Professional Documents
Culture Documents
WASHINGTON, D.
NASA T N D-3177
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
................................................
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PRESSURIZATION REQUIREMENTS AND LAUNCH VEHICLE DESIGN . . . . . . . .
SUMMARY
....................................
Test Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EXPERIMENTALPROGRAM
PRESSURIZATION ANALYSES
...................................
8
.........................................
8
Summary of Analytical Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
Modifications in the Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ii
Evaluation of Program P a r a m e t e r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Comparison with Test Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Previous Work
..........................
15
..............................................
87
.............................................
88
. .
14
BIBLIOGRAPHY
iii
I I
I 1 11
U S T OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure
Title
Page
I.
19
IO.
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Weight of LOX Tank P r e s s u r a n t Versus Vehicle Thrust . . . . . . . .
Saturn I, S-I Stage; Saturn I, S-IV Stage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Test Facility for Tank Configuration C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interior of Tank Configuration D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Test Facility for Tank Configuration D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Location of Temperature Probes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
P r e s s u r a n t Distributor, Tank Configuration D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Temperature Sensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison of Temperature Sensor Response Time . . . . . . . . . . .
Copper Plate Calorimeter . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.
. .. . .. .. . .
30
12.
31
32
2.
3.
4.
5a.
5b.
6.
7.
8.
9.
13.
..
14.
. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
.. . .
15.
. .
.. .. .
. . . .
. .
..
Comparison Between Ullage P r e s s u r e Loss for He and GN, PrePressurants Under Liquid Slosh and Nonslosh conditions in Tank
Configuration C . . .
.. . . . .. . . . . .... .
. .. . . . . . . . . . .
iv
. ....... ...
..
.. .
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
33
34
17.
18.
Title
Page
35
36
37
.............................
..........................
...................................
.......
38
......
39
19.
20.
21a.
40
41
42
43
44
Comparison Between Experimental and Computed Ullage Temperat u r e Gradient, Tank Configuration C , Test 130-7, Oxygen as
Pressurant..
45
46
..............................
21b.
..............................
21c.
....................................
21d.
22a.
......
..............................
22b.
....................................
22c.
....................................
V
23a.
Title
Page
47
Oxygen as Pressurant.
48
Pressurant..
49
Pressurant
.....................................
50
51
52
Oxygen as Pressurant.
53
as Pressurant
54
55
Helium as pressurant
56
Helium as P r e s s u r a n t .
57
......
..............................
23b.
....................................
23c.
23d.
24a.
.......
..............................
24b.
..............................
24c.
....................................
24d.
25a.
.........
...............................
25b.
..............................
vi
Figure
Title
Page
25c.
58
59
.....................................
25d.
26a.
......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
26b.
as P r e s s u r a n t . .
61
as P r e s s u r a n t . .
62
63
Pressurant..
64
as P r e s s u r a n t . .
65
as P r e s s u r a n t . .
66
...................................
26c.
...................................
2 6d.
27a.
......
.....................................
27b.
...................................
27c.
...................................
27d.
28a.
. . . . . . 67
PreSSUraIIt....
...................................
I
vii
68
Title
Page
28b.
Helium as P r e s s u r a n t . .
69
Helium as P r e s s u r a n t .
70
as Pressurant
71
Pressurant..
72
..............................
28c.
...............................
28d.
.....................................
29a.
.....................................
29b.
30.
....
Pressurant..
74
75
.....................................
3ia.
73
........
31b.
32a.
77
78
Nitrogen as P r e s s u r a n t .
79
32b.
33.
........
..................
.............................
viii
Title
Page
Oxygen as P r e s s u r a n t .
80
.............
81
82
as P r e s s u r a n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
83
Propellant Tank. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
84
..............................
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
........
...........................
85
Temperature at Cutoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
86
ix
LIST OF TABLES
.
II.
III.
I
Page
Title
Table
....................
16
..............................
17
Symbol
A
:"i
AD
b3
DEFINITION OF SYMBOLS
Definition
Tank total surface area
m)
Tank diameter
(ft)
Diffusion coefficient
( f t2/h r )
EK
(Btu/hr f t OR)
( ft2/hr)
ED
gC
Constant = 32.17
( l b ft/lbf
m
xi
seC2)
Symbol
gw
( B t u / h r f t 2 OR)
(Btu/hr f t 2 OR)
( B t d h r f t 2 OR)
(Btu/hr f t 2 OR)
( B t d h r f t 2 OR)
h
h
sc
hL
L/D
ni
P r e s s u r a n t flowrate
Mt
M a s s transfer
Am
P r e s s u r a n t m a s s accumulated
Ullage p r e s s u r e
Tank radius
Time
Temperature
Th
Vehicle thrust
Gas velocity
Tank volume
xi i
Definition
Symbol
vd
V
Od
X
Y
Y
(ft3/sec)
sc
so
(ft/hr)
PLP
(ft-1)
(set)
Gas viscosity
( l b / f t hr)
m
Gas density
(lb /ft3)
m
Molefraction
(-)
*T
xiii
Symbol
Subscripts
a
Ambient
Calorimeter
F r e e convection
Ullage gas
Interface
Liquid
Mean
Ullage
Wall
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The contribution of the MSFC Test Laboratory in providing the test facilities and
complex instrumentation and obtaining the experimental data is gratefully acknowledged.
