Results for “CFM” — Page 9

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Managing Spacecraft Risk with Space Environments Testing via Process Safety Management at the NASA Neil A. Armstrong Test Facility (GRC-ATF)

The NASA Glenn Research Center’s Neil A. Armstrong Test Facility (GRC-ATF) is home to several unique, world class aerospace test facilities, including the In-Space Propulsion (ISP) Facility. The ISP Facility is NASA’s largest chamber designed to store and transfer large quantities of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen; and is designed to support developmental testing of upper stage chemical propulsion systems as well as fully integrated stages. The facility is also capable of providing thermal-vacuum simulation services to support testing of aerospace hardware, Cryogenic Fluid Management (CFM) systems and other In-Space propulsion programs. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Process Safety Management (PSM) of Highly Hazardous Chemicals Standard (29 CFR 1910.119) is an analytical tool focused on preventing the release of chemicals and other energy sources. In a short timeframe, GRC-ATF was required to restore a PSM Program at the Facility. Although the summarized work is specific to the ground testing of rockets and space vehicles, the ISP Facility is used to verify system level requirements, some of these are safety requirements, and thus key to managing risks in space.

Safety↗

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.

Cameron J. Hines↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Particle and Trace Gas Emissions Indices Measured During the 2021 Boeing ecoDemonstrator Emissions Ground Test

We present particle and trace gas emissions indices sampled on the ground at 30 meters behind the CFM LEAP-1B engines of the 2021 Boeing ecoDemonstrator, an Alaska Airlines 737-9 aircraft. Testing was carried out at Boeing Field in Seattle, WA, USA in Fall of 2021. Four different fuels were investigated including a 100% sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), a petroleum-based Jet A fuel, and two SAF blends. Total and non-volatile particle number concentrations were measured with a pair of condensation particle counters with one operating behind a custom-built thermal denuder heated to 350 degrees Celsius. Similarly, total and non-volatile particle number size distributions were measured with a pair of Scanning Mobility Particle Sizers (SMPSs). Non-volatile particle mass was estimated from particle light absorption techniques using an assumed mass absorption coefficient, while particle chemical speciation was measured by an Soot Particle Aerosol Mass Spectrometer (SP-AMS). A detailed list of instruments is given on the project website [1]. Overall, the results are consistent with expectations based on ICAO Emissions Databank certification data for the LEAP-1B with a stark reduction in non-volatile particle number and mass observed for the higher thrust conditions when the combustor was staged. The production of volatile particles under these conditions as well as experimental considerations related to background subtraction methods will be discussed. References: [1] Boeing ecoDemonstrator Science and Engineering Team (2022). 2021 Boeing ecoDemonstrator Emissions Ground Test Dataset

Richard H Moore↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Liquid Hydrogen Tank Chill and No-Vent Fill Prediction using Computational Fluid Dynamics

Cryogenic tank chill and fill is an important cryogenic fluid management (CFM) technology that supports and enables many of NASA’s long-duration space missions. For no-vent fill, the receiver tank pressure remains below the supply tank pressure during the entire duration of the fill so that the tank does not require venting. This is especially advantageous for tank fill operations in low gravity where the position of the liquid is not always known and venting the tank may cause loss of propellant by venting liquid. In lieu of expensive tests conducted on-orbit, accurate computational models capable of predicting receiver tank pressure during cryogenic propellant tank fill may be used to reduce system and propellant mass as well as mission risk. However, these numerical models must be validated or anchored to test data. This study presents a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model with conjugate heat transfer that is used to predict a liquid hydrogen tank chill and no-vent fill ground test conducted at Lewis Research Center (now Glenn Research Center) in 1991. The specific test case chosen for model validation implemented an upward-facing jet near the bottom of a cylindrical 34 liter tank. CFD predictions are compared to experimental measurements of tank pressure, fill level, fluid temperatures, and wall temperatures. The CFD results show reasonable agreement to the test data but overpredict the pressure collapse near the end of the fill despite the liquid jet penetrating the liquid-vapor interface. Several sensitivity studies are considered due to notable uncertainties in the experiment.

