N A S A TECHNICAL NOTE NASA - -

TN D-3451

PREDICTION OF PROPELLANT TANK

PRESSURIZATION REQUIREMENTS
BY DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS

by J , F, Thompson and M . E, Nein

George C. Marshall Space Flight Center
Hzt ntsville, A la.
I

E
r
N A T I O N A L AERONAUTICS AND SPACE A D M I N I S T R A T I O N W A S H I N G T O N , D. C. J U N E 1966 1
 TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM

0330375

NASA T N D- 345 1

PREDICTION OF P R O P E L L A N T TANK PRESSURIZATION

REQUIREMENTS BY DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS

By J. F. T h o m p s o n and M. E. N e i n

G e o r g e C. M a r s h a l l Space F l i g h t C e n t e r
H u n t s v i l l e , Ala.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

For sale by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information
-
Springfield, Virginia 22151 Price $1.00
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY ................................................
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS OF TEST AND.COMPUTER RESULTS ............ i

Dimensionless Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Curve Fit of Dimensionless Equation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
CONCLUSIONS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

BIBLIOGRAPHY.. ........................................... 14

iii
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Title Page

I. Comparison of Calculated and Measured P r e s s u r a n t Mass for

Various Test Parameters .............................. 12

2. The Effects of Various Design Parameters on the Mean Tempera-

ture at Cutoff. ...................................... 13

iv
 DEFINITION OF SYMBOLS

Symbol Definition

A propellant tank wall surface area ft2

pressurant gas distributor area ft2

AD
J dimensional constant lbf ft/Btu

M pressurant molecular weight lbm/lb mol

W

T ambient temperature OR
a
propellant temperature OR
TL
T ullage mean temperature at cutoff OR
m
T p r e s s urant inlet temperature OR
0

V propellant tank volume ft3

initial ullage volume ft3

vi
propellant volumetric drain rate ft3/ sec
vL
d wall thickness ft
W

C pressurant specific heat B t d l b OR

P m
C wall specific heat Btu/lb OR
PW m
lb f t
m
dimensional constant
gC
lb sec2
f
h ambient heat transfer coefficient B t d s e c f t 2 OR
a
k p r e s surant therm a1 conductivity 'Btufdsec f t 2 OR

P ullage pressure lbf/ft2

r propellant tank characteristic radius1 ft

(maximum radius for cylindrical tanks)

V
 DEFINITION OF SYMBOLS (Concluded)

Symbol Definition

R universal gas constant lbf ft/"R lb mol

a! gas compressibility (-)

pressurant viscosity, M/L lbm/ft sec

wall density, M/L3 lb /ft3

pw m
0 time of pressurization sec

vi

..- ... . . . . , , . ,., , ... --. . I

 PRED ICTION OF PROPELLANT TANK PRESSURIZATION
REQU IREMENTS BY D IMENS IONAL ANALYS I S

SUMMARY

Pressurant gas requirements for launch and space vehicles may be predicted by
analytical models of the pressurization process. However, preliminary design studies
require a fast and reasonably accurate method of predicting without resorting to com-
puter programs. Therefore, dimensional analysis of a large number of pressurization
tests and computer runs was applied to develop an equation that predicts pressurant
requirements for cylindrical and spheroidal propellant tanks with an accuracy of *IO per-
cent.

INTRODUCT ION

Although the most accurate method of predicting pressurant requirements is with a

computer program that has been verified by experiments, it is advantageous to have a
fast, reasonably accurate method to determine the total mass of pressurant gas required
without resorting to the computer. This type of analysis is necessary in comparison and
optimization studies for preliminary design where the number of possibilities to be con-
sidered precludes a detailed computer analysis of each case. This report presents a
single, general expression for the total required mass of psessurant. The expression
was developed by dimensional analysis of the results of about 30 pressurization tests and
120 simulations on an IBM 7094 Computer.

D IMENS IONAL ANALYSIS OF TEST AND COMPUTER RESULTS

The total mass of pressurant gas required is a function of the ullage mean tem-
perature at cutoff derived with the gas equation of state,

PVMW
-
WTotal a RTm

Therefore, the total pressurant m a s s required may be calculated if the ullage mean tem-
perature at cutoff can be determined. In the most general case, the ullage mean
~~

NOTE: Mr. J. F. Thompson is Assistant Professor at Mississippi State University

Aeronautical Engineering Department; he was formerly with MSFC .
 temperature at cutoff will be a function of 12 system design variables, seven physical
properties , the mechanical equivalent of heat, and the gravitational constant:

The 19 variables can be expressed in six fundamental dimensions, length ( L ) ,

m a s s ( M ) , time ( e ) , temperature ( T ) , heat ( H ) , and force ( F ) . The two dimensional
constants, J and gc, are included because heat and force can be expressed in terms of
the other four dimensions. The dimensions of each variable are given in Table IV.

