Cryogenics 57 (2013) 63–73

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Cryogenics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cryogenics

CFD investigation of thermal and pressurization performance in LH2 tank

during discharge
Lei Wang a, Yanzhong Li a,b,⇑, Cui Li a, Zhixiang Zhao a
a
School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Technologies in Space Cryogenic Propellants, Beijing 100028, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Predictions of thermal and pressurization performance in a liquid hydrogen (LH2) tank during liquid dis-
Received 2 February 2013 charge is of significance to the design and optimization of a rocket pressurization system. In this paper, a
Received in revised form 23 May 2013 computational fluid dynamic (CFD) model is introduced to simulate the pressurized discharge event of
Accepted 23 May 2013
LH2 tank. The wall region together with the fluid region is simultaneously considered as the computa-
Available online 31 May 2013
tional domain, and low-Re k–e model is applied to account for the fluid-wall heat exchange effect.
Liquid–vapor phase change effect is also involved in the model. Comparison of the numerical results with
Keywords:
existing experimental data suggests that the CFD model has a good adaptability in pressurization com-
Liquid hydrogen
Pressurization system
putation. Detailed characteristics, such as pressurant gas requirement, pressure altering history, and tem-
Temperature distribution perature distribution inside the tank, can be obtained by the model. The difference of pressurant gas,
Heat transfer selecting helium or vapor H2, may result in the variations in pressure and temperature histories. Pressur-
Turbulent model ization by vapor H2 supplies a higher pressure and also a temperature rise, which is significant to consider
the selection of pressurant gas. The influences of phase change effect and injector structure on pressur-
ization behaviors are also analyzed. The computational results show that liquid–vapor phase change has
a slight influence on the pressurization behaviors. Significant pressure decay at the beginning stage of
process may occur in the case of no-diffuser injector application since the incoming gas is excessively
cooled by cold LH2. The results show that the present CFD model has a good adaptability in the prediction
of pressurization behaviors and is a useful tool for the design and optimization of a pressurization system.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the effects of various parameters on pressurant gas requirements,

Liquid hydrogen, due to its high specific impulse when reacting
with oxidizer, has become a popular fuel for space missions. During
rocket launching process, LH2 is continuously discharged from the
tank bottom and then pumped into rocket engine, and high-tem-
perature helium/vapor H2 is injected into the ullage space to hold
sufficiently high pressure so as to prevent cavitation at pump inlet.
The pressurized discharge process is a complex thermodynamic
process with heat and mass transfer in a stratified environment.
Research on thermal and pressurization performance inside the
tank during launch is of importance to the design and optimization
of the pressurization system.
Owing to its significant effects on the pressurization system, the
problems associated with pressuring a cryogenic tank have been
paid close attention. Dewitt et al. [3], Lacovic [11] and Stochl
et al. [28,29] conducted experimental investigations to determine
⇑ Corresponding author at: School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xi’an
Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China. Tel.: +86 29 82668725; fax: +86 29
82668789.
E-mail address: yzli-epe@mail.xjtu.edu.cn (Y. Li).
including outflow rate, inlet mass flux, initial ullage conditions, in-
let gas temperature, injector geometry, and so forth. On the basis of
experimental data, Van Dresar [30] modified an existing correla-
tion which can predict the pressurant gas requirements for expel-
ling LH2 from axisymmetric tanks, and the revised correlation can
predict the mass requirements within 14% deviation of experimen-
tal results. Moreover, Van Dresar and Stochl [31,32] introduced
experimental results of pressurization and discharge of LH2 tank
under normal gravity condition. Ludwig and Dreyer [14] performed
an experiment to indicate the influence of inlet gas temperature on
gas requirement during initial active-pressurization process. All of
above experimental results supplied important information of
pressurization behaviors for researchers to understand the situa-
tion and process.
Besides the experimental approach, a thermodynamic equilib-
rium (0-D) model and a one-dimensional (1-D) model have been
developed to predict the thermal and pressurization performance.
Hearn [8], Karimi et al. [9] and Majumdar and Steadman [15], ap-
plied 0-D models to investigate the pressurization behaviors of
cryogenic tanks during discharge. In their models, the ullage was
treated as a temporally-varying, spatially-uniform region, and the