Invaluable contributions in program definition and analysis of experimental results were
made by J. Moses, T. Stokes, L. Worlund, and G. Platt of the Fluid Mechanics and
Thermodynamics Branch.
NOTE:
M r . J. F. Thompson is currently Assistant P r o f e s s o r , Mississippi State
University, Aeronautical Engineering Department. He was formerly associated with
Propulsion Division, MSFC.
x iv
INTRODUCT ION
Determination of the pressurant gas weight for cryogenic propellant tanks is com
plex and defies exact analytical treatment because of the interdependent transient
phenomena of heat and mass transfer that occur simultaneously in a propellant tank.
Mathematical models describing the internal thermodynamics of tank pressurization have
been developed by various investigators.
The analysis by Clark [ i] represents an analytical solution of the governing equa
tions that predict the transient temperature, the response of the pressurant gas, and
container wall. However, the solution requires assumptions, such as constant tank pres
sure and zero initial ullage, that are not always met with real systems. The studies by
.Coxe and Tatum [ 21 are based on analysis of a system in which the ullage is thermally
mixed a'nd heat transfer between the gas and the wall is independent of time and space.
Gluck and Kline [ 31 used dimensional analysis to express gas requirements as a function
of known system parameters; they determined, experimentally, quantities of interfacial
m a s s transfer and gas phase heat transfer.
Epstein [ 41 presented a numerical method for calculation of pressurant gas re
quirements that contains a number of phenomena absent from previous analytical methods.
However, empirical data are required to evaluate many constants and physical parameters.
. _
---
Test Facilities
The experimental work was conducted on five tank configurations at the Marshall
Space Flight Center:
A.
E.
The test parameters for these tank configurations are compared in Table I.
Configurations A and B were flight vehicles and thus contained the standard test instru
mentation of the Saturn propellant feed system, including continuous liquid level sensors,
tank p r e s s u r e , pressurant flowrates, and supply temperature measurements. Configura
tions C, D, and E were equipped with many thermocouples along the tank axis. Thermo
couples, mounted at several r a d i i at three elevations in these tanks, allowed measure
ment of radial temperature gradients. Wall temperatures were measured in Configura
tions C and D by thermocouples on the inside and outside surfaces of the tank at several
locations. The locations of the temperature sensors in these tanks are shown in Figures
6a and 6b. Special calorimeter plates were mounted in both tanks f o r determination of
gas-to-wall heat transfer coefficients. Finally, gas sampling devices were placed at
several locations to measure ullage gas concentration gradients.
Configurations C, D , and E were equipped with heat exchangers that provide a
variable pressurant inlet temperature up to 1000 OR. The pressurant gas was introduced
at the top of the container through a distributor ( e i t h e r a deflector plate-Configuration
C and E , o r a screen arrangement-Configuration D) to minimize inlet velocities and
disturbances of the liquid surface by impinging gas jets. Figure 7 shows a typical distri
butor configuration. P r e s s u r a n t velocities at the distributor periphery are given in
Table I f o r the five t e s t configurations.
The tank Configurations C, D, and E could be sloshed at rotational o r translatory
oscillation in excess of the first critical frequency of the tank. Configurations A , C, and
D were equipped with c a m e r a s so that the conditions inside the tank could be observed.
The r e s u l t s of tests conducted with the five tank configurations are presented in Figures
13 through 38. The conditions of these tests are summarized in Table II.
I.
Instru mentation
Analysis of ullage gas temperature history required a temperature probe with
fast response characteristics and good accuracy. A fast response temperature probe
(Fig. sa) consisting of a fork-like support with a 30 gage CuCo welded thermojunction
was designed at MSFC. The length-to-diameter r a t i o of the thermocouple w i r e and its
distance from the fork base were determined using an analog computer representation
of the heat transfer conditions around the probe assembly. Figure 9a shows the response
time; 63.2 percent of the total temperature change w a s attained in eight seconds when
the probe was extracted from liquid oxygen into a gas circulating a t a velocity of about
.three feet per second [ 61. The response of the probes during a pressurization test w a s
.also determined (Fig. 9b) ; the fork-type thermocouple has a good response characteristic.