Computational Fluid Dynamics↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Validation of Thermodynamic Vent System Performance using Thermal Desktop

Cryogenic fluid management (CFM) for in-space propulsion systems is crucial to enabling future space missions. A means to control the pressure inside a propellant tank is necessary to prevent the venting of liquid propellant in microgravity environments. A thermodynamic vent system (TVS) is one way to regulate the pressure and temperature of the fluid inside a tank. A previous study created a simplified model of a TVS in a two-phase cryogenic heat exchanger. The TVS expands the working fluid across a Joule-Thomson (J-T) device and routes the cooled fluid through the heat exchanger to remove heat from the surrounding fluid. The model was able to predict the TVS heat extraction performance and was validated against experimental data using the same hardware. This study expands the model of the TVS into Thermal Desktop (TD) and recreates the results from both the original model and the experimental data. This new TD model has the potential to be used to predict TVS heat extraction performance in cryogenic propellant tanks for future space missions.

Cryogenic Fluid Management↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Particle and Trace Gas Emissions Indices Measured During the 2021 Boeing ecoDemonstrator Emissions Ground Test

We present particle and trace gas emissions indices sampled on the ground at 30 meters behind the CFM LEAP-1B engines of the Boeing ecoDemonstrator 737-9 aircraft. Testing was carried out at Boeing Field in Seattle, WA, USA in Fall of 2021. Four different fuels were investigated including a 100% sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), a petroleum-based Jet A fuel, and two SAF blends. Total and non-volatile particle number concentrations were measured with a pair of condensation particle counters with one operating behind a custom-built thermal denuder heated to 350 degrees Celsius. Similarly, total and non-volatile particle number size distributions were measured with a pair of Scanning Mobility Particle Sizers (SMPSs). Non-volatile particle mass was estimated from particle light absorption techniques using an assumed mass absorption coefficient, while particle chemical speciation was measured by an Soot Particle Aerosol Mass Spectrometer (SP-AMS). A detailed list of instruments is given on the project website [1]. Overall, the results are consistent with expectations based on ICAO Emissions Databank certification data for the LEAP-1B with a stark reduction in non-volatile particle number and mass observed for the higher thrust conditions when the combustor was staged. The production of volatile particles under these conditions as well as experimental considerations related to background subtraction methods will be discussed.

Benjamin A. Nault↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Slosh-Induced Ullage Collapse Validation by Computational Fluid Dynamics and Application to In-space Propellant Dynamics

Ullage collapse predictions made using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) were validated then made for an in-space cryogenic propellant unsettling application. Ullage collapse is the decrease in propellant tank pressure due to cooling of the ullage gas, which can be significant for cryogenic propulsion systems. Vehicles may be developed that are robust to temperature and pressure changes caused by heat leaks, e.g., propellant tanks with high maximum operation pressures, technologies yielding active thermal conditioning, and systems with ample pressurant for conditioning. These methods are robust because additional mass, cost, and complexity are used to address cryogenic fluid management (CFM). As vehicles are optimized for increased payload capacity, tracking of events such as ullage collapse and self-pressurization in tanks will become increasingly important for propellant inventory calculations. Some ullage collapse events can be studied through ground experimentation, but propellant unsettling in and around in-space coast mission phases must be studied in the absence of an acceleration field. Computational Fluid Dynamics is a powerful tool to address this need, enabling prediction of complex physics prior to flight. Validation of the chosen CFD tool and modeling methodology was done using data from a previously conducted subscale slosh-induced ullage collapse ground test performed in part by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). A small tank was partially filled with liquid nitrogen and pressurized with gaseous nitrogen at various temperatures. The tank was oscillated laterally to induce high amplitude slosh dynamics resulting in wave breakup. Successful qualitative validation of slosh wave dynamics and quantitative validation of ullage collapse promoted confidence in extending ullage collapse predictions to a flight application. Mechanisms of ullage collapse caused by main engine cutoff while in-space were identified. Both slosh dynamics leading to engine shutdown and body dynamics following shutdown were shown to contribute to propellant unsettling and ullage collapse.