0011-2275/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cryogenics.2013.05.005
64 L. Wang et al. / Cryogenics 57 (2013) 63–73
Nomenclature
cp specific heat, J/(kg K)
E internal energy, J/kg
g gravity acceleration, m/s2
ifg latent heat, J/kg
k turbulent kinetic energy, m2/s2
lu ullage height, m
m ullage gas mass, kg
mc computational gas requirements, kg
me experimental gas requirements, kg
m _ mass flux, kg/s
m _ pq mass transfer rate from phase p to phase q, kg/(m3 s)
m _ qp mass transfer rate from phase q to phase p, kg/(m3 s)
m _ ul mass transfer rate from ullage to liquid, kg/(m3 s)
m _ lu mass transfer rate from liquid to ullage, kg/(m3 s)
M molar mass, kg/mol
Nx cell number
P pressure, Pa
Prt turbulent Prandtl number
q ambient heat flux, W/m2
r radius, m
R universal gas constant, R = 8.3145 J/(mol K)
S_ m mass transfer source, kg/(m3 s)
S_ E energy source due to mass transfer, J/(m3 s)
t time, s
ttotal total discharge time, s
conservation equations were solved only in the ullage region. Heat
transfers from the ullage gas to the tank wall and to the liquid pro-
pellant were considered through empiric formulae. Comparing the
calculated results of 0-D model with experimental data suggested
that the 0-D model could predict the pressurization characteristics
with a sufficient accuracy. Experimental data show that ullage
temperature in a cryogenic tank is actually stratified and non-uni-
form [11,28,29]. Hence, use of ullage average temperature may
overestimate the heat transfer rate from ullage to liquid interface.
Under this circumstance, a simple one-dimensional model, which
took into consideration the formation of thermal stratification in
the ullage, was postulated by Roudebush [25] and subsequently re-
vised by Masters [17] for the process description of pressurizing an
axisymmetric tank during discharge. This model broke the ullage
space into a series of vertical nodes and finite difference method
was employed for the dynamic and energy equations to calculate
the axial temperature distributions in ullage gas and tank wall.
The predictive ability of the 1-D model was validated by experi-
mental data and a fair agreement was observed when using a dif-
fuser-type injector, but an obvious deviation when using a
straight-pipe injector. Mandell and Roudebush [16] transformed
the equations of 1-D model and associated initial and boundary
conditions in terms of dimensionless variables to investigate the
various factors affecting the pressurization problem, and only
two parameters, which had the form of modified Stanton numbers,
were of principal importance.
CFD technique, since its convenience, efficiency and quickness,
has become a popular tool in the prediction and analysis of field
parameters, and great emphasis has been placed on the pressuriza-
tion predictions of cryogenic tanks by CFD approach. Panzarella
and Kassemi [20,21] introduced a two-phase lumped CFD model
to describe the self-pressurization behaviors of cryogenic tanks
both in normal gravity and in space. Barsi and Kassemi [2] assessed
the predictive capability of the lumped CFD model on the basis of
the comparison of calculated results with existing experimental
data and a favorable agreement was obtained. Seo and Jeong [27]
T temperature, K
Tsat saturation temperature, K
V_ out outflow volume flux, m3/s
x distance from the tank top, m
Greek symbols
a volume fraction
q density, kg/m3
l dynamic viscosity, kg/(m s)
lt turbulent viscosity, kg/(m s)
e turbulent dissipation rate, m2/s3
k thermal conductivity, W/(m K)
keff effective thermal conductivity, W/(m K)
Subscripts
l liquid
u ullage
0 initial condition
in inlet
m mixture
w wall
q phase q
p phase p
analyzed the self-pressurization from experimental data and sug-
gested a qualitative relation between transient period, heat leak
and liquid fractions. Mattick et al. [18] developed a comprehensive
suite of analysis tools that includes a multi-node approach, a mul-
ti-phase CFD approach, and a hybrid approach to carry out simula-
tions of pressurization in propellant tanks. Moreover, Leuva et al.
[13] developed a CFD model to study the short pressurization pro-
cess just before the ignition of main engines of a rocket, and a pres-
sure collapse experienced during the main engine ignition was
analyzed. Kim et al. [10] analyzed the thermodynamic behaviors
of a liquid oxygen tank during pre-pressurization stage that the
tank is pressurized using helium injection and then experiences a
pressure decay process. The effects of increasing pressurization le-
vel on some important properties such as tank pressure, ullage gas
temperature, and evaporation of liquid oxygen during flight readi-
ness check period were focused. In addition, Hardy and Tomsik [7]
and Sasmal et al. [26] selected Flow-3D code to model the pre-
pressurization stage, and the heat and mass fluxes at the boundary
were computed in auxiliary analyses and specified as input param-
eters. Adnani and Jennings [1] used a commercial CFD software
FLUENT to predict the pressure history and pressurant gas require-
ment. In this model, liquid phase inside the tank was not modeled,
and the region occupied by the liquid phase was assumed to have a
constant temperature equals to the initial temperature. In spite of
CFD approach has greatly been applied to the pressurization inves-
tigations of cryogenic tanks, there is no any open literature on
pressurization computation of pressurized discharge event by
CFD approach.
In this paper, a CFD model is introduced to predict the thermal
and pressurization performance inside LH2 tank during liquid dis-
charge. The wall region together with the fluid region is considered
as the computational domain so that the heat exchange between
ullage gas and tank wall and heat conduction through solid region
can be resolved simultaneously. The liquid–vapor phase change ef-
fect is also involved in this CFD model. The thermal performance
and pressure altering behavior are simulated and presented in de-
 L. Wang et al. / Cryogenics 57 (2013) 63–73 65

