Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “GFSSP”

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.

105 records · Page 6
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.

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↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Numerical Simulation of No Vent Chill and Fill of a Large Liquid Hydrogen Tank

On orbit transfer of cryogenic liquids is necessary for many future space missions. The techniques required to transfer cryogens in micro gravity are quite different from ground system applications. In normal gravity, cryogenic tanks are usually filled from the bottom at nearly atmospheric pressure. The vapor generated due to heat transfer from warm tank walls, is allowed to vent from the top of the tank while the tank is being filled. If the normal gravity technique is used on orbit, the uncertainty of liquid and vapor distributions in unsettled condition may result in dumping of large amounts of liquid propellant overboard. The Vented Chill and No Vent Fill (VCNVF) process is a methodology [1] used to reduce propellant loss by holding the vent valve open during initial wall chilldown, preventing over-pressurization of the tank and stalling of the incoming flow, but closing the tank vent valve after chilling the tank wall sufficiently. An accurate simulation of no vent tank chill and fill is necessary to estimate the amount of propellant necessary to chill the tank, determine the maximum sustainable flowrate to fill the tank without stalling, and establish a timeline for the filling process. Numerical modeling of filling a cryogenic tank is complex because the flow is two-phase and the process involves both boiling and condensation with heat transfer between solid and fluid. In recent years, progress has been made to develop a numerical modeling technique [2,3,4] that has been verified by comparing with the test data from a small flight tank using liquid nitrogen [5]. The purpose of the present paper is to apply this technique in a larger tank with liquid hydrogen and compare with the test data of Chato [1]. The K-site Test Facility [1], shown in Figure 1, consists of a Test Tank, spray system, instrumentation, and the vacuum chamber. The test tank selected was ellipsoidal with an 87 inch major diameter and a 1.2 to 1 major to minor axis ratio. The two ends are joined by a short 1.5 inch cylindrical section. The tank is made of 2219 aluminum chemically milled to a nominal thickness of 0.087 inches. The tank weighs 329.25 pounds, and the tank volume is 175 ft 3 . The GFSSP model of the Test Tank is shown in Figure 2. Node 13 is a boundary node that represents the supply tank which is supplying liquid hydrogen at a given pressure and temperature. The total measured flowrate is evenly distributed through Branches 131 through 139. Nodes 1 through 9 represent the test tank and they are connected with metal solid nodes 14 through 22 through fluid-to-solid conductors that allow convective heat transfer between the solid and fluid nodes. The predicted tank pressure, filling rate, wall temperature and fluid temperature will be compared with test data.

Alok Majumdar↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Two-Dimensional Network Flow Modeling of No-Vent Tank Filling of A Cryogenic Tank With Thermo-Dynamic Vent System Assisted Injector

A finite volume-based network flow modeling tool, Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program (GFSSP), was used to simulate the no-vent filling of a cryogenic tank with a thermodynamic vent system assisted injector. The tank was discretized into nodes in the radial and axial directions to calculate two-dimensional axisymmetric flow with heat transfer between the solid wall and fluid. The nodes are connected by branches where momentum equations are solved to calculate the flowrates. The mass and energy conservation equations and the equation of state are solved to calculate pressure, temperature, and resident mass at the nodes. The energy conservation equations at the solid nodes were solved to calculate the temperature of the solid wall. The system of equations was solved by a combination of successive substitution and simultaneous Newton-Raphson method. The numerical model accounts for a) different regimes of pool boiling heat transfer, b) condensation of vapor around the spray droplets, c) condensation of vapor at the interface of the cooled injector and ullage, and d) condensation at the liquid-vapor interphase. The numerical predictions of tank pressure, filling rate, and wall temperatures were compared with the test data. The paper also presents the effect of nodal discretization by comparing the results of the 1D and 2D models and examines the effect of the droplet diameter on tank filling.