A thermocouple mounted on a long, rod-like support (Fig. 8 b ) , which was de
signed for liquid measurement in the high vibration environment of static and flight
testing, exhibited an extremely poor response in the gas phase as indicated in Figure
9a. Response time to 63.2 percent of total temperature change was in excess of 1 0
minutes. Commercial temperature probes of the resistance thermometer type (Fig. 8 c )
were also investigated under these conditions. Although their response was considerably
better than the flight type thermocouple (63.2 percent temperature change in approxi
mately 50 seconds), it was too slow for the pressurization studies.
Test Resu I t s
Heat Transfer
.Coefficients. Heat transfer between pressurant and tank side walls
was measured during pressurization tests in Configuration C by two plate calorimeters.
Each calorimeter was a 12 by i2-inchY 30-gage copper plate mounted from teflon spacers
parallel to and at a distance of four inches from the tank wall (Fig. I O ) . Three thermo
couples, spaced to represent equal calorimeter areas and connected as a thermo-pile,
provided a temperature/time history of the copper plate before and during the tests. The
local ullage gas temperature was measured in the vicinity of .the calorimeter (Fig. 11).
The calorimeters were located I1 and 3 0 feet from the top of the test tank.
~
For determination of heat transfer coefficients, it was assumed that heat transfer
to the back side of the plate (toward tank wall) was by free convection because of the
shielding effect of the plate-to-wall arrangement. The free convection coefficients for a
one component gas were evaluated by the equation of Jackson and Eckert [ 71 ; the r e s u l t s
are plotted in Figure 12. The free convection heat transfer coefficient was also
calculated for two component mixtures based on the time and space dependent heliumoxygen concentration in the tank The total heat transfer to the calorimeters was +en
corrected using the calculated free convection effect on the back side. The heat transfer
coefficients. to the front of the calorimeter plates measured in Tests 130-9, -10, -15 are
presented in Figures 13 and 14 using gaseous oxygen and helium as pressurants. Ullage
gas-to-wall heat transfer was also evaluated from wall temperature measurements at -a
location 3.5 feet from the top to the tank. Wall measurements a t locations initially below
the liquid surface produced erroneous readings and were discarded. These coefficients
were corrected by subtracting the effect of external heat flux from the measured wall
temperature rise. During a flash-boiling test, which did not require pressurant flow,
the wall temperature rise indicated an external heat flux of 13 B f d m i n ft'; this compares
very favorably with a calculated f l u x of 15 Btu/min f t 2 [ 81 and confirms the method used
for correcting w i l l measurements.
Inspection of Figures 13 and 14 shows very good agreement between measured
and calculated heat transfer coefficients. It is noted that the gas-to-wall heat transfer
coefficient is definitely within the forced convection regime f o r 'the oxygen tests, but in
the f r e e convection regime f o r the helium test. AltEiough the heat transfer coefficient by
forced convection diminishes with increasing distance from the pressurant distributor ,
the free convection contribution (Eq. I ) compensates f o r this decayto such a degree that
a nearly constant heat transfer coefficient is obtained along the tank bulkhead and side
wall.
Sloshing Effects. Pressurization studies conducted at MSFC have shown that
there is little benefit derived f r o m the use of helium as a main pressurant for cryogenic
propellants. However , it was determined experimentally that prepressurization with
helium reduces p r e s s u r e decay during liquid sloshing near the critical frequency. It is
assumed that the helium acts as a buffer zone between the splashing cryogenic liquid and
th.e condensable pressurant, suppressing excessive m a s s transfer.
Figure 15 shows a typical tank p r e s s u r e history for a stationary liquid oxygen
t e s t tank as compared to a p r e s s u r e history in which the liquid sloshes n e a r the first
critical mode of oscillation [ 91. The tank was prepressurized, with either helium or
nitrogen, followed by main pressurization .during liquid expulsion with super-heated
oxygen. The. tank p r e s s u r e history during the slosh test (using helium as a prepres
surant) is nearly identical to the p r e s s u r e history of the nonsloshing expulsion test. In
contrast, prepressurization with gaseous nitrogen resulted in a marked p r e s s u r e decay
during the sloshing of the liquid, which was not evident during a nonsloshing expulsion
test with gaseous nitrogen prepressurization.
Ullage Gas Concentration Gradients. Gas flow conditions and the concentration of
helium gas in a cryogenic propellant tank during pressurization discharge were studied
in test Configurations C and D. Spectrographic analyses were made of gas samples taken
at various positions in the tanks. Samples taken at various elevations in tank Configura
tion C just before the end of the tests yielded the r e s u l t s shown in Figure 16. In the test
5
i n which helium was used for prepressurization and oxygen as the main pressurant, the
helium concentration is maximum at 12 feet above the liquid, and gradually decreases
in both directions.