tail. Different pressurant gases (He or Vapor H2) to LH2 tank are
compared. The present investigation is of significance and benefi-
cial to the design and optimization of a pressurization system.
2. CFD modeling
2.1. Physical model
Fig. 1 displays the schematic diagram of a LH2 tank. The tank
consists of a cylinder with a diameter (D) and a height (L) of
3.35 m and 10 m, respectively, and two 1-meter-height dished
heads (l). 3-mm-thickness (lw) 2219 aluminum plate is used to
construct the tank wall. To reduce the heat load from environment,
a 20-mm-thickness foam layer is applied at the tank surface. More-
over, an outlet-downward injector with a large outlet area
(d = 1.0 m) is applied to ensure the sufficient diffusion of pressu-
rant gas at tank inlet, and the effect of injector structure on thermal
and pressurization performance will be analyzed in the subsequent
section. Since an obvious temperature variation exists in the ullage
region during liquid discharge, the variations of properties with
temperature for ullage gas and for tank wall must be considered.
Liquid phase is treated as incompressible with constant properties,
except for density, which is allowed to vary linearly in the body
force term of the momentum equation according to the Boussinesq
approximation. All the thermophysical and thermodynamic prop-
erties are derived from the fluid thermo-physical properties pro-
vided by NIST [19].
During rocket launching process, the LH2 tank may be pressur-
ized using high temperature helium (LH2–He) or vapor H2 (LH2–
H2). When the pressurant gas is vapor H2, there are two phases
in the tank, that is, liquid hydrogen and its vapor. When the tank
is pressurized with helium, the ullage will be filled with a mixture
of vapor H2 and helium, and a two phase multi-component compu-
and then the tank pressure maintains constant during a hold per-
iod, so the amount of propellant vapor inside the tank is very small
for a helium pressurization case [3] and its influence on pressuriza-
tion performance is limited. It is also found that the mass transfer
rate of hydrogen can be greatly reduced by the presence of the
non-condensable gas helium [22]. Therefore, in a helium pressuri-
zation case, the propellant vapor as well as the associated mass
transfer effect can be ignored and a two-phase fluid system, includ-
ing liquid hydrogen and helium, is adopted for convenient calcula-
tion. In addition, for the helium-only ullage case, the dissolution of
helium in the liquid hydrogen is also ignored.
2.2. Mathematical model
2.2.1. Governing equations
In the present paper, the commercial package, GAMBIT 2.3 and
FLUENT 6.3, are used as the grid generator and the CFD solver,
respectively. Since LH2 and ullage gas do not interpenetrate within
the tank, a computation with Volume-Of-Fluid (VOF) method is se-
lected to solve the multiphase problem. The VOF method can mod-
el two or more immiscible fluids by solving a single set of
governing equations and tracking the volume fraction of each of
the fluids throughout the domain. The flow fields are shared by
all phases and correspond to volume-averaged values, as long as
the volume fraction of each phase is known at each location. In
an n-phase fluid system, the equation for the qth phase has the fol-
lowing form [4]:
" #
1 @ Xn
ðaq qq Þ þ r  aq qq v q ¼ _ pq  m
ðm _ qp Þ ; ð1Þ
qq @t p¼1
The volume fraction for the primary phase is computed on the
following constraint:
X
n