Since any equation representing physical phenomena must be dimensionally homo-

geneous, it must be possible to write equation (2) in a nondimensional form. Therefore,
using 7r as a symbol for a dimensionless group, equation (2) may be written as follows:

7ri = f ( 7r2, 7r3 ----- Ti ) (3)

where the group 7ri contains the ullage mean temperature at cutoff.

According to Buckingham's theorem, the number of dimknsionless groups in

equation ( 3 ) is given by:

i=n-m (4)

where n = number of variables

m = maximum number of these variables which will not form a dimensionless

group

The quantity m is often equal to the number of fundamental dimensions. The total
number of variables in equation ( 2 ) , including J and g,, is 22, and the number of funda-
mental dimensions is six. By trial and e r r o r , it was determined that the maximum
number of variables in this case that will not form a dimensionless group is indeed six,
the number of fundamental dimensions. Therefore, according to equation (4)there will
be 16 dimensionless groups in equation ( 3 ) .

Dimension less Groups

Because the maximum number of variables that will not form a dimensionless
group is six, the 16 dimensionless groups may be determined by choosing six variables
to be common to all groups and, in turn, adding each of the remaining 16 variables to the
first six to form 16 dimensionless groups. Although any six variables could be chosen as
the six to be common to all groups, intuition leads to the choice of the two dimensional

2
constants (J and gc) , the pressurant molecular weight (Mw) , thermal conductivity (k) ,
.
and viscosity ( p ) and the propellant tank characteristic radius (r) Adding the ullage
mean temperature at cutoff (T,) to the six common variables yields the first group:

a b c d e f g
.rri=J gc Mw k p r Tm (5)

Now , substituting the dimensions:

Since the quantity on the left of equation ( 6 ) is dimensionless, the exponent of

each of the six dimensions on the right must be zero. This condition determines six
simultaneous equations ,

[L] O = a + b - d - e + f

[MI O = b + c + e

[e] 0 = -2b -d-e

[HI 0 = - a + d

[F] O = a - b

Simultaneous solution of these equations yields the following:

a =g d=g

b=g e=-3g

c=2g f=-4g

Because the value of g is arbitrary, it can be taken as unity and yields the follow-
ing:

a =I d= I
b= I e = -3
c = 2 f=-4

3
 .. ..

Substitutiag these values into equation (5) yields the first group 7ri:

J g M2 k T
c w m.
"1 =
p3 r4

The second group 7r2 is found in the s a m e manner by adding the presswant
specific heat Cp to the six common variables. Each of the remaining variables is added
one at a time to the six common variables, and the remaining dimensionless groups are
determined in the same manner as the first two. Then,

7r2 = 52
k
J g M2 k T
c w 0 .
7r3 =
p3 r4

P r o
7r5 =
M
W

A
7r7 = 2
r

Pw r3
"9 = -
M
W

4
 gc Mw
Ti2 =
P2

h r
a
= k

Jgc M2 k T
w a
Ti4 = p3 r4
~ ~

Now, the groups TI, "4, an' "14 may e div ded by "3 with no loss of generality,
because none of the 16 groups is eliminated in the process. Thus T I , ~ 4 and
, ~ 1 may
4
be replaced r1 7 ~ ' and
1'
"i4,
respectively,where
4'

In the same manner, the group Til may be replaced with &, where

This change occurs because the initial ullage mean temperature is proportional to the
product PVi.

It is possible to reduce the number of dimensionless groups necessary in this

case by realizing that the wall specific heat, density, and thickness can enter the prob-
lem only in the combination Cpw pw dw which is the wall heat capacity per unit area.
Therefore, the groups T8, rS, and ri0may be combined into a single group w18'

5
 M k

Similarly, it is possible to combine “15 and ni6. Thus,

Further, the propellant tank volume and wall surface area should enter the prob-
lem as the area-to-volume ratio (A/V) .
Therefore, the group 7r6 and 7r7 may be com-
bined into a single group 7r’
6’

rT Ar
4=-=-6
Vll

But since the approximate area-to-volume ratio is given by

the group T; is nearly a constant and may be eliminated.

