4.3 Article

CFD Modeling of Bidirectional PMDs Inside Cryogenic Propellant Tanks Onboard Parabolic Flights

期刊

出版社

AMER INST AERONAUTICS ASTRONAUTICS
DOI: 10.2514/1.A35808

关键词

Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program; Cryogenic Fluids; Computational Modeling; NASA; Fluid Flow Properties; Propellant Management Device

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Efficient transfer methods are crucial for future cryogenic propulsion systems. This study focuses on the behavior of liquid nitrogen in low gravity conditions and validates the design of a bidirectional propellant management device using computational fluid dynamics simulations. The performance of the device exceeds expectations.
Future cryogenic propulsion systems will require efficient methods for transferring cryogenic propellants from a depot storage tank to a customer receiver tank to minimize costs and maximize reusability. The Reduced Gravity Cryogenic Transfer Project is currently developing advanced cryogenic fluid management technology and developing and validating new numerical models for three phases of transfer: line chill down, tank chill down, and tank fill. Additionally, multiple liquid nitrogen (LN2) parabolic flight transfer rigs are being designed by universities and NASA to investigate the gravitational sensitivities that exist in these three technologies. To maximize the collection of low-g data during flights, it is required to extract as much LN2 as possible from the supply tank, despite variable gravity levels. The purpose of this study is to present computational fluid dynamics volume of fluid simulations of LN2 behavior in the supply tank onboard parabolic flights to validate the optimal design of a bidirectional propellant management device (PMD) using the commercial software FLOW-3D. A parametric study was conducted on the effects of gravity level, fill level, pore size, open area, thickness, and type of baffle on PMD performance. Based on the results, the designed PMD exceeded the targeted expulsion efficiency.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据