Nodal Model↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Liquefaction Model for A Cryogenically Refrigerated Ellipsoidal Tank

Over the past few decades NASA has been developing technology to produce cryogenic propellants on the surfaces of the Moon or Mars. In-situ propellant production reduces the amount of propellants needed to be taken to Moon/Mars and ultimately reduces mission cost. Utilizing Lunar/Martian resources, the produced gases are liquefied and stored prior to use on the ascent vehicle. This paper presents a model for the liquefaction process of gaseous propellants in a cryogenically refrigerated tank. The tank is cylindrical with elliptical top and bottom domes. A transient model is developed based on the mass and energy conservation principles and wall-gas and liquid-gas interfacial mass and heat transfer correlations. The model is incorporated into the Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program (GFSSP), an MSFC in-house general-purpose computer program for flow network analysis. Description of the model and comparison of predicted results with available test data is presented.

Liquefaction↗
NASA NTRS2023

Universal Two-Phase Convection Heat Transfer Correlations for Cryogenic Pipe Chilldown

This paper presents a set of universal two-phase convection heat transfer correlations for modeling boiling heat transfer during pipe chilldown fit over the widest available range of cryogenic fluids and thermodynamic conditions. The correlations improve upon prior correlations that were developed separately for liquid nitrogen (LN2) and liquid hydrogen (LH2) pipe quenching datasets. The new correlations include equations to calculate the single-phase vapor heat transfer, film boiling heat transfer, transition boiling heat transfer, nucleate boiling heat transfer, single-phase liquid heat transfer, bulk vapor temperature during high quality film boiling, Leidenfrost temperature, critical heat flux, critical heat flux temperature, and the onset of nucleate boiling temperature. The correlations were validated against LH2, LN2, liquid methane, liquid oxygen, and liquid argon pipe quenching datasets. The eight datasets cover the following parameter ranges: pipe lengths of 0.1 to 6.5m; outer pipe diameters of 12.7 to 25.4 mm; pipe wall thicknesses from 0.51 to 1.64 mm; flow directions of upward, downward, and horizontal; gravity levels of 1g and 0g±0.01g. A numerical model assumes homogeneous mixing between the vapor and liquid and implicitly integrates the coupled energy equations for the pipe and fluid, as well as continuity for the fluid. The model was used to estimate the equilibrium quality and fluid mass accumulation along the pipes during chilldown from estimates of the fluid-pipe heat transfer extracted from temperature measurements. The correlations can be implemented in lumped parameter codes such as SINDA/FLUINT and the Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program (GFSSP) to improve the accuracy of chilldown time and chilldown boiloff mass predictions. Such predictions are useful for designing ground or in-space cryogenic liquid transfer systems.

Universal Correlations↗
NASA NTRS2023

Two-Dimensional Network Flow Modeling of No-Vent Tank Filling of A Cryogenic Tank With Thermo-Dynamic Vent System Assisted Injector

A finite volume-based network flow modeling tool, Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program (GFSSP), was used to simulate the no-vent filling of a cryogenic tank with a thermodynamic vent system assisted injector. The tank was discretized into nodes in the radial and axial directions to calculate two-dimensional axisymmetric flow with heat transfer between the solid wall and fluid. The nodes are connected by branches where momentum equations are solved to calculate the flowrates. The mass and energy conservation equations and the equation of state are solved to calculate pressure, temperature, and resident mass at the nodes. The energy conservation equations at the solid nodes were solved to calculate the temperature of the solid wall. The system of equations was solved by a combination of successive substitution and simultaneous Newton-Raphson method. The numerical model accounts for a) different regimes of pool boiling heat transfer, b) condensation of vapor around the spray droplets, c) condensation of vapor at the interface of the cooled injector and ullage, and d) condensation at the liquid-vapor interphase. The numerical predictions of tank pressure, filling rate, and wall temperatures were compared with the test data. The paper also presents the effect of nodal discretization by comparing the results of the 1D and 2D models and examines the effect of the droplet diameter on tank filling.