tational model should be adopted to describe the fluid flow and aq ¼ 1: ð2Þ
q¼1
heat transfer within the tank. Prior to liquid discharge, pressurant
gas has been injected into the ullage region during a ramp period A single momentum equation is solved throughout the domain,
and the resulting velocity field shared among the phases. The equa-
tion for the conversation of momentum can be written as:
@
v Þ þ r  ðqm~
ðq ~ v~
v Þ ¼ rP þ r  ½lm ðr~
v þ r~
v T Þ þ qm~g ; ð3Þ
@t m
qm and lm can be written as:
X
n
qm ¼ aq qq ; ð4Þ
q¼1

X
n
lm ¼ aq lq : ð5Þ
q¼1

The energy equation for fluid region, also shared among the
phases, is shown below:
@
v ðqm E þ PÞ ¼ r  ðkeff rTÞ þ S_ E :
ðq EÞ þ r  ½~ ð6Þ
@t m
In the VOF method, energy and temperature are treated as
mass-averaged variables:
Pn
q¼1 aq qq Eq
E ¼ Pn ; ð7Þ
q¼1 aq qq

keff is computed from

c p lt
keff ¼ k þ ; ð8Þ
Prt
In the following calculations, Prt = 0.85. lt is computed by com-
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of LH2 tank. bining k and e as follows:
66 L. Wang et al. / Cryogenics 57 (2013) 63–73