The concentration of oxygen near the liquid surface is probably caused by accumu
lation of t$e gaseous oxygen that is initially in the ullage before prepressurization. F o r
comparison, Figure 16 also shows the concentration of helium above the liquid oxygen
for the case in which helium prepressurization is followed by pressurization with helium
during liquid expulsion. The oxygen concentration at 10 feet above the liquid interface
was only six percent by volume. The total amount of gaseous oxygen i n the ullage was
only slightly l a r g e r than the amount of oxygen in the ullage before prepressurization
(0.77 moles versus 0.73 moles). This indicates that interfacial m a s s transfer, although
s m a l l under these conditions, was in the form of evaporation.
Mass Transfer. A comparison of m a s s transfer r e s u l t s obtained in Configuration
C with results obtained by C l a r k [ I ] is shown in Figure 17. Condensation in excess of
30 percent of the pressurant flow was found by Clark during liquid nitrogen expulsion
tests with a I by 3-foot cylindrical tank. Similar results were obtained with the MSFC
test Configuration E , also shown in Figure 17. The mass transfer measured in test
Configuration C indicates that condensation was 5 to 10 percent. Condensation in the
l a r g e r facility is less because of the smaller wall-aredvolume ratio of a l a r g e r tank.
Comparing the condensation in the small tank with that in the large tank on t;he
basis of wall-aredvolume ratio, the values a r e approximately equal. During tests at
high pressurant inlet temperature, initial evaporation noted i n Configuration C diminished
a s the test proceeded. However, Clark had found increased condensation at higher pres
surant s e t temperatures in small tanks. These conflicting r e s u l t s point out the incom
plete knowledge of m a s s transfer.
Condition of Liquid Interface. The condition of the liquid interface in Configura
tion C and during the launch and flight of SA-5, are shown in several f r a m e s from a
movie taken inside these tanks (Figs. 18 and 1 9 ) . Violent boiling occurred during venting
of the tank before prepressurization. A s the vents w e r e closed and prepressurization
proceeded, the liquid surface became nearly quiescent before discharge. After discharge
began,disturbance of the liquid surface caused by pressurant flow and acceleration of the
liquid surface were observed; the disturbance diminished a s time and distance between
the surface and the pressurant inlet increased.
Radial Ullage Temperaiture Gradients. Radial temperature gradients obtained
with Configurations C and D a r e shown in Figure 20. In both cases the radial gradients
w e r e small, and there apparently exists little difference between the gas flow conditions
in the two tanks, even though the gas distributors, baffling, and tank diameters a r e not
comparable.
PRESSURIZATION ANALYSES
P rev ious W o rk
Pressurized discharge from cryogenic liquid containers was studied ana-jtically
u nder sponsorship of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency
and experimentally by Clark [I]
and later MSFC. The analytical solutions obtained by Clark were applied to test data
obtained for Configuration C. In Figure 34 the axial temperature gradient through the
ullage gas is shown as a fuilction of distance from the tank top or gasdistributor. Excel
lent agreement with test results w a s obtained for an assumed gas-to-wall forced convec
tion heat transfer coefficient of 10 B t d h r ft2"R. Agreement for a coefficient of 2 Btu/hr
ft2"R, approximately in the range of free convection, was poor. This illustrates one
limitation of analytical solutions in which the gas-to-wall heat transfer coefficient enters
as an independent variable.
In spite of this restriction and the assumption of initial zero ullage volume, the
method by Clark was successfully applied in design analyses of the Saturn I pressuriza
tion system. While Clark's analysis assumed stratification of the ullage gas and con
stant heat transfer coefficient, the analysis by Coxe and Tatum [ 21 was based on the as
sumption of a complete thermally mixed ullage gas and constant heat transfer coefficient.
Figures 35 and 36 compare test results obtained with MSFC Configuration C with the
analytical predictions by the method of Coxe and Tatum. Toward the end of the test,
agreement is good possibly because the conditions of constant heat transfer coefficients
Gre approached in the large ullage near the end of the run.
S u m m a r y o f Analytical Program
Since the Rocketdyne program makes maximum use of the techniques of digital
computer calculations and is not subject to the restrictive assumptions that are made in
other programs, this method was chosen by MSFC f o r pressurization system analyses.
However, extensive comparisons of the program with test data were required to evaluate'
the physical parameters and constants initially contained in the program as indeterminate
identities. The equations were modified when necessary.
8
This program includes in its calculations a pressurant gas storage tank, heat
exchanger, and flow control valve. It considers a propellant tank with o r witho.ut outside
insulation and pressurized with either evaporated propellant o r with a gas stored under
p r e s s u r e i n a storage tank in which the gas expands nonadiabatically. The ullage pres
s u r e is controlled by a pressurant flow control valve that has finite maximum and mini
mum a r e a s and may be either the on-off o r the continuously regulating type. In the pro
pellant tank the ullage gas may be a two component mixture of evaporated propellant and
another gas. The ullage gas temperature, composition, and properties a r e considered
functions of time and of axial, but not radial o r circumferential, distance. Liquid and
wall temperature and properties a r e treated i n the s a m e manner. The heat transfer
modes considered are shown in Figure 38. Mass transfer within the ullage and at the
gas-liquid interface is considered. The effects on heat and mass transfer caused by
gas circulation, as influenced by pressurant gas inlet velocity, is also taken into account.