Finally, since the Prandtl number ( T ~ does

) not vary greatly, this group may also
be dropped. Thus, the number of dimensionless groups necessary in equation ( 3 ) was
reduced by six:,

Since the propellant temperature is the lower limit of the ullage mean temperature,
it is logical to replace all temperatures with temperature differences above the liquid
propellant temperature ( TL) .

Equation ( 3 ) may now be expressed in t e r m s of the following ten dimensionless

groups (the group numbers have been changed to run from one to ten) :

7ri =
TIXI - TL
To - TL

I
I

n3 =
To - TL
TL

MW k
7r5 =
..
p r 2 (cpw P w dw )

gC M w P
7r7 = (35)
P2

h r
a
*a = k (36)

T - T-
a L
7r9 = (37)
To - TL

Mw vL
*io = ADP r2

Curve Fit of Dimension less Equation

These ten dimensionless groups (equations 2 9 through 38) can be used to
correlate the results of tests and computer runs according to equation ( 3 ) . In most
cases equation ( 3 ) would be written in the following form:

However, in this case it is necessary to satisfy certain boundary conditions that cannot be
satisfied by equation ( 3 9 ) . The ullage mean temperature at cutoff must remain finite and
not equal to zero as the ambient heat transfer approaches zero. This boundary condition
cannot be satisfied by equation (39), but it can be satisfied if the functional dependence on
7r8 and 7rg is exponential. Also, as the pressurhnt gas distributor Reynolds number 7rio
approaches zero, the heat transfer in the tank approaches free convection. Therefore,

7
the boundary condition of finite, non-zero mean temperature, when is zero imposed,
dictates an exponential functional dependence on nlo. Thus, these boundary conditions
can be satisfied by writing equation ( 3 ) in the form

The coefficimts and exponents in equation (40) were evaluated by a curve f i t to

the data from the computer runs and tests. It was found that the data could be correlated
by this equation if the coefficients a1 and a3 in the exponentials were taken as functions
of ~2 and ~ 3 :

1 $)
a3 = a3 7r2

Equation (40) then becomes

where all coefficients and exponents are constants.

It was convenient to divide several groups of equation (43) by powers of ten to obtain
numbers more easily handled. Therefore, the final equation used in the curve-fit was

From the curve-fit, the following values w e r e obtained for the coefficients and
exponents in equation ( 4 4 ) :

U!I = 0.424 5 = 0.01416

a2 = 0.00210 h = 0.0620

a3 = -0.0292 w= 0.415

P = -0.1322 $ = 1.174

- I...-..-# I. 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 I I1111 .I I 111 11.1111.111 .1.11111 I1 111 11111 I I 11111.11 111.1111 I1 1111 I
 = -0.1688 T = 0.765

6 = -0.1146 Ip= 0.1510

E = 0.0780

Therefore, since 7rl=

Tm - T~ , equation (44) becomes
To - TL
-0.1322 -0.1688 -0.1146

Tm - TL = 0.424
To - TL
($) (.) (~4)

0.0780 0.01416 0.0620

This equation is general and is capable of predicting the ullage mean temperature, and
thus pressurant m a s s a t cutoff within 10 percent for cylindrical tanks with rounded bulk-
heads. Figure I shows total pressurant requirements obtained by various investigators
f o r a wide range of tank s i z e s and system parameters compared with the pressurant
weights calculated by equation ( 4 4 ) . Excellent agreement is obtained over the entire
range of conditions for hydrogen and oxygen pressurization. + However, the equation is
limited in its application to conditions of constant ullage pressure, pressurant inlet
temperature, and ambient heat transfer. The studies indicated that the equation is inac-
curate at inlet temperatures less than I O O O R above the saturation temperature, at ullage
pressure below propellant saturation, and for very short expulsion times of less than 50
seconds. The restriction to cylindrical tanks can be removed by proper choice of the
characteristic tank radius.
-
* Evaluating the test results of ReferenceI by this method resulted in a large, but con-
stant deviation from actual observed pressurant weight. This is probably because the test
parameters such as heat leak through the vacuum chamber and pressurant inlet tempera-
ture had to be assumed. Additional information about these tests are required to
re-evaluate these conditions.

9
 Studies have shown that the characteristic tank radius for oblate spheroids, used
in equation (44) should be about two-thirds of the maximum tank radius. This assump-
tion is theoretically justified, because a cylinder having the same volume and surface
area as an oblate spheroid h a s a radius equal to 0.63 times its maximum radius. Further
test data and analytical studies are necessary to select the characteristic radius for other
geometries.

