Search NASA⌕ Search
Home/Archive/NASA NTRS

NASA NTRS · 20140010818

Screen Channel Liquid Acquisition Device Outflow Tests in Liquid Hydrogen

Hartwig, Jason W.·Chato, David J.·McQuillen, J. B.·Vera, J.·Kudlac, M. T.·Quinn, F. D.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

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 (LH2). 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 LH2 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.

Explore related subjects

Liquid Acquisition DeviceThermodynamic Vent SystemLiquid Hydrogen

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Hartwig, Jason W., Chato, David J., McQuillen, J. B., Vera, J., Kudlac, M. T., Quinn, F. D.. 2013-06-23. Screen Channel Liquid Acquisition Device Outflow Tests in Liquid Hydrogen. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20140010818

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Cryogenic Fluid Management subjectFuel Depot subjectLiquid Acquisition Device subjectLiquid Hydrogen subjectSubcooled Liquid subjectThermodynamic Vent Heat Exchanger subjectThermodynamic Vent System subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

NASA NTRS2023

Benchmark Performance Metrics of a Vane Propellant Management Device for a 0.15 m3 Liquid Hydrogen Tank

The use of cryogenic propellants has and will continue to play an integral role in manned-space exploration due the high specific impulses offered and its ubiquity through in-situ resource utilization. But guaranteeing vapor-free transfer of such low-surface tension liquids is difficult for traditional capillary-action propellant management devices (PMDs). Screen-channel liquid acquisition devices and compliant origami bladders are potential solutions, but to quantify the benefits these technologies offer, this paper present a cast study analyzing the performance metrics of an orthodox vane PMD as a benchmark for comparison. A 0.15 m3 liquid hydrogen tank at 20.3 K and 103 kPa was selected for study. Then assuming no body forces and no heat transfer (for simplicity), a steady-state 1-D differential equation was numerically solved in tandem with four possible wetted area configurations to yield an expulsion efficiency for a theoretically maximum inputted expulsion flow rate. Maximization of the flow rate was constrained by the onset of choked flow. Additional inputs, including vane height and vane number, were parametrically varied between 0.1 – 10 cm and 4 – 28 vanes, respectively.

Liquid Acquisition Device↗
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↗