In the same manner the g.as-to-liquid heat transfer coefficient at the gas-liquid
interface is written
* Schmidt [ 121 also writes the total heat transfer coefficient a s the sum of the f r e e and
forced convection coefficients
(8)
-Ps
h s = hs c + h s o
where h
so
zi
is an input constant.
sc
(4)
It was found that both forced convection coefficients a t the tank top could be
calculated more accurateiy by a forced convection equation of the standard form expres
sing the Nusselt number a s a function of the Reynolds and Prandtl numbers:
so = dl
k
(e)
(2)
d3
dz
Thus , the ullage gas-to-wall heat transfer coefficient and the gas-to-liquid heat transfer
coefficient at the gas-liquid interface are better calculated to equations (7) and ( 8 ) .
-PwZ
= h +hoe
F c
-P,
h =h +h e
s
sc
so
zi
Y
where ho and hso are calculated by equations (5) and (6) , rather than being input as
constants, and he and hsc are calculated by equations (2) and (4).
It was also found that the liquid-to-wall heat transfer coefficients could be better
calculated according to a f r e e convection equation r a t h e r than being taken as constank
10
where Y
so
is an input constant.
The forced convection mass transfer coefficient at the tank top can be better calculated
by a forced convection equation expressing the Sherwood number as a function of the
Reynolds and Schmidt numbers:
Y
($d3
where Yso is calculated according to equation (12) rather than being input as a con
stant, and Ysc is calculated by equation (11).
= 0.00117
r2
The parameters not listed in this table are of small importance and may be taken as
zero.
The comparison with test data indicates a sensitivity of the program to sudden
changes in ullage p r e s s u r e . However, in most c a s e s vehicle design p r e s s u r e s a r e
either constant or v a r y in a monotonic manner. It was further found that considerable
experimental experience with pressurization s y s t e m s is required before this method of
analysis can be applied reliably to evaluate a new system.
14
ullage mean temperature. This confirms the results of other studies (Fig. 2) indi
cating that the benefits derived from a helium pressurization system are not based on
weight optimization.
15
CONFIGURATION
SATURN
SIC 1/3
1x3 MODEL
SIV (LOX)
14.7 60
20-40
14.7 - 60
46
I50
150- 300
4 78
HEAT EXCHANGER
PARAMETER
CTL 114
TEST
PREPRESSURANT
PRESSURANT
TANK PRESSURE ( p s i a )
TIME OF DISCHARGE (sec.)
PRESSURANT TEMP (" R)
150
800
TOTAL VOLUME
FT3
I@l05 4 @ 70
DIAMETER (in.)
L/D
156
(APPROX.)
TANK MATERIAL
INSULATION
ALUM.
1 1 I
O:8
(FT~)
ss
;2
: : :3
ss
ss
:
I
,
0.45
ALUM.
COMMON BLKH
2.5
DISTRIBUTOR FLOW
AREA
I50 400
510
TABLE I.
TEST; FACILITY I ULLAGE PRESSURE (psia) INLET TEMPERATURE PR) PRESSURANT PRE-PRESSURANT PROPELLANT
65
C-003
-7h
c-003
- '21)
c-003
- 101),
450
GOX
'I
He
He
LO2
750
GOX
20
900
G OX
He
40
530
He
He
20
LO,
'02
IPARAMETER 1
I
bl
I
VALUE
b 2
b3
dl
I
I
d 2
d3
CI
c4
C6
C8
0.06
0.8
I
I
I
I
0.333
0.06
0.8
0.333
0.I3
0.333
0.I3
0.333
pw=o.oo117 r
r IN FEET
18
PRESSURIZATION GAS
HARDWARE
-
l-r
Gadpsia)
1I !
.
L1
I
-I
'
CENTAUR AC-7
.
.
..
ir4
$11
I
T.
I
I
.+
;r;
.O
.... -.
JUPITER, THOR
SATURN 18/
S lV,B STAGE
r+
1II
--I
SATURN V /
S II STAGE
SATURN I /
S-l STAGE
- -
L
c)
..
-I
,SATURN V /
S-IC STAGE
1
m
0
FIGURE 2.
20
FIGURE 38.
SATURN I, S-IV STAGE
FIGURE 3 A .
SATURN I, S-l STAGE
FIGURE 3. SATURN I,
s-I STAGE;
SATURN I,
s-IVST.AGE
21
.. . -
FIGURE 4.
22
23
FIGURE 5b.
