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 109 records · Page 6

Assemblies of Conformal Tanks

Assemblies of tanks having shapes that conform to each other and/or conform to other proximate objects have been investigated for use in storing fuels and oxidizers in small available spaces in upper stages of spacecraft. Such assemblies might also prove useful in aircraft, automobiles, boats, and other terrestrial vehicles in which space available for tanks is limited. The basic concept of using conformal tanks to maximize the utilization of limited space is not new in itself: for example, conformal tanks are used in some automobiles to store windshield -washer liquid and coolant that overflows from radiators. The novelty of the present development lies in the concept of an assembly of smaller conformal tanks, as distinguished from a single larger conformal tank. In an assembly of smaller tanks, it would be possible to store different liquids in different tanks. Even if the same liquid were stored in all the tanks, the assembly would offer an advantage by reducing the mechanical disturbance caused by sloshing of fuel in a single larger tank: indeed, the requirement to reduce sloshing is critical in some applications. The figure shows a prototype assembly of conformal tanks. Each tank was fabricated by (1) copper plating a wax tank mandrel to form a liner and (2) wrapping and curing layers of graphite/epoxy composite to form a shell supporting the liner. In this case, the conformal tank surfaces are flat ones where they come in contact with the adjacent tanks. A band of fibers around the outside binds the tanks together tightly in the assembly, which has a quasi-toroidal shape. For proper functioning, it would be necessary to maintain equal pressure in all the tanks.

DeLay, Tom↗

Developing NDE Techniques for Large Cryogenic Tanks - Year 2 Report

The Shuttle Program requires very large cryogenic ground storage tanks in which to store liquid oxygen and hydrogen. The existing Launch Complex-39 Pad tanks, which will be passed onto future launch programs, are over 40 years old and have received minimal refurbishment and only external inspections over the years. The majority of the structure is inaccessible without a full system drain of cryogenic liquid and insulation in the annular region. It was previously thought that there was a limit to the number of temperature cycles that the tanks could handle due to possible insulation compaction before undergoing a costly and time consuming complete overhaul; therefore the tanks were not drained and performance issues with these tanks, specifically the Pad B LH2 tank, were accepted. There is a need and an opportunity, as the Shuttle program ends and work to upgrade the launch pad progresses, to develop innovative non-destructive evaluation (NDE) techniques to analyze the current tanks. Techniques are desired that can aid in determining the extent of refurbishment required to keep the tanks in service for another 20+ years. A non-destructive technique would also be a significant aid in acceptance testing of new and refurbished tanks, saving significant time and money, if corrective actions can be taken before cryogen is introduced to the systems. Year one of this project concentrated on analysis of the current tanks located at LC-39 while cryogen was present. Year two of this project concentrated on analysis of detectable thermal variations on the outer surface of the tanks as the cryogen was drained and the inner vessel warmed to ambient conditions. Two techniques have been deployed in the field to monitor the tank. The first consisted of a displacement sensor to monitor for any expansions at the base of the tank during warm-up that could indicate a compaction issue with the insulation. The second technique was continued thermal monitoring of the tank through and after warm up. The indications noted in the thermal images were compared to bore-scope images of the annular region taken once the tank was inert and warmed to ambient conditions. Similar thermal imaging was performed on a smaller tank where an insulation void was induced to compare the effectiveness of thermal imagining on a different tank geometry.

Arens, Ellen↗

Assessment of the Corrosion Risks to a Double Shell Tank During the Selective Removal of a Cesium-rich Supernate Layer - 20227