J M Brodnick↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CFD and Thermodynamic Model Predictions of No-Vent Tank Filling in Microgravity

Cryogenic Fluid Management (CFM) of propellant fluids under low gravity conditions present an important challenge in the pursuit of NASA’s future long-duration space missions. Success of these missions relies to a large extent on the ability to store and transfer the cryogenic liquid fuels efficiently and safely. To this end, the Zero-Boil-Off Tank Filling and Transfer Experiment (ZBOT-FT) undertaken by University of Bremen in collaboration with Case Western Reserve University aims at studying two phase flow tank-to-tank transfer operations in microgravity using a simulant fluid, Perfluoro-n-pentane (PNP). As part of this effort, in this work, we present a system level homogeneous thermodynamic model and a two-phase Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model of a no-vent cylindrical tank filling in microgravity. Both 2D axisymmetric and 3D parametric simulations case studies are performed to show the detailed physics of the filling process and the evolution of tank pressure for filling flow rates between 1.0 and 1.65 mL/s. A zero-dimensional homogeneous thermodynamic model is also developed to predict the final steady state tank pressure analytically. Comparison of the 2D and 3D CFD predictions of final pressures to the steady state thermodynamic results displays very good agreement. However, it is shown that the 2D axisymmetric model predicts a maxima in tank pressure before reaching steady state. It is indicted that this pressure maxima is caused by the constraints inherent in the axisymmetric model and is absent in the 3D and thermodynamic pressure predictions.

Two Phase Flow↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Validation of Ullage Collapse Due to Lateral Violent Slosh

Understanding the coupling between thermodynamics and propellant sloshing is important for cryogenic upper stages, especially during the lift-off phase and in missions including multiple restarts, as the fluid dynamic condition of the propellant is mainly influenced by various flight maneuvers. As a matter of fact, one of the major technical challenges associated with cryogenic fluid management (CFM) is the phenomenon of ullage gas collapse. This collapse is mainly caused by heat transfer from ullage gas to tank walls and interfacing propellants, which are both at temperatures well below those of this gas. The understanding of this phenomenon is of major importance concerning the next generation of cryogenic propellants. This section presents our assessment of a multi-phase CFD code developed at MSFC, Loci/STREAM-VOF, in predicting ullage thermodynamics and collapse due to violent slosh. The experimental data of Himeno et al. will be used for validation.

H. Q Yang↗

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

Liquid Hydrogen Tank Chill and No-Vent Fill Prediction Using Computational Fluid Dynamics

Cryogenic tank chill and fill is an important cryogenic fluid management (CFM) technology that supports and enables many of NASA’s long-duration space missions. For no-vent fill, the receiver tank pressure remains below the supply tank pressure during the entire duration of the fill so that the tank does not require venting. This is especially advantageous for tank fill operations in low gravity where the position of the liquid is not always known and venting the tank may cause loss of propellant by venting liquid. In lieu of expensive tests conducted on-orbit, accurate computational models capable of predicting receiver tank pressure during cryogenic propellant tank fill may be used to reduce system and propellant mass as well as mission risk. However, these numerical models must be validated or anchored to test data. This study presents a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model with conjugate heat transfer that is used to predict a liquid hydrogen tank chill and no-vent fill ground test conducted at Lewis Research Center (now Glenn Research Center) in 1991. The specific test case chosen for model validation implemented an upward-facing jet near the bottom of a cylindrical 34 liter tank. CFD predictions are compared to experimental measurements of tank pressure, fill level, fluid temperatures, and wall temperatures. The CFD results show reasonable agreement to the test data but overpredict the pressure collapse near the end of the fill despite the liquid jet penetrating the liquid-vapor interface. Several sensitivity studies are considered due to notable uncertainties in the experiment.

Computational Fluid Dynamics↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Cryogenic Fluid Management Flight Demonstration Summary: SpaceX 2020 Tipping Point

NASA Science and Technology Mission Directorate is investing in advancement of on-orbit cryogenic fluid management technologies by partnering with industry through Tipping Point contracts with the primary objective of reducing development costs and schedules for infusion into long duration missions utilizing cryogenic propellant. SpaceX was selected as a partner in 2020 to conduct a demonstration of CFM technologies on a Starship Mission. This presentation provides a summary of the top-level goals and objectives of this contract and how NASA has structured this partnership.

cryogenic fluid management↗

NASA NTRS2023

Solid-State Thermodynamic Vent System for Control of Cryogenic Propellants

A Solid-State Thermodynamic Vent System (STVS) is a novel Cryogenic Fluid Management (CFM) technology for spacecraft cryogenic propellant tanks that may reduce boiloff while providing greater control over the propellent condition. By exploiting the vacuum-induced cryocooling potential of cryogen-saturated silica aerogel material, an internal STVS heat exchanger expels some sacrificial cryogenic propellant to the vacuum of space to produce cooling within the storage tank. This cooling is transferred directly to the stored fluid, thereby reducing boiloff and increasing hold times. The primary STVS project objective was to design and build a bespoke STVS heat exchanger that employed aerogel blanket material and perform a ground demonstration of the technology using liquid nitrogen (LN2) as the cryogenic propellant. This demonstration aimed to prove that an STVS can have a positive influence on the tank boiloff, shown through a reduction in mass flow rate out of the system during operation, and exercise control over the tank pressure. Testing proved the effectiveness of the concept by reducing the LN2 boiloff rate and tank pressure by roughly 70% and 77% respectively during a single pump-down cycle, which sacrificed around 1.8 kg of propellant.