Nodal Model↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Numerical Analysis of Cavitation-Induced Two-Phase Fluid Transients in Cryogenic Feedlines Using Finite Volume Procedure

This article presents a numerical investigation of the cavitation induced fluid transient in cryogenic feedline due to sudden closure of the valve A one dimensional numerical model based on finite volume procedure consisting of nodes and branches using Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program ( has been employed for the prediction of pressure variations The unsteady friction formulation accurately determines wall shear stress, and a homogeneous mixture model is used for two phase flow modeling Numerical results obtained with the present formulation are compared with experimental results and Method of Characteristic ( based results It is observed that low residual in flow variable calculation improves the solution providing numerically stable results GFSSP is able to reproduce the fluid transient peak due to vapor collapse Subsequently, it can retain the shape of pressure wave for two phase fluid transients, but it is dampening faster compared to experiments Further investigation is required with set of experiments to validate the present numerical approach for different experimental data.

Fluid Transient↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Nodal Modeling of Submerged Helium Injection Pressurization of a Cryogenic Propellant Tank

Subcooling of cryogenic propellant by helium injection is one of the most effective methods for suppressing bulk boiling and keeping subcooled propellant conditions for pre-launch, launch, and post-launch pressurization applications. For tank pressurization, submerged helium injection can substantially reduce helium consumption by infusing gaseous propellant into the tank ullage. This paper describes a thermodynamic model of the helium bubbling process in liquid oxygen to estimate the amount of oxygen vapor absorbed by the rising helium bubbles and the amount of subcooling of liquid oxygen due to evaporative heat and mass transfer. The physics of helium dissolution during the pressurization process is also modeled, primarily for liquid hydrogen propellant where the dissolution is more significant. The analyses were performed in a simulation model of tank pressurization built with Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program (GFSSP), a general-purpose flow network code developed at NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center. The numerical predictions of subcooling have been compared with the experimental data of Cho et al. which investigated the propellant subcooling effect as a function of system pressure, helium injection temperature, and flowrate for a non-drained submerged injection system. The numerical predictions of helium consumption have been compared with the test data from a NASA Centaur test vehicle which included both direct and submerged injection with draining of propellants. Hydrogen propellant testing of the Cryogenic Propellant Storage and Transfer Engineering Developmental Unit (CPST EDU) conducted at NASA/Glenn Research Facility was also analyzed. The data used for the model validation were taken in 1-g, but the model was developed to be applicable in both multi-g and micro-g environments.

tank pressurization↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Nodal Modeling of Tank Pressurization and Draining using a Multi-Node-Ullage Approach

Pressurized expulsion tests of liquid methane were modeled by a nodal code using a multinode ullage approach. Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program (GFSSP), a finite volume based nodal code was used to model the expulsion of liquid methane from a 1.52-meter (5 ft) diameter spherical tank by pressurizing with helium and gaseous methane. The purpose of the model was to estimate the amount of pressurant required and amount of condensation and evaporation of methane during the operation. The ullage was discretized into multiple nodes and each fluid node was connected to solid nodes. Both the fluid and solid nodes grow as the tank drains. The heat and mass transfer between fluid and solid node in the tank ullage was computed. The heat and mass transfer between the bottom ullage node and the liquid methane was also computed. The model predictions were compared with data from twelve test cases. The predicted pressurant consumption for helium pressurization compares with test data with a Mean Absolute Percent Error (MAPE) of 3 %. For autogenous pressurization, where gaseous methane was used to pressurize liquid methane, the predicted pressurant consumption compares with a MAPE of 6%.

Cryogenic Propellant↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Nodal Modeling of Helium Pressurization and Autogenous Pressurization and Draining using a Multi-Node-Ullage Approach

Pressurized expulsion tests of liquid methane were modeled by a nodal code using a multinode ullage approach. Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program (GFSSP), a finite volume based nodal code was used to model the expulsion of liquid methane from a 1.52-meter (5 ft) diameter spherical tank by pressurizing with helium and gaseous methane. The purpose of the model was to estimate the amount of pressurant required and amount of condensation and evaporation of methane during the operation. The ullage was discretized into multiple nodes and each fluid node was connected to solid nodes. Both the fluid and solid nodes grow as the tank drains. The heat and mass transfer between fluid and solid node in the tank ullage was computed. The heat and mass transfer between the bottom ullage node and the liquid methane was also computed. The model predictions were compared with data from twelve test cases. The predicted pressurant consumption for helium pressurization compares with test data with a Mean Absolute Percent Error (MAPE) of 3%. For autogenous pressurization, where gaseous methane was used to pressurize liquid methane, the predicted pressurant consumption compares with a MAPE of 6%.

