Cryothermal Tank Sizing Analysis for Reduced Gravity Cryogenic Transfer

tfaws cryothermal paper session n.w
1 / 16
Embed
Share

Explore the tank chilldown process in microgravity environment for the Reduced Gravity Cryogenic Transfer project. Investigate factors affecting chilldown during parabolic flights, including tank size, wall thickness, and volume. Modeling approach, tank descriptions, and charge/hold/vent procedure are discussed for achieving desired temperature targets within flight constraints.

  • Cryothermal
  • Tank Sizing
  • Chilldown Analysis
  • Cryogenic Transfer
  • Microgravity
rayaanacharya
dbuch Follow

Uploaded on | 0 Views

Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.

Download Presentation

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TFAWS Cryothermal Paper Session Tank Sizing Analysis for the Reduced Gravity Cryogenic Transfer Receiver Tank Erin M. Tesny, Daniel M. Hauser, Jason W. Hartwig NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH, USA Presented By Erin Tesny Thermal & Fluids Analysis Workshop TFAWS 2021 August 24-26, 2021 Virtual Conference

  2. Overview Tank Chilldown Background Modeling Overview Tank descriptions Charge/Hold/Vent procedure Results Conclusions Future Work TFAWS 2020 August 18-20, 2020 2

  3. Background Understanding fluid behavior in microgravity is essential to further development of in-space cryogenic systems No current published data on tank chilldown in microgravity Reduced Gravity Cryogenic Transfer (RGCT) project is designed to investigate tank chilldown in a microgravity environment onboard a parabolic flight 1 parabolic flight consists of 25 parabolas, 60s each Current study: what is appropriate tank size to complete chill down during 1 flight given 3 possible different chilldown scenarios? Goal is to chill down the tank wall to some target temperature by the end of the flight TFAWS 2020 August 18-20, 2020 3

  4. Tank Descriptions Tank Parameters to investigate: Small vs. Large Tank Volume Thin vs. Thick-walled Tank Description Dry Mass (kg) Internal Volume (m3) MEOP (psia) Wall Thickness (in) Lower Limit 30.2 0.225 50 3/16 1A Upper Limit Upper Limit, Thick-Walled 79.0 158.2 0.904 0.904 64.3 330 3/16 3/8 2A 2B TFAWS 2020 August 18-20, 2020 4

  5. Modeling Approach Thermal Desktop, multi-node model Working Fluid: nitrogen Tank wall material: Aluminum 2219 Fluid in tank is modeled as twin lumps (liquid + vapor) Bottom fill dip tube injector with top vent Monitoring liquid temperature, pressure, and average tank wall temperature TFAWS 2020 August 18-20, 2020 5

  6. Charge/Hold/Vent Procedure Charge/Hold/Vent (C/H/V) Chilldown: Charge: Supply Valve Open/Vent Valve Closed Hold: Supply Valve Closed/Vent Valve Closed Vent: Supply Valve Closed/ Vent Valve Open Pattern is repeated once every 60s (or once per 1 parabola) TFAWS 2020 August 18-20, 2020 6

  7. Different Chilldown Scenarios Case No. Flow Rate (gps) Operation Parasitic Heat Load? No 100 Charge: 20s/ Hold: 25s / Vent: 20s 1 Yes 100 Charge: 20s/ Hold: 25s / Vent: 20s 2 Yes 50 Charge: 20s/ Hold: 25s / Vent: 20s 3 Yes 100 Charge: 17s/ Hold: 73s / Vent: 30s 4 TFAWS 2020 August 18-20, 2020 7

  8. Tank 1A Results Tank 1A Liquid Lump Pressure Vs. Time 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 Pressure (psi) 90 80 70 Case2 Case3 Case4 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050 1200 1350 1500 Time (s)

  9. Tank 1A Results (Contd) Tank 1 A Liquid Lump Temperature Vs. Time 240 220 200 180 Temoerature (K) 160 140 120 100 80 60 0 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050 1200 1350 1500 Time (s) Case2 Case4 Case3

  10. Tank 1A Results (Contd) Tank 1A Average Tank Wall Temperature Vs. Time 300 290 280 270 260 250 240 230 220 210 Temperature (K) 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 0 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050 1200 1350 1500 Time (s) Case2 Case3 Case4

  11. Tank 1A Results Summary Propellant Used (kg) Propellant Vented (kg) Final Average Wall Temp (K) Time (s) 36.5 27.3 99.0 1500 Case 2 18.5 15.5 184.0 1500 Case 3 21.8 15.5 167.9 1500 Case 4 TFAWS 2020 August 18-20, 2020 11

  12. Efficiency Parameters ???? ?????????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????????? Propellant Efficiency Propellant Efficiency= ???? ?????? ??? Thermal Eff. Thermal Eff. = 1 ???? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ? ???? ?? ??????????? ?? ???? ???? ? ?????? = ?????,????? ????,????? TFAWS 2020 August 18-20, 2020 12

  13. Results: Large vs. Small Tank Thermal Efficiency Delta T Factor (K) Propellant Efficiency Tank Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 1A 2A 41.5% 20.6% 42.3% 43.8% 43.3% 48.0% 10 23.3 38.3 25.2% 16.2% 28.9% 61.0% 60.6% 65.7% 21.8 106.8 80.7 Case 3 has lowest propellant/thermal efficiency for both tanks Tank 1A has similar propellant thermal/efficiency whereas Tank 2A has significantly higher thermal efficiency Delta T factor is most important parameter in determining if tank can be successfully filled after chilldown Tank 1A always has lower Delta T Factor than 2A Case 2 always has lower Delta T Factor than Case 4 TFAWS 2020 August 18-20, 2020 13

  14. Results: Thin vs. Thick-Walled Tank Propellant Efficiency Delta T Factor (K) Thermal Efficiency Tank Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 2A 2B 21.8 106.8 80.7 61.0% 60.6% 65.7% 25.2% 16.2% 28.9% 62.3% 61.7% 67.0% 19.4% 14.0% 26.2% 107.2 157.7 148.2 Case 3 has again lowest propellant/thermal efficiency for both tanks Both tanks have similar propellant/thermal efficiencies Delta T factor is most important parameter in determining if tank can be successfully filled after chilldown Tank 2A has lower Delta T factor than Tank 2B for all cases TFAWS 2020 August 18-20, 2020 14

  15. Conclusions For parabolic flight pattern, the recommended tank size for an elliptical dome tank is closer to the size of Tank 1A (0.225 m3) rather than Tank 2A (0.904 m3) Thin-walled tank (3/16 ) has higher propellant and thermal efficiency than thick-walled tank (3/8 ) Thin-walled tank similar in size to Tank 1A is recommended for parabolic flight chilldown Case 2 chilldown procedure (Charge: 20s/ Hold: 25s / Vent: 20s with a 100gps flow rate) recommended for this tank size TFAWS 2020 August 18-20, 2020 15

  16. Future Work Further narrow down tank size and wall thickness Test rig size Maximize efficiency parameters Use of other injectors besides dip tube for chilldown TFAWS 2020 August 18-20, 2020 16

Related


No related presentations.

More Related Content