2
k layer) is not resolved. In the latter one, the viscous sublayer and the
lt ¼ q m C l ; ð9Þ buffer layer are also resolved by numerical method and the first
e
near-wall fluid mesh must be placed within the viscous sublayer
The wall region is also considered and modeled in the present
region. A dimensionless velocity, y+, can be used to assess the mesh
CFD simulation, and the energy equation for the tank wall is given
[4]. Moreover, the wall functions approach is adequate in the most
by
high-Reynolds flows where dimensionless velocity near tank wall
@ satisfy the logarithmic law but inadequate in situations where
qw ðcpw T w Þ ¼ r  ðkw rT w Þ: ð10Þ low-Reynolds effects are pervasive and the assumptions underly-
@t
ing the wall functions cease to be valid. The near-wall modeling
approach can meet the calculation requirements of the most turbu-
2.2.2. Equation of gas state lent flows only if the grids in the near-wall region are fine enough
The predicted results of the CFD model are strongly influenced to maintain the solution is resolved all the way to the viscous sub-
by the equation of gas state. For a typical pressurization event, the layer [5,34]. In the present study, both liquid and gas flow down-
tank pressure generally maintains low values during the whole dis- ward with a very low velocity, and the dimensionless velocity
charge process. Hence, ideal-gas model, shown below, can be se- near tank wall does not satisfy the logarithmic law. Therefore,
lected to calculate the ullage gas density. low-Re k-e model approach, one of the near-wall modeling ap-
PM proaches, is selected to consider the fluid-wall heat transfer, and
qu ¼ : ð11Þ the near wall region is meshed with fine grids to ensure the
RT
wall-adjacent cell’s centroid is located within the viscous sublayer
However, in some actual process, a high tank pressure may be region where the first near-wall cell is placed at yþ  1 [4].
designed to expel the propellant from tank, where ideal-gas model In the low-Re k-e model, k and e are obtained from the following
seems to be inappropriate for solving the gas density. Under this transport equations:
circumstance, real gas model should be applied to the CFD simula-   
tion. The variation of gas density with P and T, shown below, is @ f l lt
vÞ ¼ r 
ðq kÞ þ r  ðqm k~ lm þ rk þ Gk  qm e
implemented via User-Defined Function (UDF) and the actual val- @t m rk
ues are derived from NIST [19].  Dk ; ð13Þ
qu ¼ qu ðP; TÞ: ð12Þ   
@ f l lt e e2
In the present CFD model, ideal-gas model must be activated to vÞ ¼ r 
ðq eÞ þ r  ðqm e~ lm þ re þ C 1e Gk  f2 C 2e qm :
@t m re k k
ensure the information of pressure filed is obtained by the CFD
tool. Meanwhile, an appropriate gas model should be used to accu- ð14Þ
rately solve the ullage gas density. When the pressurant gas is he- Dk represents the anisotropic dissipation effect of turbulent kinetic
lium or when a vapor H2 pressurization case maintains low energy in the viscous sublayer, and is given by
pressure level, ideal-gas model is naturally applied to the ullage !2
gas. However, when the pressurant gas is vapor H2 and simulta- 1=2
@k
neously the ulalge pressure maintains high level during the pres- Dk ¼ 2lm ; ð15Þ
@r
surization process, an apparent deviation may be produced if the
ullage gas is defined as ideal gas. Besides, if the ullage gas is de- Gk represents the generation of turbulent kinetic energy due to
fined as real gas, the information about pressure variation cannot the mean velocity gradients, calculated as the following form:
be obtained due to the non-activation of ideal-gas model. Under
this situation, a modified CFD model is constructed. In this model, v ðrv þ r~
Gk ¼ fl lt r~ v T Þ: ð16Þ
three phases are involved in the tank system including LH2, vapor The model coefficients fl and f2 must consider the effect of Ret
H2, and a ‘‘third phase’’. The actual density of vapor H2 is solved and respectively have the following forms:
through Eq. (12), and the third phase is defined as ideal gas so as  
to activate the ideal-gas model. Moreover, over the whole process, 2:5
fl ¼ exp  ; ð17Þ
the mass of the third phase is always zero, that is, its amount in ini- 1 þ Ret =50
tial ullage space is zero and cannot be produced during the whole
discharge process. Therefore, the actual temperature and velocity f2 ¼ 1:0  0:3 expðRe2t Þ; ð18Þ
fields inside the tank will not be affected by the introduction of
third phase, and the pressurization behaviors predicted by the qm k2
CFD model can represent the actual situations. Ret ¼ : ð19Þ
elm
2.2.3. Turbulent model The model constants C 1e , C 2e , C l , rk and re in Eqs. (9), (13) and
The existing investigations indicate that modeling heat ex- (14) have the following default values [4]:
change between ullage gas and tank wall plays a dominant role C 1e ¼ 1:44; C 2e ¼ 1:92; C l ¼ 0:09; rk ¼ 1:0; re ¼ 1:3:
in the prediction of a pressurized discharge event [8,9,15,17,25],
thus more attention must be paid to the problem of fluid-wall heat
transfer. Generally, an adequate turbulent model together with a 2.3. Phase change model
special mesh treatment is adopted to consider the heat transfer ef-
fect in CFD simulation [4]. Two approaches can be used to model By incorporating mass and energy sources into the continuity
the near-wall region including ‘‘wall functions’’ approach and and energy equations, respectively, the liquid evaporation and va-