24
9+
4'
'7
a
.a
13
0.0442
13
1.64
a
a
1
1
a
t,?
fl
Ring
0
16.65
437
431
a
a
a
Number of Baffles
Baffle Weight(lb/ft2)
Perforation %
39.3
Top Bulkhead Volume (ft3)
34.3
Bottom Bulkhead Volume (ft3)
48.1
a
a
.1
a .
CONFIGURATION D
CONFIGURATION C
FIGURE 6A
FIGURE 6 B
Calorimeter
FIGURE 7.
26
ELEMENT LOCATION
INSULATED WIRE
e; JM
93 - r
cu co
ROD THERMOCOUPLE
(EARLY PRESSURIZATION TESTS)
f.3
I
0
MSFC
T.C.
350
-3
c
.
UYSHIELQED
40
0
PESISTYNCEBULB
R ~ 1B44
300
SHIELDED
*W o
LL
0
a
IO
20
30
40
TI ME, f (sec.)
FIGURE 9.
50
60
160
70
20
40
60
80
TIME, t (sec.)
100
120
FIGURE IO.
c3
50
FIGURE 11.
TIME, t ( s e c . )
IO0
I.
5
w
I-"
-uwz
I
I
LL
LL
0
0
LL
v)
z
e
I '
s
W
MEASUREMENT
COMPUTfR
TEST To (oA)P(psia)
130-9 370
62
130-10
65
450
W
bW
E
a
E
a
I-
sa.
,
h TOTAL
*-<-
s+
-0
130-10
c
a
I - 0
TOP
IO
1 - I
20
30
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM TANK TOP,Z (ft.)
40
BOTTOM
I + NEASUREMENT
COMPUTER
TEST To('R)
130-15 560
01
0
1P
W
IO
20
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM TANK TOP,
Z (f t.)
P(pria)
30
-. 70
0
tn
60 . -
He
GN2
-I---
3
50
cn
SLOSHING LIQUID I- - - -+
115
e 40I
.-
tn
50
100
TIME, t (sec.)
150
70 -
s
e
60 -
2
cn
50-
100
W
e9
80
0"
l~
60
d
>
40
=.
W
I-
g
20
W
-0
LIQUID LEVEL
IO
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM LIQUID LEVELpi(ft)
-I-I
Q,
0.4
0.2
0
To
0.2
6.5' x 40'
6.5' x 40'
0.4
I ' x3'
0.6
130-7
30
130-8
MSFC 5 5
7260
42
59-D
50
5 9 - C
CLARK 5 0
59-J
50
7
h
7
50
0
1G NIT1ON
IO0
I50
TIME, t ( s e d
(OR)
510
310
510
532
530
810
V i o l e n t B o i l i n g During
Venting
S t a r t of Draining
Vents C l o s e d , S t a r t of
Prepressurizat ion
End o f P r e p r e s s u r i z a t i o n
During D r a i n i n g
End of D r a i n i n g
Ignition
During Holddown
Cutoff
FIGURE 19. LIQUID SURFACE AND ULLAGE CONDITIONS DURING SA-5 FLIGHT
TEST
130-6
TANK
C (6.5'x40')
COO3-7A
D (13'x 26')
400
I98
a 350
=>
sa
01
0.2
0.4
0.5
WALL
CENTER
DISTANCE FROM TANK WALL, X / D
0.1
03
c9
600
500
n
15:
'
400
300
W
Q.
=
W
c
W
200
2.
iI
.
I
3
IO0
* - l - l , . - - u0 l
TOP
IO
20
30
40
BOTTOM
l
V
600
2 100
z
a
v)
v)
TEST
COMPUTER
a I
e
IGNITION AT t = 0
FIGURE 21c.
TIME, t (SeC.1
COMPARISON BETWEEN E X P E R I M E N T A L AND COMPUTED
PRESSURANT FLOWRATE , TANK CONFIGURATION C y T E S T
130-6, OXYGEN AS PRESSURANT
70
60
- 50
0
.-
cn
PRESSURE
3 400
40 --a
m
m
W
30 -a
E 300
~
W
(3
28
4
d 2001
IC
- COMPUTER
a
R
010
50
I
coo
TIME, t (sed
FIGURE 21d. ULLAGE PRESSURE AND PRESSURANT INLET TEMPERATURE
HISTORIES, TANK CONFIGURATION C y T E S T 130-6, OXYGEN
AS PRESSURANT
1
60
Ip
Ip
6001
1
7
4
I
I
I
31
0
IGNITION AT t = 0
FIGURE 22c.
50
IO0
TIME, t ( s e c . )
60
I:
.
.
.
I
600
;
t
I
I
50 -j500
Q.
a
40
3
cn
cn
W
a
e 30
300
z
4
a
200
3
20 '3
cn
3
cn
ac:
IO
' = 100
Jog
1-
00
TEST
COMPUTER
1
1
I
1
50
1
100
150
TIME, t (sec)
FIGURE 22d. ULLAGE PRESSURE AND PRESSURANT INLET TEMPERATURE
HISTORIES, TANK CONFIGURATION C , T E S T 130-7, OXYGEN
AS PRESSURANT
600
500
c
0
Y
400
L
!az 300
W
n
=E
200
c3
-I
IO0
1L
0
0
TOP
FIGURE 23a.
