Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Hydrogen Tank”

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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2017

Pressurization of a Flightweight, Liquid Hydrogen Tank: Evaporation & Condensation at a Liquid/Vapor Interface

This paper presents an analysis and simulation of evaporation and condensation at a motionless liquid/vapor interface. A 1-D model equation, emphasizing heat and mass transfer at the interface, is solved in two ways, and incorporated into a subgrid interface model within a CFD simulation. Simulation predictions are compared with experimental data from the CPST Engineering Design Unit tank, a cryogenic fluid management test tank in 1-g. The numerical challenge here is the physics of the liquid/vapor interface; pressurizing the ullage heats it by several degrees, and sets up an interfacial temperature gradient that transfers heat to the liquid phase-the rate limiting step of condensation is heat conducted through the liquid and vapor. This physics occurs in thin thermal layers O(1 mm) on either side of the interface which is resolved by the subgrid interface model. An accommodation coefficient of 1.0 is used in the simulations which is consistent with theory and measurements. This model is predictive of evaporation/condensation rates, that is, there is no parameter tuning.

Stewart, Mark E. M.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Annular Air Leaks in a Liquid Hydrogen Storage Tank

Large liquid hydrogen (LH2) storage tanks are vital infrastructure for NASA, the DOD, and industrial users. Over time, air may leak into the evacuated, perlite filled annular region of these tanks. Once inside, the extremely low temperatures will cause most of the air to freeze. If a significant mass of air is allowed to accumulate, severe damage can result from nominal draining operations. Collection of liquid air on the outer shell may chill it below its ductility range, resulting in fracture. Testing and analysis to quantify the thermal conductivity of perlite that has nitrogen frozen into its interstitial spaces and to determine the void fraction of frozen nitrogen within a perlite-frozen nitrogen mixture is presented. General equations to evaluate methods for removing frozen air, while avoiding fracture, are developed. A hypothetical leak is imposed on an existing tank and a full analysis of that leak is detailed. This analysis includes a thermal model of the tank and a time-to-failure calculation. Approaches to safely remove the frozen air are analyzed, leading to the conclusion that the optimal approach is to allow the frozen air to melt and use a water stream to prevent the outer shell from chilling.

Krenn, A. G.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Pad B Liquid Hydrogen Storage Tank

Kennedy Space Center is home to two liquid hydrogen storage tanks, one at each launch pad of Launch Complex 39. The liquid hydrogen storage tank at Launch Pad B has a significantly higher boil off rate that the liquid hydrogen storage tank at Launch Pad A. This research looks at various calculations concerning the at Launch Pad B in an attempt to develop a solution to the excess boil off rate. We will look at Perlite levels inside the tank, Boil off rates, conductive heat transfer, and radiant heat transfer through the tank. As a conclusion to the research, we will model the effects of placing an external insulation to the tank in order to reduce the boil off rate and increase the economic efficiency of the liquid hydrogen storage tanks.

Hall, Felicia↗
NASA NTRS1993

Influence of heat transfer rates on pressurization of liquid/slush hydrogen propellant tanks

A multi-dimensional computational model of the pressurization process in liquid/slush hydrogen tank is developed and used to study the influence of heat flux rates at the ullage boundaries on the process. The new model computes these rates and performs an energy balance for the tank wall whereas previous multi-dimensional models required a priori specification of the boundary heat flux rates. Analyses of both liquid hydrogen and slush hydrogen pressurization were performed to expose differences between the two processes. Graphical displays are presented to establish the dependence of pressurization time, pressurant mass required, and other parameters of interest on ullage boundary heat flux rates and pressurant mass flow rate. Detailed velocity fields and temperature distributions are presented for selected cases to further illuminate the details of the pressurization process. It is demonstrated that ullage boundary heat flux rates do significantly effect the pressurization process and that minimizing heat loss from the ullage and maximizing pressurant flow rate minimizes the mass of pressurant gas required to pressurize the tank. It is further demonstrated that proper dimensionless scaling of pressure and time permit all the pressure histories examined during this study to be displayed as a single curve.