The Direct Feed Low Activity Waste (DF-LAW) activity will provide the initial feed to the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant at the Hanford Tank Farm facility. Feed preparation for DF-LAW will be carried out in multiple double shell waste tanks (DST) utilizing the Tank Side Cesium Removal (TSCR) process. Tank AP-106 will be an integral part of the TSCR process and hence key to the DFLAW activity. Prior to being utilized for this purpose, the Cs-137 concentration levels in the AP-106 supernate must be reduced significantly. The AP-106 re-purposing process manages normal waste tank addition procedures such that waste acceptance criteria objectives for Cs-137 removal are achieved. As this process was being developed, several concerns regarding tank integrity during and after repurposing of Tank AP-106, and the associated tanks (i.e., AP-102, AN-101, and AP-108), were addressed. The potential corrosion degradation mechanisms identified based on process knowledge included: general and pitting corrosion, caustic stress corrosion cracking, concentration cell corrosion, and microbiologically induced corrosion (MIC). A systematic approach was undertaken to assess the risk of corrosion during the AP-106 re-purposing process. The assessment considered the initial and present condition of the tank, the service history of the tank, the environmental conditions created in each tank during each stage of the process, process timing, and corrosion testing and modeling that approximated tank conditions. Based on this information, recommendations were provided to minimize the exposure of the tank to corrosive conditions. These recommendations included time limits for each stage of the process, staging of corrosion inhibitor solutions should process delays occur, and waste sampling with potential chemistry adjustments at defined steps in the process. Additionally, recommendations for post-process supernate chemistry adjustments and tank inspections were put forth. The greatest risk for this process occurs during the manipulation of large quantities of Columbia River water (i.e., greater than 450,000 gallons) within AP-106, the associated tanks and the supporting infrastructure (i.e., transfer line piping). This risk becomes more pronounced if there is a process upset and the tank walls remain exposed to a corrosive condition longer than intended. As long as the river water is blended into the supernate in a timely fashion, and the waste is adjusted appropriately with corrosion inhibitors, corrosion may be minimized and the final condition of the supernate in AP-106 and the associated tanks is expected to be in compliance with corrosion chemistry requirements. Contingency plans will be made to minimize the impact of a process upset. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Analysis of thermal and mechanical properties with inventory level of the molten salt storage tank in central receiver concentrating solar power plants

Molten salt thermal energy storage (TES) tanks ensure steady power output of concentrating solar power (CSP) plants; however, recent tank failures have highlighted the need for further analysis. Current studies primarily focus on analyzing the molten salt flow, heat transfer, and thermal efficiency. Additionally, research on the latest tank structures is limited and lacks newest experimental validation. This study measures temperature and molten salt inventory levels in the high-temperature tank at a 50 MW central receiver CSP plant, connected to the power grid in 2019. A multi-physics model was developed to evaluate thermal and mechanical properties of TES tanks by combining computational fluid dynamics and finite element modeling using real plant data. Heat loss, temperature, displacement, and stress distribution of the tank at different inventory levels were investigated. Results show that ambient air velocity near the tank roof reaches 2.14 m/s, much higher than 0.2 m/s near the wall. The temperatures of inventory fluid and tank are close, varying slightly at different levels due to thermal conduction and radiation. Because the heat loss strongly depends on temperature, the total tank loss remains nearly constant across inventory levels. Larger temperature gradients and thermal stresses are primarily localized along the tank floor edge and the air-salt interface. Notably, the maximum thermal stress at the tank edge is three times higher than that at the interface. The magnitude of total stress changes by less than 5 MPa with and without thermal load, indicating that high temperatures exert only a minor impact on tank stress. In contrast, thermal load significantly affects tank deformation, particularly at the roof edge, where values exceed 150 mm. Despite the large variation in molten salt levels, tank wall temperatures and displacements present a minor change, suggesting a weak correlation with inventory levels. In conclusion, the findings obtained in this study provide important insights on the TES tank that could be used to optimize tank design and operation strategies.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