‘‘near-wall modeling’’ approach. In the former one, semi-empirical por condensation effects can be considered in the present CFD
formulae (wall functions) are used to bridge the viscosity-affected model. These source terms are taken from a phenomenological
region between the wall and the fully-turbulent region. The first model developed by Lee [12] and have been successfully applied
near-wall fluid mesh should be placed at the fully turbulent region by Prasanth Kumar et al. [23] and Rock [24]. In a CFD simulation,
and the viscosity-affected inner region (viscous sublayer and buffer the source terms act on the whole fluid domain, so the phase
 L. Wang et al. / Cryogenics 57 (2013) 63–73
change effect both at liquid surface and in the bulk region can be
considered simultaneously. All of the source terms are driven by
the cell temperature, T, and implemented via customized UDF:
For T P T sat (evaporation),
jT  T sat j
S_ m ¼ m _ lu ¼ F ql al
_ ul ¼ m
T sat
For T < T sat (condensation),
jT  T sat j
S_ m ¼ m _ lu ¼ F qu au
_ ul ¼ m
T sat
And
S_ E ¼ ifg S_ m :
F denotes the relaxation parameter used for obtaining the rate
of mass transfer in a cell of unit volume, and it carries the unit of
[s1]. At any time of the CFD simulation, the conservations of mass
and energy must be reached within specified numbers of inner
iteration. Therefore, there is a proper value for F to account for
the phase change effect. In a transient numerical calculation, F is
decided based on the time step value and the cell size [23]. As
mentioned previously, the phase change effect is only considered
in vapor H2 pressurization cases but not considered in He pressur-
ization cases.
2.4. Initial and boundary conditions
The thermal conductivity of foam material is approximate
0.02 W/(m K) [6] and foam layer is generally used to insulate cryo-
genic tanks. For the present tank with a 20-mm-thickness foam
layer, the ambient heat flux is about 260 W/m2 and the total heat
transfer rate is 27 kW. Moreover, the pressurization performance
mainly depends on the heat transfer effects within the ullage re-
gion. During the whole pressurization period, the average heat leak
rate transferred into the ullage region is about 13.5 kW. In addi-
tion, for a typical pressurized discharge event, the average ul-
lage-wall heat transfer rate can reach 300 kW [33], and the ratio
of heat leak rate transferred into ullage space to the ullage-wall
heat transfer rate is only about 4.5%. Therefore, the ambient heat
leak has a slight influence on the pressurization performance and
an adiabatic boundary condition can be used in the present CFD
simulations. Mass-flow-inlet boundary condition is applied to the
gas inlet as well as the liquid outlet. The movement of the interface
is captured using VOF method and the interfacial energy and mass
balances are applied using source terms, which have been intro-
duced in Section 2.3. The software FLUENT can calculate the
fluid-wall heat exchange by itself only if the fluid and solid regions
are modeled simultaneously and an appropriate turbulent model is
applied, as introduced in Section 2.2. Moreover, the initial liquid
temperature is 20 K, and the initial ullage temperature is specified
to vary linearly from 80 K at the tank top to saturation temperature
of P0 at the interface. Other initial and boundary conditions are
listed in Table 1.
Table 1
Initial and boundary conditions for CFD simulations.
Case P0 (MPa) lu0 (m) Tin (K)
LH2–H2 0.48 1.0 300
LH2–He 0.48 1.0 300
67
3. Numerical implementation
In the following transient CFD simulations, the underlying code
solves the continuity, momentum, energy conservations, and tur-
bulent equations both in the liquid and vapor regions. Implicit first
order scheme is used for time discretization, and the time step size
ð20Þ
used with the VOF method is on the order of 1  103 s. Except that
the pressure staggering option (PRESTO!) scheme is used to dis-
cretize the pressure, second order upwinding schemes are utilized
to discretize the other terms in the equations. The Pressure-Impli-
ð21Þ cit with Splitting of Operators (PISO) pressure–velocity coupling
scheme is used to obtain a semi-implicit pressure correction
equation.
At each time step, the sources associated with phase change ef-
ð22Þ fect are incorporated into the continuity and energy equations,
respectively, and iterations of the solution loop will be performed
until the convergence criteria are met, that is, the residual for en-
ergy equation is below 108 and the other residuals are below
104.
4. Validation
4.1. Grid independence study
Fig. 2 displays the grid used for the following CFD simulations.
The symmetry feature of the problem suggests that using an axi-
symmetric model instead of a costly 3-dimensional model is more
convenient and efficient. As shown in Fig. 2, most parts of the com-
putational domain (including wall region) are divided into struc-
tured grids with successively increasing size to capture the steep
gradients in velocity and temperature. In order to avoid a too large
computational requirement, the meshes become coarse gradually
with the distance far away from the wall. The internal regions of
the ellipsoidal top and bottom are meshed with unstructured grids.
A sensitivity study on the grid spatial resolution has been exe-
cuted. Fig. 3 displays the predicted temperature profiles of tank
centerline and wall at the end of discharge for three grid densities.
The comparative study shows that a grid having approximate