Sasmal, G. P.↗
NASA NTRS1987

Design, development and test of shuttle/Centaur G-prime cryogenic tankage thermal protection systems

The thermal protection systems for the shuttle/Centaur would have had to provide fail-safe thermal protection during prelaunch, launch ascent, and on-orbit operations as well as during potential abort. The thermal protection systems selected used a helium-purged polyimide foam beneath three rediation shields for the liquid-hydrogen tank and radiation shields only for the liquid-oxygen tank (three shields on the tank sidewall and four on the aft bulkhead). A double-walled vacuum bulkhead separated the two tanks. The liquid-hydrogen tank had one 0.75-in-thick layer of foam on the forward bulkhead and two layers on the larger area sidewall. Full scale tests of the flight vehicle in a simulated shuttle cargo bay that was purged with gaseous nitrogen gave total prelaunch heating rates of 88,500 Btu/hr and 44,000 Btu/hr for the liquid-hydrogen and -oxygen tanks, respectively. Calorimeter tests on a representative sample of the liquid-hydrogen tank sidewall thermal protection system indicated that the measured unit heating rate would rapidly decrease from the prelaunch rate of approx 100 Btu/hr/sq ft to a desired rate of less than 1.3 Btu/hr/sq ft once on orbit.

Knoll, Richard H.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Vacuum Pump-Down of the Annular Insulation Space for Large Field-Erected Liquid Hydrogen Storage Tanks

Insulation systems are critical to liquid hydrogen storage tank performance. Tanks in the capacity range of 100 to 1,000 m 3 are typically shop built and designed with high-vacuum (HV) multi-layer insulation (MLI), whereas storage vessels larger than 1,000 m 3 are typically field-erected and supplied with bulk fill insulation working at moderate vacuum (MV) levels (1-100 millitorr). For large, field-erected vessels, two types of bulk fill insulation typically used: perlite and hollow glass microspheres (glass bubbles). Selection of either material is driven by a tradeoff between CAPEX and OPEX, such as the material and construction cost versus operating thermal performance and maintenance. In either case, the vacuum level needed to achieve optimum performance is likely to drive the field testing and commissioning portion of the construction schedule. A primary goal of this paper is to present practical experience and data for warm vacuum pressure (WVP) and cold vacuum pressure (CVP) levels. Recommended WVP levels needed prior to cooldown consider both perlite powder and glass bubbles. Pumping time expected to achieve target vacuum levels, considering a variety of factors, is also discussed. Recommendations for a standard practice in vacuum-insulated tank commissioning are based on historical NASA data, and those collected during recent projects.

A M Swanger↗
NASA NTRS1994

Experimental Investigation of Jet-Induced Mixing of a Large Liquid Hydrogen Storage Tank

Experiments have been conducted to investigate the effect of fluid mixing on the depressurization of a large liquid hydrogen storage tank. The test tank is approximately ellipsoidal, having a volume of 4.89 m(exp 3) and an average wall heat flux of 4.2 W/m(exp 2) due to external heat input. A mixer unit was installed near the bottom of the tank to generate an upward directed axial jet flow normal to the liquid-vapor interface. Mixing tests were initiated after achieving thermally stratified conditions in the tank either by the introduction of hydrogen gas into the tank or by self-pressurization due to ambient heat leak through the tank wall. The subcooled liquid jet directed towards the liquid-vapor interface by the mixer induced vapor condensation and caused a reduction in tank pressure. Tests were conducted at two jet submergence depths for jet Reynolds numbers from 80,000 to 495,000 and Richardson numbers from 0.014 to 0.52. Results show that the rate of tank pressure change is controlled by the competing effects of subcooled jet flow and the free convection boundary layer flow due to external tank wall heating. It is shown that existing correlations for mixing time and vapor condensation rate based on small scale tanks may not be applicable to large scale liquid hydrogen systems.

