subject

Liquid Acquisition Device

Liquid Acquisition Device: explore 5 source-linked works published from 2014 to 2022, with original documents and citations.

This collection is a preview while coverage and quality are evaluated.

Search within this collection

Coverage and selection

Includes records with this source-supplied label or an explicit phrase match in their metadata. Matches indicate a mention, not proof that a paper uses a method or tests a material. Source versions are consolidated by DOI.

Sources: nasa. Collection updated 2026-09-15. Counts describe this index, not the complete source archives.

NASA NTRS2022

A Transient Hydrodynamic Model of Screen Channel Liquid Acquisition Devices for In-Space Cryogenic Propellant Management

Screen channel liquid acquisition devices (LADs) will play a crucial role in future deep space travel. It is essential that vapor-free delivery of propellants during tank-to-tank transfer is ensured to maximize yield from storage tanks and prevent potential combustion instabilities. The screen channel LAD utilizes a fine screen wire mesh that can separate phases in a low Bond number (i.e. microgravity) environment using surface tension forces. This study presents the development and verification of a new model for transient screen compliance, one of the influential factors for screen channel LAD design. Screen compliance is crucial during LAD channel outflow transients because the slight deflection of the screen can provide needed mass to satisfy rapid outflow demands and reduce the pressure difference across the screen. The model is successfully verified against CFD simulations. In addition, the characteristic speed for the governing screen compliance equations is derived which allows for numerical stability criteria to be established. As shown in this study, the transient maximum pressure difference across the screen can greatly exceed the steady state maximum pressure difference across the screen in many cases.

Hydrodynamics Simulations↗

NASA NTRS2014

Analytical Model for Steady Flow through a Finite Channel with One Porous Wall with Arbitrary Variable Suction or Injection

This paper presents an exact solution of two-dimensional laminar flow through a finite length channel with one porous wall. It improves upon previous solutions by (1) satisfying the no-slip boundary condition at the channel dead end, (2) adding a turbulent term to the porous wall boundary condition, (3) allowing for arbitrary variable suction or injection across the porous wall, and (4) model validation against new cryogenic liquid hydrogen and oxygen experimental data. Of particular interest in the current work is the modeling of cryogenic propellant flow through a porous liquid acquisition device (LAD) screen and channel inside a propellant tank. First, a detailed review of the literature is presented for previously attempted solutions to channel flow with one porous wall. Next, the governing equations, boundary conditions, and model assumptions are used to derive the analytical flow solution and present general model results for pressure and velocity fields within the channel. Then, the model solution is compared with horizontal LAD channel flow data in liquid oxygen as well as vertical LAD channel flow data in an inverted outflow configuration in liquid hydrogen. Model results are used to update the static cryogenic bubble point pressure model with a dynamic bubble point term which factors in enhanced convection and cooling at the screen during propellant outflow. Convective heat transfer at the LAD screen during outflow is also quantified by comparing model and data. The new analytical flow solution with the dynamic bubble point model is shown to compare well with available cryogenic experimental data

Navier Stokes Equations↗

NASA NTRS2014

A Predictive Bubble Point Pressure Model for Porous Liquid Acquisition Device Screens

This article presents a simplified model for porous screen channel liquid acquisition devices based on a maximum bubble point pressure method from Adamson and Gast (1997). To validate the model, three 304 stainless steel (325 × 2300, 450 × 2750, and 510 × 3600) mesh samples were tested in methanol, acetone, isopropyl alcohol, and water. Screen pores are estimated based on analysis from scanning electron microscopy, historical data, and current test data. Results show that the bubble point pressure is proportional to the surface tension of the fluid only when accounting for nonzero contact angles. The previous assumption that bubble point pressure scales inversely with effective pore diameter is shown to be invalid, as the second finest 450 × 2750 produced the highest bubble point of the three screens. The simplified bubble point model can be used to make predictions for any pure fluid when pore diameters are based on bubble point tests and not SEM analysis.

Liquid Acquisition Device↗

NASA NTRS2014

Screen Channel Liquid Acquisition Device Outflow Tests in Liquid Hydrogen

This paper presents experimental design and test results of the recently concluded 1-g inverted vertical outflow testing of two 325x2300 full scale liquid acquisition device (LAD) channels in liquid hydrogen (LH 2 ). One of the channels had a perforated plate and internal cooling from a thermodynamic vent system (TVS) to enhance performance. The LADs were mounted in a tank to simulate 1-g outflow over a wide range of LH 2 temperatures (20.3 – 24.2 K), pressures (100 – 350 kPa), and flow rates (0.010 – 0.055 kg/s). Results indicate that the breakdown point is dominated by liquid temperature, with a second order dependence on mass flow rate through the LAD. The best performance is always achieved in the coldest liquid states for both channels, consistent with bubble point theory. Higher flow rates cause the standard channel to break down relatively earlier than the TVS cooled channel. Both the internal TVS heat exchanger and subcooling the liquid in the propellant tank are shown to significantly improve LAD performance.

Fuel Depot↗

NASA NTRS2014

Influential Factors for Liquid Acquisition Device Screen Selection for Cryogenic Propulsion Systems

This paper presents the influential factors which govern screen selection for liquid acquisition devices (LADs) operating in microgravity conditions for future in-space cryogenic propulsion engines and cryogenic propellant depots. Space flight requirements, which include mass flow rate, acceleration level and direction, and thermal environment, dictate screen selection for a particular mission. The five influential factors include bubble point pressure, flow-through-screen pressure drop, wicking rate, screen compliance, and material compatibility. Governing equations and analytical models for these parameters are developed from first principles. A comprehensive survey of the historical data on coarser LAD meshes over four decades of work is conducted, and liquid hydrogen data for finer Dutch Twill meshes (325 x 2300, 450 x 2750, 510 x 3600) from recently concluded experiments is also presented to validate analytical models. Each of these parameters is measurable from ground based tests, making it facile to predict flight system performance. Therefore analytical models in this paper will be valuable for future LAD designs for both cryogenic and storable propulsion systems. Additionally, analysis will be given on the impact of the factors on liquid hydrogen systems.

Fuel Depot↗

Compare source metadata on this page

Work	Published	Source identifier	Source
A Transient Hydrodynamic Model of Screen Channel Liquid Acquisition Devices for In-Space Cryogenic Propellant Management	2022-11-04	20260007282	nasa
Analytical Model for Steady Flow through a Finite Channel with One Porous Wall with Arbitrary Variable Suction or Injection	2014-12-30	20190007974	nasa
A Predictive Bubble Point Pressure Model for Porous Liquid Acquisition Device Screens	2014-07-01	20190009778	nasa
Screen Channel Liquid Acquisition Device Outflow Tests in Liquid Hydrogen	2014-03-04	20140010818	nasa
Influential Factors for Liquid Acquisition Device Screen Selection for Cryogenic Propulsion Systems	2014-02-18	20190009779	nasa

These are bibliographic comparisons, not experimental rankings. Follow the original document for methods and conditions.