Due to the dimensionless nature of equation (44) it is not restricted to any

particular propellant, pressurant, or tank size as indicated in Figure I. Although an un-
insulated propellant tank was assumed in the development of this equation, Figure I
shows good agreement with test results obtained with vacuum jacketed liquid hydrogen
tanks.

To simplify the use of equation (44) the pressurant and propellant properties
for the case of liquid oxygen pressurized by oxygen and liquid oxygen pressurized by
helium were substituted in equation ( 4 4 ) , and the following equations were obtained.
Since these equations are dimensional they are applicable only to the case indicated. F o r
liquid oxygen pressurized by oxygen,

T - 164
m -0.297 0.1395 0.01416
T - 164
= 3.33 (To - 164) r
i
0

-0.0780 0.0762 -0.1146

(CPWP,dW) P eT

1
P 7

-0.304 -0.895 0.765

- 164)

(%)I
* exp 0.001568 ( T r h
0 a

-0.574 r -2.604
(45)

and for liquid oxygen pressurized by helium,

T
m
- 164 -0.304 0.1395 0.01416
T - 164
= 3.10 (To - 164) r
vi
0

-0.078 0.0762 -0.1146

* ( Cpw P w dw ) P eT

10

I
 -0.1650 -0.895 0.765
(To - 164) r h
a
r . l

The units of all variables in equations (45) and (46) must be those given in the
Definition of Symbols. For other combinations of propellant and pressurant, equation
(44) must be used. After the ullage mean temperature at cutoff is calculated, and using
equation (44) , (45) , o r (46) , if applicable, the total m a s s of required pressurant gas
may be calculated from equation ( I).

In designing a launch or space vehicle pressurization system, vehicle parameters

such as tank volume, engine flowrate, tank material, etc. , determined by vehicle mission
profile, are fixed input values. However, there are various controllable parameters in a
pressurization system that can be used to optimize the system without affecting basic ve-
hicle characteristics. The relative significance of various parameters on pressurant
requirements has , therefore, been investigated under another study program. The r e -
sults of these studies exerpted from reference I a r e presented in Figure 2. From a
central origin, representing a reference condition (Saturn V , S-IC Stage) for all param-
e t e r s , the increase (+Y)and decrease ( - Y ) , of the ullage mean temperature a t cutoff is
shown as a function of variation of the parameters on the abscissa. The parameters
were varied over a range expected for vehicle design. Thus, pressurant inlet tempera-
ture can increase o r decrease by a factor of 2 from the reference condition, pressure
by a factor of 3, tank radius by a factor of 2, expulsion time by a factor 3, etc. It was
indicated that the pressurant inlet temperature exerts the greatest influence on the ullage
mean temperature. Diminishing return of this effect did not exist within the range of in-
vestigation (530"R to 1200"R). The mean temperature increased as the ullage pressure
was increased and also as the tank radius w a s increased. Increasing the tank wall thick-
ness, heat capacity, o r density caused decrease in the mean temperature. The pres-
surant distributor flow ( AD) that controls the gas-to-wall forced convection heat transfer
coefficient had a significant effect on the mean temperature when AD w a s reduced, but no
effect at all when flow area was increased. This indicates that the pressurant inlet ve-
locity f o r the reference systems was chosen at an optimum point. Figure 2 also indicates
that helium pressurant must be introduced into a tank at a temperature I. I times higher
than oxygen pressurant to obtain the s a m e ullage mean temperature.

CONCLUSIONS

An equation derived by dimensional analysis provides a reasonably accurate

method for prediction of pressurant requirements for cylindrical LOX and hydrogen pro-
pellant containers. This method is advantageous for preliminary design and optimization
studies where the use of large computer programs becomes,excessive in cost and time.
 PROPELLANT: HYOROGEN OXYGEN OXYGEN :IYOROGEN

TANK VOLUME (F$): 23 1321 1270 67

I I
I
I I
I I
I I
ha = 0 I I ha = 0
I I

* * *
m
m 0 .
a 0 .
3 1
0
0
+ + A
n
w l
c
a
3
TEMP OR
5 0.8- 520 521 532 501 505 530 335 405 325 300 300 300 300 300 300
0 ,

FIGURE I.COMPARISON OF CALCULATED AND MEASURED PRESSURANT MASS FOR

VARIOUS TEST PARAMETERS
 xo/x .x/xo

REFERENCE SYSTEM
r

I
r = 16.5 (ft)
I. 2

// 1.3
Vo
To

p,
=
=
=
=
47492 (ft 3)