Lin, C. S.↗
NASA NTRS1960

Flight Operation of a Pump-Fed Liquid-Hydrogen Fuel System

A pump-fed liquid-hydrogen fuel system was developed and flight tested in a B57 bomber. The aircraft was flown to an altitude of 50,000 feet and a Mach number of 0.75 with JP-4 fuel in both engines. One engine was then switched to hydrogen operation for approximately 11 minutes. The liquid-hydrogen pump used for these flights was a five-cylinder positive-displacement type submerged in the bottom of the hydrogen tank. The hydrogen flow regulator was able to maintain a constant engine speed even though pump speed and discharge pressure oscillated.

David B. Fenn↗
NASA NTRS2010

Glass Bubbles Insulation for Liquid Hydrogen Storage Tanks

A full-scale field application of glass bubbles insulation has been demonstrated in a 218,000 L liquid hydrogen storage tank. This work is the evolution of extensive materials testing, laboratory scale testing, and system studies leading to the use of glass bubbles insulation as a cost efficient and high performance alternative in cryogenic storage tanks of any size. The tank utilized is part of a rocket propulsion test complex at the NASA Stennis Space Center and is a 1960's vintage spherical double wall tank with an evacuated annulus. The original perlite that was removed from the annulus was in pristine condition and showed no signs of deterioration or compaction. Test results show a significant reduction in liquid hydrogen boiloff when compared to recent baseline data prior to removal of the perlite insulation. The data also validates the previous laboratory scale testing (1000 L) and full-scale numerical modeling (3,200,000 L) of boiloff in spherical cryogenic storage tanks. The performance of the tank will continue to be monitored during operation of the tank over the coming years.

Glass bubble↗
NASA NTRS1983

High speed machining of space shuttle external tank liquid hydrogen barrel panel

Actual and projected optimum High Speed Machining data for producing shuttle external tank liquid hydrogen barrel panels of aluminum alloy 2219-T87 are reported. The data included various machining parameters; e.g., spindle speeds, cutting speed, table feed, chip load, metal removal rate, horsepower, cutting efficiency, cutter wear (lack of) and chip removal methods.

Hankins, J. D.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Assessment of the hydrogen external tank pressure decay anomaly on Space Transportation System (STS) 51-L

Following the Challenger tragedy, an evaluation of the integrated main propulsion system flight data revealed a premature decay in the hydrogen external tank ullage pressure. A reconstruction of predicted ullage pressure versus time indicated an inconsistency between predicted and measured ullage pressure starting at approximately 65.5 seconds into the flight and reaching a maximum value between 72 and 72.9 seconds. This discrepancy could have been caused by a hydrogen gas leak or by a liquied hydrogen leak that occurred either in the pressurization system or in the external tank. The corresponding leak rates over the time interval from 65.5 to 72.9 seconds were estimated to range from 0.28 kg/s (0.62 lbm/s) + or - 41 percent to between 0.43 and 0.51kg/s (0.94 and 1.12lbs/s) + or - 1 percent for a gas leak and from 72.9 kg/s (160.5 lbs/s) + or - 41 percent to between 111.6 and 133.2 kg/s (245.8 and 293.3 lbs/s) + or - 1 percent for a liquid leak. No speculation is made to ascertain whether the leak is liquid or gas, as this cannot be determined from the analysis performed. Four structural failures in the hydrogen external tank were considered to explain the leak rates. A break in the 5-cm (2 in) pressurization line, in the 13-cm (5 in) vent line, or in the 43-cm (17 in) feedline is not likely. A break in the 10-cm (4 in) recirculation line with a larger structural failure occurring in the 72 to 73-second time period, the time of the visibly identified premature pressure decay, does seem plausible and the most likely of the four modes considered. These modes are not all-inclusive and do not preclude the possibility of a leak elsewhere in the tank.

Buckley, Theresa M.↗
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.↗