28,000 cells is suitable for the following CFD simulations, and dis-
tance between the first near-wall fluid cell and the tank wall is less
0.5 mm to maintain the adaptation of low-Re k-e model in comput-
ing the fluid-wall heat transfer.
4.2. Validation of CFD model
Pressurized discharge tests conducted at Lewis Research Center
[25] are used to validate the current CFD model. Fig. 4 displays the
histories of inlet gas temperature for the six test cases, and Table 2
presents the other initial and boundary conditions. The first four
tests are low-pressure cases and the last two ones are high-pres-
sure cases. The CFD model which solves gas density by ideal-gas
model is used to simulate the low-pressure cases, while the mod-
ified CFD model including a ‘‘third phase’’ is applied to the high-
pressure cases. Initially, both ullage gas and its adjacent tank wall
have linear temperature distributions that reach the maximum at
_ iu (kg/s)
m V_ out (m3/s) ttotal (s) q (W/m2) Injector structure
Vertical
0.2 0.528 175 0 Horizontal
Hemispherical
No-diffuser
0.4 0.528 175 0 Vertical
68
Fig. 3. Tank centerline and wall temperature profiles for three grid densities.
tank top and the minimum at liquid interface, and the correspond-
ing temperature ranges are also listed in Table 2.
The computational pressurant gas requirements as well as the
experimental data are listed in Table 3. Comparative study shows
that all of the computational values are smaller than their corre-
sponding experimental data, and there is an increasing deviation
for increasing discharge time. The major reason of the deviation
is probably that the interior hardware (support structure, test de-
vices, etc.) inside the tank, which is not considered in the CFD sim-
ulations, has a considerable effect on the energy distribution
within the tank. The tank system without considering the interior
hardware has a smaller heat absorption capacity, so only a smaller
amount of gas can meet the pressurization requirement. For the
long-time discharge processes, the proportions of heat transmitted
to the interior hardware are larger, thus ignoring the interior hard-
ware effect in a simulation will produce a larger deviation.
Figs. 5 and 6 display the comparisons of computational and
experimental axial temperature profiles for low-pressure cases
and high-pressure cases, respectively. All of comparative studies
show that the computational results are generally in agreement
with the experimental data, and the predicted temperatures both
in ullage centerline and tank wall are slightly higher than the
experimentally observed temperatures at every position within
the tank. To maintain an approximately constant pressure during
L. Wang et al. / Cryogenics 57 (2013) 63–73
Fig. 2. Grid used for CFD simulation.
liquid discharge, the less ullage gas must have a higher tempera-
ture. Simultaneously, the higher ullage temperature enhances the
heat transfer from the ullage gas to the tank wall, leading to a high-
er temperature wall. Generally, the current CFD model has a good
predictive ability considering the approximate boundary condi-
tions and other simplifying assumptions. Also, the modified CFD
model has a good adaptability in predicting the pressurization
behaviors of high-pressure cases.
5. Results and discussion
5.1. Thermal and pressurization performance
A LH2–He case and a LH2–H2 case, which using vertical-outlet
injectors at the tank inlet, have been computed by the above CFD
model and the initial and boundary conditions are listed in Table 1.
Fig. 7 displays the predicted histories of ullage pressure and mass-
average temperature (Tave) during pressurization period. It shows
that Pu and Tave for LH2–H2 case are always higher than for LH2–
He case, which indicates vapor H2 has a better pressurization per-
formance than He. This is because vapor H2 has a higher inlet en-
thalpy (iin ¼ m _ in  cp  T in ) due to its larger specific heat. The
pressurization performance is largely determined by the energy
exchanges at the ullage boundaries. For a pressurized discharge
event, the energy exchanges mainly consist of inlet enthalpy, heat
exchange between gas and tank wall (Quw), and heat exchange be-
tween gas and liquid interface (Qui). Over the most time of dis-
charge, the liquid interface is covered with relatively low
temperature gas, so Qui is a low value compared to the other heat
transfer rates. Moreover, iin keeps constant during the entire dis-
charge, while Quw experiences a continuous rise process due to
the growth of wall area exposed to the warmer ullage. In the begin-
ning stage of discharge, iin is greater than the sum of Quw and Qui, so
that a temperature rise is observed. With the gas filling process
going on, the difference between Quw and iin decreases gradually
and the rising rate of Tave also decreases. After iin becomes lower
than the sum of Quw and Qui, Tave turns to decrease along with time.
Fig. 8 displays the tank centerline and wall temperature profiles
at the end of discharge. It can be seen that both ullage temperature
and wall temperature for LH2–H2 case are higher than for LH2–He
case. The centerline temperature in ullage upper region (within a
distance from injector outlet to the position of x = 2.0 m) approxi-
mately keeps a constant of 300 K and is defined as ‘‘injector-influ-
ence region’’ in this paper. Under this region, the centerline
 L. Wang et al. / Cryogenics 57 (2013) 63–73 69