800 ('2)

6 0 (psi 4)
2
17.8 (ft )

"0
To (1-2) I = 2 (btuhr ftZ OR)
Tmo/Tm ha
-
Ta - 5 3 0 (OR)

C p6 = 1.51 (btu/ft2 OR)

P

FIGURE 2. THE EFFECTS OF VARIOUS DESIGN PARAMETERS ON THE MEAN TEMPERA-

CI
TUREATCUTOFF
w
 REFERENCE

I. Nein, M. E. and Thompson, Jr. , J. F. , Experimental and Analytical Studies of

- _ NASA TM X-53165, 1965.
Cryogenic Propellant Tank Pressurant Requirements,
-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Coxe, E. and Tatum, John, Main Propellant Tank _Pressurization

_ System Study
.. -

and Test Report, Lockheed - Georgia Company, Contract AF04(611) 6087.

2. Hargis , J. H. , Therm’ophysical Propertiesof - 0 q g e n and- Hydrogen,

~ _. - - NASA
MSFC Internal Note IN-R-P&VE-63-13, October 1963.

3. Johnson, V. J. , A Compendium of the&-operties o f x t e f i a l s at Low Tempera-

_ -
ture (Phase I) Part I Properties of FluidsrNational Bureau of Standards
Cryogenic Laboratory , July 1960.

4. Myers, J. E. and Bennet, C. 0. , Momentum, Heat and ~. .. M a s s Transfer, McGraw

Hill, New York, 1962.

5. Scott, R. B. , Cryogenic Engineering, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc. ,

Princeton, 1959.

6. Modification of Rocketdyne T m Pressurization Compu@-Program

- , NASA
MSFC Memorandum R-P&VE-PTF-64-M-83, 1964.

7. Atmospheric Heat Transfer to Vertical T&s Filled with Liquid Oxygen, A. D.

Little, Inc. , Special Report No. 50. Contract AF04- (647) -130, November 1958.

8. Fortran Program for the Analysis of a Single Propellant Tank Pressurization- ~~

System, Rocketdyne, Division of North American Aviation, Inc. , R-3936-1,

September 1963.

9. MSFC Test Laboratory Reports CTL 2, 36, 34, 37, and CTL Flash Reports dated
August 17, November 20, and December 11, 1962.

10. SA-I5 Static Test Report, Preliminary

.~ Summary Data,
. . Confidential.

11. SA-5 Flight Data.

12. Results of Pressurization Tests on LH2 Facility, NASA MSFC Memorandum

~

R-P&VE-PE , M-526.

14

- . #I
1
.1
..1
..-- 111. 1 1 1 1 1 1 . ...
I
I, 111111 111
II. I,. 11.11 I,1. 1I 1 1 l . 1 1 1 .
111 I. 1111 I I1 1111111I I1 I 1
 BIBLIOGRAPHY (Concluded)

13. S-IV Stage Pressurization Data, NASA MSFC Memorandum R-P&VE-PTF-64-M-

38, 1964.

NASA-Langley, 1966 M331 15

 “The aeronautical and space activities o f the United States shall be
conducted so as t o contribute . . . to the expansion o f hziman h o w l -
edge o f phenomena i n the atmosphere and space. T h e Administration
shall provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dirsemination
of information concerning its activities and the results thereof .”
-NATIONALAERONAUTICS
AND SPACE ACT OF 1958

NASA SCIENTIFIC A N D TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

TECHNICAL REPORTS: Scientific and technical information considered

important, complete, and a lasting contribution to existing knowledge.

TECHNICAL NOTES: Information less broad in scope but nevertheless

of importance as a contribution to existing knowledge.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS: Information receiving limited distri-

bution because of preliminary data, security classification, or other reasons.

CONTRACTOR REPORTS: Technical information generated in con-

nection with a NASA contract or grant and released under NASA auspices.

TECHNICAL TRANSLATIONS: Information published in a foreign

language considered to merit NASA distribution in English.

TECHNICAL REPRINTS: Information derived from NASA activities

and initially published in the form of journal articles.

SPECIAL PIJBLICATIONS: Information derived from or of value to

NASA activities but not necessarily reporting the results -of individual
NASA-programmed scientific efforts. Publications include conference
proceedings, monographs, data compilations, handbooks, sourcebooks,
and special bibliographies.

Details on the availability o f these publications may be obtained from:

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION DIVISION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Washington, D.C. PO546