History of Ultrasonic Inspection of High-Level Waste Tanks at SRS - 20220

The Liquid Waste Disposition Projects (LWDP) Structural Authority and Inspection Engineering Support Group has teamed with the Materials Science and Technology Non-destructive Evaluation Group of Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) to implement a comprehensive In-Service Inspection (ISI) program for the High-Level Waste (HLW) tanks in the sites tank farms. The purpose of this program is to demonstrate the structural and leak integrity of the tanks to maintain the function of waste containment throughout the desired service life. Four types of waste tanks were constructed at Savannah River Site (SRS) from 1951 thru 1981 to store radioactive nuclear waste from the separations process. The Type I, II and III are carbon steel cylindrical tanks with varying degrees of access to the side walls and very limited access to the tank bottom. The tanks contain 750,000 to 1.3 million gallons of waste and are buried or backfilled with soil. The tanks are 75'-85' in diameter and 24'-33' from tank bottom to the tank roof. Inspection of the HLW tanks is made difficult by radiation, contamination, and small access openings. Through the years these challenges have been overcome by progressive improvements to programs and equipment resulting in the sophisticated wall crawler Ultrasonic Testing (UT) technology of today. A formal inspection program was developed and put in service in 1972. UT thickness measurements were first made in 1967 and 1969 of selected waste tanks using an analog-type instrument to measure the thickness of the carbon steel walls. Routine inspections for thinning were performed from 1972-1985 and then discontinued because no thinning had been observed and this technique could not detect pitting or cracking. UT inspections resumed in 1994 using a sophisticated robotic wall crawler with UT technology capable of detecting thinning, cracking and pitting. The current program focuses on the newer Type III tanks that are used primarily for storage. The program was upgraded in 2003 to include selected regions of the tank wall, secondary wall and annulus floor on a 7 to 10-year frequency. The facility is currently in its third cycle of tank inspections. Thus far, there have been no reportable indications of service induced degradation. This result provides assurance that the chemistry control program has been effective at mitigating corrosion and that the tanks remain structurally sound even after more than 40 years of service. This paper will present the UT technology first used at SRS and the evolution to the current systems and their capabilities. Additionally, plans for equipment upgrades that will improve the extent of inspection will be discussed. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Differential Draining of Parallel-Fed Propellant Tanks in Morpheus and Apollo Flight

Parallel-fed propellant tanks are an advantageous configuration for many spacecraft. Parallel-fed tanks allow the center of gravity (cg) to be maintained over the engine(s), as opposed to serial-fed propellant tanks which result in a cg shift as propellants are drained from tank one tank first opposite another. Parallel-fed tanks also allow for tank isolation if that is needed. Parallel tanks and feed systems have been used in several past vehicles including the Apollo Lunar Module. The design of the feedsystem connecting the parallel tank is critical to maintain balance in the propellant tanks. The design must account for and minimize the effect of manufacturing variations that could cause delta-p or mass flowrate differences, which would lead to propellant imbalance. Other sources of differential draining will be discussed. Fortunately, physics provides some self-correcting behaviors that tend to equalize any initial imbalance. The question concerning whether or not active control of propellant in each tank is required or can be avoided or not is also important to answer. In order to provide data on parallel-fed tanks and differential draining in flight for cryogenic propellants (as well as any other fluid), a vertical test bed (flying lander) for terrestrial use was employed. The Morpheus vertical test bed is a parallel-fed propellant tank system that uses passive design to keep the propellant tanks balanced. The system is operated in blow down. The Morpheus vehicle was instrumented with a capacitance level sensor in each propellant tank in order to measure the draining of propellants in over 34 tethered and 12 free flights. Morpheus did experience an approximately 20 lb/m imbalance in one pair of tanks. The cause of this imbalance will be discussed. This paper discusses the analysis, design, flight simulation vehicle dynamic modeling, and flight test of the Morpheus parallel-fed propellant. The Apollo LEM data is also examined in this summary report of the flight data.

Hurlbert, Eric↗

Cesium Exchange onto Crystalline Silicotitanate from Blended Hanford Tank Wastes

The Tank Side Cesium Removal (TSCR) system was developed to filter and remove cesium (Cs and 137 Cs) from Hanford tank waste supernate in preparation for vitrification. The Cs removal will be conducted with crystalline silicotitanate (CST) ion exchange media. Under the planned waste-processing strategy, the tank waste supernate will be queued for TSCR processing in tank 241-AP-107 (AP-107). Once AP-107 tank waste volume is sufficiently depleted, the waste supernate from tank 241-AP-105 (AP-105, the holding tank before transfer to AP-107) will be transferred to tank AP-107. Supernate from another tank will be transferred to the holding tank, AP-105, for eventual transfer to tank AP-107. These supernate streams will undergo blending in tanks AP-107 and AP-105; the volume blend ratios will be driven by how much the tank waste supernate volumes are depleted before the next tank waste is added. The consequence of tank waste blending on Cs uptake by CST was of interest and was tested via batch contacts; results are reported herein.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Tank 11H Low Temperature Aluminum Dissolution and Inhalation Dose Potential Analyses at Savannah River Site – 26018