10
20
30
40
BOTTOM
IT
0
TOP
IO
AXIAL
20
30
40
BOTTOM
6
cn
5
I
1
I
0 TEST
COMPUTER
I
I
I'
./
700
70
- 600
60 0a
.-E 50
e m
G
a
40
z 200
v)
W
R
IO
0
Tr
I
TEMPERATURE
100
COMPUTER I
50
100
TIME, t (sec.)
150,
600
500
ae:
3 480,
w"
w
e
1E
w
I-
200
w
(3
a
TOP
IO
20
30
40
BOTTOM
t (ft)
60(
500
0
Y
400
0 3
t = 100 sec.)
COMPUTER
2 300
Q:
200
0-C
(3
100
0
TO P
cn
30
10
20
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM TANK TOP, Z ( f t . )
40
BOTTOM
TESTT
700
60- 0: 600
0
Y
es 50
e 500
W"
3
I-
d'40
se 400
30
E
W
I-
300
a 200
20 a
O
I
#
#
W
a
e
I 0 0 TEST
I
1
IO0 1
- COMPUTER I
I
00
100
zoo
300
TI M E, t (sec.)
FIGURE 24d. ULLAGE PRESSURE AND PRESSURANT INLET HISTORIES, TANK
CONFIGURATION C y TEST 130- 10, OXYGEN AS PRESSURANT
600
500
n
A t = 20 scc.
$
c
)TEST1
t = I20 sec.
400
I-
=>
s 300
COMPUTER
3i
200
I,
3
e9
a
100
0
0
TOP
IO
20
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM TANK TOP,
30
Z (ft.)
40
BOTTOM
600 I
500
cs
400
I
Ia
Q:
W
0 t'70 stc.
a t= 170 sec.
-COMPUTER
300
Q.
E
W
I-
200
100
0
TOP
IO
20
30
40
BOTTOM
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.I
IGNITION AT t = O
-I-I
o TEST
450
COMPUTER
100
TIME, t ( s e c . )
I50
70
700
c
60 0a 600
Y
3;
n.
500
50
3
+
a
0.
we
40 E
e 400
3
v,
s
I
v)
30 + 300
z
e
a
a
(3
e
20
J
g 200
IO
0
100 - no TEST
- COMPUTER
I50
100
I50
TIME, t (sed
FIGURE 25d.
- COMPUTER
TIME, t(mc 1
FIGLXE, 26%. COMP-4RSSON E;E:T\IEEN EXPGRIMENTA L AND COMPUTED
PRESSbXANT FLOWR4TE, TANK CONFIGURATION D, TEST
C 003-7a, OXYGEN AS PRESSURANT
4 tS50sec
0 t = I50sec
TEST
- COMPUTER
20
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM TANK'TOP, E ( f t )
25
BOTTOM
30
OO
TOP
IO
15
20
25
BOTTOM
(ft)
30
----
~ 4 0
u)
Q
Y
TE MPI ER ATU RE
la
a
W
PRESSURE
II
z
a 400
00
(0
v)
TEST
2001
0
0
- COMPUTER
50
100
TIME, t ( s e c 1
150
200
II
TEST
COMPUTER
T
I
50
IO0
TIME, t (sec
150
200
5001
I
1
-I
100
500 2
cis
cis
0 t = 100sec
A t = 191 sec
TEST
- COMPUTER
300
t!
200
2
1
1
100
TOP
50
;IO00
TEMPERATURE
0
Y
2 40
u)
n
n
E
30
3
a
W
E puuI!
v)
v)
I-
a
20
W
v)
v)
4-I
22 400
IO
a 200
n
"0
50
100
150
TIME, t (sec.)
200
2.0
LL
1
:
r
I
0 TEST
g
0.s
W
a
a
- COMPUTER
0
0
<
I
:
I
50
100
TIME, t (sec 1
FIGURE 28a. COMPARISON BETWEEN E X P E R I M E N T A L AND COMPUTED
PRESSURANT FLOWRATE, TANK CONFIGURATION D,
TEST COO3-10, HELIUM AS PRESSURANT
I50
500
0 t=50sec
IJ
A t=14lsec
400
COMPUTER
a
CI
300
2.