Propellant Production↗

NASA NTRS2024

An Approach to Evaluating the Impact of Small-Core Turbofan Technologies on Engine and Aircraft Performance

NASA’s Hybrid Thermally Efficient Core (HyTEC) project aims to accelerate the development of small-core turbofan engine technologies to enable a fuel burn reduction of 5 to 10 percent for next-generation aircraft, compared to 2020s best-in-class technology. This paper presents a demonstration of methods for evaluating the potential performance impact of small-core engine technologies developed under Phase 1 of the HyTEC project. The approach involves model-based systems analysis, where small-core innovations are integrated into baseline turbofan and aircraft systems models, creating a notional vision system. Performance of the vision system is examined at both the engine and vehicle level. The examined performance metrics include: engine bypass ratio, overall pressure ratio, high pressure compressor exit corrected mass flow, and aircraft fuel burn. The CFM LEAP-1B28 and Boeing 737 MAX 8 are chosen as the baseline state-of-the-art systems. Preliminary results map a design space for the small-core vision system and quantify the distinct effects of technologies on the key metrics.

Michael A Bennett↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CFD Modeling & Validation of Single Bubble Growth During Cavitation in Zero Gravity

Cryogenic Fluid Management (CFM) in zero gravity represents a vital area of research as NASA pursues future long-duration space missions. Success of these missions relies heavily on the ability to store and transfer the cryogenic liquid fuels efficiently and safely. In the Zero Boil-Off Tank (ZBOT-1) Experiment in 2018, unexpected and intense phase change occurred at the screened Liquid Acquisition Device (LAD) during tank pressure control that was later attributed to cavitation. The cavitation ultimately resulted in pump failure. Since cryogen cavitation during storage and transfer of propellants in microgravity has been a source of serious concern for the aerospace community, a series of drop tower experiments with liquid methane were also performed at the University of Bremen to carefully study cavitation from a single bubble nucleus in an engineered micron-sized wall cavity. As the test cell is depressurized during the 10-second drop, cavitation causes bubble growth from the nucleus. Here, in a collaboration between the Case Western Reserve University and University of Bremen, we present a two-phase Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model of bubble growth from a single wall cavity during depressurization in microgravity. Both 2D axisymmetric and 3D parametric simulation case studies are performed to show the evolution of the bubble growth. The model uses a Volume of Fluid (VOF) approach with and without adaptive mesh refinement and adaptive time stepping to capture the growth dynamics using an explicit formulation with algebraic reconstruction of the interface. CFD results show good agreement with corresponding experiment. Based on the velocity, temperature, and volume fraction fields generated by the validation case studies, detailed discussion and analysis of fluid flow and heat transfer during bubble growth process are presented to delineate the intricacies of the cavitation process. Strengths and shortcomings of the present numerical approach in capturing this phenomenon are also highlighted.

Two Phase Flow↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Approach to Evaluating the Impact of Small-core Turbofan Technologies on Engine and Aircraft Performance

NASA’s Hybrid Thermally Efficient Core (HyTEC) project aims to accelerate the development of small-core turbofan engine technologies to enable a fuel burn reduction of 5 to 10 percent for next-generation aircraft, compared to 2020s best-in-class technology. This paper presents a demonstration of methods for evaluating the potential performance impact of small-core engine technologies developed under Phase 1 of the HyTEC project. The approach involves model-based systems analysis, where small-core innovations are integrated into baseline turbofan and aircraft systems models, creating a notional vision system. Performance of the vision system is examined at both the engine and vehicle level. The examined performance metrics include: engine bypass ratio, overall pressure ratio, high pressure compressor exit corrected mass flow, and aircraft fuel burn. The CFM LEAP-1B28 and Boeing 737 MAX 8 are chosen as the baseline state-of-the-art systems. Preliminary results map a design space for the small-core vision system and quantify the distinct effects of technologies on the key metrics.

Michael Bennett↗