Currently, there is approximately 34 million gallons of high-level radioactive tank waste in the Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site (SRS). The ultimate goal of operations at the Tank Farm is to remove the high level waste (HLW) from the tanks followed by stabilization of the waste through vitrification of the HLW into glass or grouting the decontaminated waste into saltstone. After bulk removal of the HLW consisting of sludge, saltcake, and supernatant, further efforts are made to reduce the residual waste present in the tank in order to declare preliminary cease waste removal (PCWR) signifying completion of HLW removal. These reduction efforts can include tank washing to remove soluble salts and radioisotopes and dissolution of solids including aluminum. Aluminum in the form of gibbsite and boehmite is relatively insoluble in water. Through addition of aqueous sodium hydroxide, the aluminum can be dissolved at mild temperatures. In order for the waste tank to meet closure mode requirements of the Concentration, Storage, and Transfer Facilities (CSTF), which includes the Tank Farm, Documented Safety Analysis (DSA), a component of the safety basis, the inhalation dose potential (IDP) and the radiolytic hydrogen generation rate of the stored waste must be demonstrated to be lower than their respective designated limits. These parameters are calculated from measured radiochemical analyses of isotopes that emit a high amount of radioactivity including Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-240, Pu-241, Am-241, and Cm-244. Following the low temperature aluminum dissolution (LTAD) process, Tank 11H slurry samples were pulled from the tank and sent to Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) to measure the extent of aluminum dissolution, hydroxide concentration, densities of slurry and supernatant, weight percent solids analyses, and radionuclide activities. The analyses of the composite sample found that approximately 90% of the total aluminum in the slurry was dissolved, indicating successful reduction of the insoluble aluminum in the waste tank. Additionally, the weight percent insoluble solids (slurry basis) measurement of the composite sample was found to be approximately 1%, demonstrating that minimal solids still remain in the tank. Finally, the radiochemical analyses of the composite sample determined that the waste contents of the tank met the IDP and radiolytic hydrogen generation rate requirements of the CSTF DSA. These measurements have shown that the LTAD process in Tank 11H was successful in waste reduction efforts and a positive step towards declaring PCWR and tank closure at SRS.

Dekarske, John [Savannah River National Laboratory↗

The Corrective Maintenance Paradigm Shift at Hanford's Tank Farms - 20077

Hanford's Tank Farms facilities have been used to safely store waste for over 70 years, with the first single-shell tanks being constructed in 1943. Tank Farm facilities consist of 149 single-shell tanks, 28 double-shell tanks, an evaporator facility, and wastewater treatment facilities. Tank Farm facilities are aging, with a tremendous corrective maintenance burden on the Tank Farm contractor. The mission of Tank Farm facilities is soon changing from waste storage to waste staging for the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). WTP operations will demand a significant increase in Tank Farm facility operations, in which corrective maintenance outage windows will shrink drastically. This realization has forced the Tank Farm contractor to consider a paradigm shift in Tank Farm facilities Maintenance planning, and the use of reliability Engineering tools. The Tank Farm Production Operations Engineering Cognizant System Engineering (CSE) organization has led the way in motivating this paradigm shift. This shift has been realized through the use of: 1) technical exchange with other Department of Energy (DOE) contractors to develop improvements in the CSE program, 2) a shift from the use of lagging to leading system health indicators, and 3) a Plant Health Committee to unite Engineering, Operations, and Maintenance personnel toward a productive maintenance strategy. The CSE organization has held several technical exchanges with other DOE contractors to discuss CSE concepts, and how to better maintain aging infrastructure. The technical exchange with other contractors has greatly reduced the time required to make improvements in the Tank Farm CSE program. Other DOE contractors have already faced issues surrounding aging infrastructure, and have vast experience in improving the reliability and usable life of structures and components in nuclear facilities. The past CSE program used lagging health indicators to determine the health of systems. The key lagging indicator used to determine system health was availability, which is the percentage of time that a facility was ready for operation compared to the time the facility was demanded for operation. Availability was a good indicator of health in the waste storage mission of Tank Farms, where safe storage was the most important function of the facility, and where maintenance outage windows were typically long-duration. In current and future operations, outage windows are reducing, resulting in the need for much more reliable systems. Systems that have had high availability may suddenly become inoperable due to a failed component or sub-system. In several instances, the use of availability as an indicator of system health failed to predict system/equipment failure before its occurrence. In discussions with other DOE contractors, a set of reliability tools, including leading indicators of health, has been implemented in the CSE program. This primarily involves the use of failure modes and effects analysis and the study of equipment failure to develop system monitoring plans that focus on trending data to detect oncoming equipment failure ahead of time. In addition, the use of a Plant Health Committee has added significantly to the paradigm shift from a corrective maintenance philosophy to the use of predictive and preventive maintenance. The Plant Health Committee is a chartered team consisting of Engineering, Operations, and Maintenance personnel. CSEs use this forum to present the results of their performance monitoring, including the presentation of health via leading health indicators. The most positive aspect of this committee is the communication that it creates within these critical organizations. The Operations and Maintenance organization benefit from focusing maintenance on the reliability-centered focus provided by Engineering. Engineering benefits from the operational experience of the Operations organization and from the failure data that can be provided by Maintenance personnel. The continued use of the Plant Health Committee is expected to further decrease maintenance outage times, in better support of oncoming 24/7 operations. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Simulations of Jet Mixing in Tanks of Different Scales

