be used to reduce system and propellant mass as well as mission risk. However, these numerical models must be validated or anchored to test data. This study presents computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models with conjugate heat transfer that are used to predict a liquid hydrogen tank chill and no-vent fill ground test conducted at Lewis Research Center (now Glenn Research Center) in 1991. The specific test case chosen for model validation implemented an upward-facing jet near the bottom of a cylindrical 34-liter tank. CFD predictions are compared to experimental measurements of tank pressure, fill level, and wall temperature. The CFD results show reasonable agreement to the test data but overpredict the pressure collapse near the end of the fill despite the liquid jet penetrating the liquid-vapor interface.

Computational Fluid Dynamics↗