3
I- 200
Q:
LLL
-2
0
500
A t=lOOsec T E S T
400
COMPUTER
0
Y
I-
300
3
IQ
e 200
W
e
IO 0
TOP
IO
15
20
B O 25
TTOM
A X I A L D I S T A N C E F R O M T A N K T O P , Z (ft)
FIGURE 28c. COMPARISON BETWEEN E X P E R I M E N T A L AND COMPUTED
TANK WALL T E M P E R A T U R E S , TANK CONFIGURATION D ,
TEST COO3-10, HELIUM AS PRESSURANT
30
60
1200
I-
50 -
PRESSURE
---P-@
40
.0
2 600'
w
--=-
w
-
'J
a
a
4J
. . -
I0l
z
0
0
1
I
TEMPERATURE
50
100
TIME, t ( s e c )
FIGURE 28d. ULLAGE PRESSURE AND PRESSURANT INLET TEMPERATURE
HISTORIES, TANK CONFIGURATION D , TEST COO3-10,
HELIUM AS P R E S S U M N T
I50
4
N
50
0
0
50
IGNITION AT t = O
FIGURE 29a.
100
TIME, t (sec.1
COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND COMPUTED
PRESSURANT FLOWRATE, S-I STAGE LOX TANKS, SA-6
STATIC TEST, OXYGEN AS PRESSURANT
I50
1400
1200
a
0
Y
.O 50-
v)
n
Y
c
a
2 40 -
a
3
. 1000
TEM~ERATURE
800
v)
v)
I2
E 30-
600
2 20-
400
a
Q.
10
0-
200 - 00 TEST
COMPUTER
FIGURE 29b.
70
cn
60
w .E
Eg
I-
COMPUTER
50
100
I50
TOTAL PRESSURANT
WE1OHT:
TEST
COMPUTER
100
200
3 '0
TIME, t (sec 1
400
88.0 Ib.
88.41b.
SO0
a
a 20W
W
I-,
a
J
J
!z
200
v)
v)
a
IO- a 100
I
OL
0
0
100
FIGURE 31b.
200
TIME, t (sec 1
I
300
400
500
0.3
I
I
I
J,,,-
I
I
1
100
I
200
1
300
TOTAL PRESSURANT
WEIGHT:
85.8 Ib.
TEST
85.1 Ib.
COMPUTER
400
TIME, t ( s e d
FIGURE 32a. COMPAREON BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND COMPUTED
PRESSURANT FLOWRATE, S-IV STAGE LH2 TANK,
HYDROGEN AS PRESSURANT
51
600
--
- -a5 0 0
L
P
L
-=+l
E400
a b S S U R E
3
k
- ~W 3 0 0 -
--.
A
-I
TEMPERATURE
/ e
ik
+=+dL
*A
I-
- ,4200
3
COMPUTER
v)
v)
a
- p
100
OO
IO0
200
300
40 0
- 500
o n TEST
COMPUTER
0
Y
400
CI
I
I
1
-
3
I-
a 300
a
z 200
w
c-
c3
IO0
J
J
=>
50
100
TIME, t ( s e d
FIGURE 33. COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND COMPUTED ULLAGE
TEMPERATURE HISTORIES, TANK CONFIGURATION D , T E S T
187260, NITROGEN AS PRESSURANT
M
0
OXYGEN AS PRESSURANT
l //
I
I
--00
50
IGNITION AT t = 0
TEST
ROCKETDYNE
PROGRAM
LOCKH EED
PROGRAM
IO0
TIME, t
(sec)
150
.
>
I
.
-
&
400
n
E 350
T
,
I-
C.
3
I
,s300
W
s
w
I-
----
250
E
w
TEST
ROCKETDYNE
;
PROGRAM
LOCKHEED
PROGRAM
c
9
50
FIGURE 36.
TIME, t ( s e d
100
I50
'
I o TEST
c
o ROCKETDY NE COMPUTER
-=-ANALOG COMPUTER
50
100
I50
TIME, t(sec)
200
PRESSURANT SUPPLY
dT d w
INTERNAL INSULATION
EXTERNAL INSULATION
CONDUCTION
CONVECTION
CONVECTION dQ dQ
RADIATION --I-#O
dt dx
84
0.0II
10
100
DISTANCE FROM OUTLET, 310 OR Z/a
Tm /Tmo
rill la
(I-
2)
/
po
ADO
= 6 0 ( p s i 4)
= 17.8 (ft2)
eo
ha
=
=
150 (sec)
2 ( b t u / h r f t 2 OR)
Ta
530 (OR)
c p g 6 = 1 . 5 1 (btu/ft20R)
Tmo/Tm
REFERENCES
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
F r e e Convection
Eckert, E. R. G. , and Jackson, T. W., Analysis of Turbulent
Boundary.
8.
9.
IO.
11.
12.
13.
MSFC Test Laboratory Reports CTL 2 , 36, 34, 37, and CTL Flash Reports
dated August 17, November 20, and December 11, 1962.
87
REFERENCES (Concluded)
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
J. E. Myers, C. 0. Bennet: "Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer," McGraw Hill,
New York (1962).
88
..
NASA MSFC
NASA-Langley, 1966
M329
.._,,.-
D.C. PO546