For long-duration in-space storage of cryogenic propellants, an axial jet mixer is one concept for controlling tank pressure and reducing thermal stratification. Extensive ground-test data from the 1960s to the present exist for tank diameters of 10 ft or less. The design of axial jet mixers for tanks on the order of 30 ft diameter, such as those planned for the Ares V Earth Departure Stage (EDS) LH2 tank, will require scaling of available experimental data from much smaller tanks, as well designing for microgravity effects. This study will assess the ability for Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to handle a change of scale of this magnitude by performing simulations of existing ground-based axial jet mixing experiments at two tank sizes differing by a factor of ten. Simulations of several axial jet configurations for an Ares V scale EDS LH2 tank during low Earth orbit (LEO) coast are evaluated and selected results are also presented. Data from jet mixing experiments performed in the 1960s by General Dynamics with water at two tank sizes (1 and 10 ft diameter) are used to evaluate CFD accuracy. Jet nozzle diameters ranged from 0.032 to 0.25 in. for the 1 ft diameter tank experiments and from 0.625 to 0.875 in. for the 10 ft diameter tank experiments. Thermally stratified layers were created in both tanks prior to turning on the jet mixer. Jet mixer efficiency was determined by monitoring the temperatures on thermocouple rakes in the tanks to time when the stratified layer was mixed out. Dye was frequently injected into the stratified tank and its penetration recorded. There were no velocities or turbulence quantities available in the experimental data. A commercially available, time accurate, multi-dimensional CFD code with free surface tracking (FLOW-3D from Flow Science, Inc.) is used for the simulations presented. Comparisons are made between computed temperatures at various axial locations in the tank at different times and those observed experimentally. The affect of various modeling parameters on the agreement obtained are assessed.

Breisacher, Kevin↗

Feasibility Study for Cathodic Protection of Waste Tanks at Hanford

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. 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. Waste chemistry controls are in place to mitigate general corrosion, pitting corrosion, and stress corrosion cracking (SCC) and minimize corrosion risks to the carbon steel tank liners of DST at the Hanford Site. The chemistry control program focuses on preserving liner integrity while balancing the need for caustic/nitrite additions that have large downstream impacts on vitrification. Some of the DSTs store salt cake or sludge waste layers contain out-of-specification interstitial liquids that contact the primary tank bottom or sidewall. Remediation of such layers through chemical additions is not practical. At the present time, the most significant leak integrity concern at Hanford is for corrosion of the tank bottoms of DSTs where the solids layer is out of specification because of hydroxide ion depletion and consequently, pH values that are less than 12. Cathodic protection (CP) has been proposed as a possible way to protect the liners of such tanks against corrosion. The objective of this project was to investigate the feasibility of applying CP to Hanford DSTs to mitigate internal corrosion of the carbon steel tank primary liners. The scope of the project included (1) a literature review on the application of CP to storage tank systems, in general, and to waste tanks at the Savannah River Site (SRS) and Hanford, (2) a review of the finite element analysis (FEA) model recently developed to evaluate potentials for a DST, and (3) the development of a boundary element analysis (BEA) model for CP for a DST. Tank AN-107, one of the Hanford DSTs, was selected for this work because (1) the bottommost waste layer in the tank is out-of-specification, and (2) electrochemical and resistivity data, based on recent waste sampling and testing, are available for this tank. The overarching conclusion of this study is that, based on the available information, it is feasible to apply CP to mitigate internal corrosion of the primary liners of the Hanford DSTs. However, significant additional information and work are required before a CP system can be designed. Recommendations for next steps in the design of the CP system will be presented.