Nodal Model↗
NASA NTRS2026

CFD-Assisted Nodal Modeling of Sloshing in a Cryogenic Propellant Tank

During autogenous pressurization, tank sloshing causes a significant increase in pressurant consumption to maintain constant ullage pressure during draining of the tank. This increase in pressurant consumption is caused by a significant increase in condensation at the liquid-vapor interface. Sloshing strongly affects the liquid side heat transfer coefficient and thereby the condensation rate. Traditionally, sloshing is modeled by CFD code using the VOF (Volume of Fluid) method to track the liquid vapor interface during sloshing. CFD calculations require a very fine grid to accurately compute the heat and mass transfer at the interface. Therefore, computations are time consuming and prohibit performing many parametric studies often needed during the design of a new system. This paper describes an alternative approach by developing a CFD-assisted nodal model to predict system parameters more economically with reasonable accuracy. In this approach, a multi-node model of tank pressurization was developed using GFSSP. A multi-node model was needed to account for stratification. The model computes heat and mass transfer at the interface to calculate the condensation rate. The liquid side heat transfer is computed using the parameters of sloshing dynamics such as frequency, wave amplitude, and interface area. The parameters of sloshing dynamics are computed by the CFD code LOCI-Stream. The model predictions were compared with test data for several cases.

Cryogenic Tank Sloshing↗
NASA NTRS2015

Numerical Simulation of Liquid Nitrogen Chilldown of a Vertical Tube

This paper presents the results of a one-dimensional numerical simulation of the transient chilldown of a vertical stainless steel tube with liquid nitrogen. The direction of flow is downward (with gravity) through the tube. Heat transfer correlations for film, transition, and nucleate boiling, as well as critical heat flux, rewetting temperature, and the temperature at the onset of nucleate boiling were used to model the convection to the tube wall. Chilldown curves from the simulations were compared with data from 55 recent liquid nitrogen chilldown experiments. With these new correlations the simulation is able to predict the time to rewetting temperature and time to onset of nucleate boiling to within 25% for mass fluxes ranging from 61.2 to 1150 kg/(sq m s), inlet pressures from 175 to 817 kPa, and subcooled inlet temperatures from 0 to 14 K below the saturation temperature.

GFSSP↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Fluid System Stability Analysis Techniques

Fluid systems, or networks, consist of multiple components that work together to achieve some desired thermofluid state. For any generic application, this fluid state can be a combination of the fluid pressure, flow rate, enthalpy, or species concentration. Fluid system components, such as pumps and valves, are often governed by nonlinear differential equations, resulting in complex component-to-component interactions. System-level fluid network stability occurs when the flow through the system can maintain a steady-state solution in the presence of small perturbations, which depends on these component interactions. System instability, however, can go undetected until issues arise during integrated system testing. This presentation explores a method for system designers to think of the fluid network as an assembly of components, each with their own thermofluid surfaces of partial stability, called nullclines. The intersections of all nullclines yields system-level solutions, called equilibrium points. When designers define operating points, they are tuning system parameters so that these equilibrium points move to the desired location in the thermofluid state plane. However, linearization theory shows us that the dynamic behavior around these points can be unstable. The local stability of these equilibrium points can be assessed analytically with eigen-analysis, or numerically by propagating state-plane samples to construct a phase portrait. Investigating a phase portrait can help designers gain a qualitative understanding of a system’s dynamic performance. This understanding can then help inform requirement definitions, component selection, and operational procedures. This presentation includes an example of the phase portrait technique on a system featuring a centrifugal pump and a back-pressure regulator (BPR). Numerical modeling of this system suggests that equilibrium points on the left-hand side of the pump curve are dynamically unstable.

Fluid System↗