WIERSMA, BRUCE↗

Tank 49H solids disturbance analysis

Tank 49H serves as the feed tank for the Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF). Transfers into Tank 49H may disturb any solids that have settled to the bottom of the tank, resulting in feed that may exceed the insoluble solids content limit of 1,200 mg/L of the SWPF Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC). During a transfer into Tank 49H, material that free falls into Tank 49H through a downcomer could potentially disturb any solids on the bottom of the tank and scour or suspend solids from a settled solids layer or turbid region. A previous analysis and report evaluated the potential to disturb solids when transferring into Tank 49H through the B4 riser and recommended a minimum tank level of 120 inches to prevent disturbing any solids in the bottom of the tank. The scope of this task is to perform additional fluid flow analysis to determine whether accounting for disturbed particle settling and particle mixing and dispersion during transfer could allow the minimum liquid level to be reduced below 120 inches. The analysis utilized models from the technical literature to calculate the size and shape of the “plunging jet” as a function of input parameters such as initial velocity, initial jet diameter, elevation of the initial jet, liquid level in the tank, and solids depth. The analysis relied on the M-Star® simulations performed for the previous analysis to provide bounding estimates of the amount of solid particles disturbed and used the MStar® software to calculate the dispersion and mixing of the disturbed solids with other liquid in the tank as the solids are transported to the transfer pump. The analysis showed that with a solid particle size of 5 micron or less, a liquid level of 120 inches should be maintained to prevent significant disturbance of the solid layer at the bottom of Tank 49H.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Mixing Study for the Modification of H-Canyon Tank 31 and 32 Recirculation Lines Via M-Star®

As a part of the Accelerated Basin De-Inventory (ABD) program Tanks 31 or 32 will be re-purposed to support increasing the number of annual Material Test Reactor (MTR) and High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) dissolutions. The proposed plan will allow Tanks 31 or 32 to be used as the dissolver cold chemical solution makeup tank and storage tank. The dissolver cold chemicals are 50% nitric acid, process water, mercuric nitrate, and gadolinium nitrate. Tanks 31 and 32 are 9 ft. (outer diameter) x 36 ft, horizontal, and can hold approximately 56,000 liters (15,000 gallons) each. One full volume of Tanks 31 or 32 can support 4 HFIR 6.4D equivalent batches. Both tanks are equipped with liquid level instrumentation. Tank 31 is equipped with 1 pump used for transfer and recirculation while Tank 32 is equipped with two pumps, one for transfer and the other for recirculation. Each of the pumps is equipped with sample taps. The tanks do not have specific gravity instrumentation, an agitator, or a sampler. Piping modifications will also be performed to supply the tank with cold chemicals. The current dissolver chemical composition is 5.0 -8.5M HNO3 and ~0.2 g Gd/L. The recirculating pump connected to Tank 31 is rated for a flowrate 175 gpm while the pump connected to Tank 32 is rated for a flowrate 50 gpm.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Axisymmetric Two-Dimensional Modeling of No Vent Filling of a Cryogenic Tank using Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program

Filling a tank with cryogenic fluid is more challenging than filling a tank with water or any other fluid that is in liquid state at atmospheric condition. Filling a tank with cryogenic fluid is a two-step process. First the tank and the transfer line mustbe chilled. Liquid cryogens start flowing into the tank only after the tank and transfer lines are chilled to the fluid saturation temperature. In normal gravity, cryogenic tanks are usually filled from the bottom at nearly atmospheric pressure. The vapor, caused by heat transfer from the warm tank walls, is allowed to vent from the top of the tank while the tank is being filled. Filling a cryogenic tank in the absence of gravity is more challenging because in a non-stratified environment liquid propellantmay not settle at the tank bottom as it does on earth. There is a strong possibility that liquid propellant may exit through the vent valve, which is typically located at the top of the tank to vent propellant vapor. There are several methodsof filling atank in space: Charge-Hold-Vent method [1], Vented-Chill / No-Vent-Fill (VCNVF)[2],and No Vent Fill with TVS assisted injector [3].This paper addressesnumerical modelingofthe No Vent Fill (NVF) processwhere a TVS (Thermodynamic Vent System) augmented injector was used with the vent valve closed during the entire filling process. NVF tests were conducted in the CRYOgenic Orbital Testbed (CRYOTE) tankat NASA/Marshall Space Flight Centerin 2018.The Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program (GFSSP), a general-purpose flow network code [4] was used to simulate the chilland fill process.

Cryogenics↗

FY24 Report on Water NSTF Testing: Lower Tank Inlet Piping Configuration

The following report serves as a summary of the accomplishments and testing results by the Natural convection Shutdown heat removal Test Facility (NSTF) experimental program over the past 12-month period. A major activity included reconfiguration of the chimney piping geometry which altered the discharge position into the tank from the original 50% tank height to a new lower position at a 10.9% tank height. This modification increases the volume of available coolant thus extending long-term operating capacity, however also results in a decreased liquid driving head which has the potential to reduce the natural circulation efficiency and decrease overall performance. Examination of the tradeoffs for these two configurations is an area of interest for RCCS designers and drove planned test activities this year. Ten matrix tests were performed in FY24, totaling 195 hours of heated operations and 12.9 MWh of electrical heating throughout the year, with eight classified as Accepted per NQA-1 and two classified as Trending. Testing prior to the facility reconfiguration examined the facility response to throttling at the tank inlet, demonstrating increased sensitivity of flow instabilities to throttling within the two-phase region when compared to throttling at the lower sensitivity single-phase inlet region. Testing after the chimney reconfiguration began with a baseline test at conditions of 80% inventory fill and prototypic thermal power input of 2.1 MW t . In addition to establishing a reference for nominal system behavior and performance, repeat testing with multiple subsequent runs demonstrated strong repeatability between tests performed at the same conditions in this new configuration. These tests also examined if influences would occur to system behavior with installation of new higher-resolution instrumentation within the upper chimney. In this critical region where boiling and flashing phenomena dominate, the test results provided confidence that the new instrumentation does not uncharacteristically influence the observed behaviors. An inventory parametric series was then initiated to examine system behavior with the new chimney configuration at six varying initial inventory levels, ranging from high 80% to low 20% fill. Two-phase oscillations with similar peak and mean flow rates were observed when comparing to the previous mid tank configuration. Generally, similar system response trends with inventory were also observed, such as two phase oscillations suppressing as inventories were lowered. However, in one absolute inventory comparison at the highest fill of 80%, flow oscillations saw a gradual growth over the 4 hours of two-phase operation in the new lower tank inlet configuration, opposite of the gradual dampening observed in the mid tank inlet configuration. This can be attributed to, in part, a greater hydrostatic head pressure above the two-phase discharge region where the boiling front is developed. Furthermore, the change resulted in greater sensitivity to liquid degassing phenomena during single-phase heating, causing loop instabilities to form which trigged moderate flow degradation during the period approaching saturation and boiling conditions. This behavior had been observed previously under some conditions but was a common occurrence in recent testing with the newer lower tank inlet configuration. Initial observations from these first data sets suggest an overall larger window of stability for the mid tank inlet configuration compared to the lower tank inlet. Lastly, the lowest inventory fill test was repeated over an extended testing window to examine depletion behavior. Natural circulation flow and effective heat removal performance were observed during most of the testing period; only after the tank became fully drained (0% fill) did flow stagnate and violent geysering events occur. This early observation confirms one relative advantage over the mid tank inlet configuration, which stagnated under comparable conditions at ~20% inventory remaining in the tank.

42 ENGINEERING↗

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↗

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↗

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↗