Fig. 4. Histories of inlet gas temperature for Lewis test cases [25].

Table 2
Initial and boundary conditions for the validation cases [25].

Case P (MPa) Pressurant gas ttotal (s) V_ out (m3/s) lu0 (m) T0 (K) Tw0 (K)

1 0.39 H2 284 0.00221 0.15 26.1–207 25.6–94

2 0.40 H2 101 0.00634 0.11 26.1–221 25.6–87
3 0.28 H2 88 0.00722 0.15 24.4–214 25.6–98
4 0.28 He 309 0.00199 0.13 21.9–193 25.6–82
5 1.10 H2 350 0.00189 0.16 31.7–271 25.6–114
6 1.11 H2 93 0.00673 0.14 31.7–269 25.6–117

Table 3 nificantly affected by the inlet flow so that an obvious radial tem-
Comparisons of computational and experimental pressurant gas requirements. perature gradient is observed in this region. Under this region, gas
Case mc (kg) me (kg) jmc me j
 100% temperatures in the central region are approximately equal at the
me
same height and temperature gradient only exists in the near-wall
1 0.6696 0.7983 16.12
region. Therefore, the temperatures at tank centerline can be used
2 0.5219 0.5625 7.22
3 0.3584 0.3765 4.80 to assess the temperature distribution in ullage region
4 1.061 1.2247 13.37 conveniently.
5 1.6460 1.8053 8.83
6 1.1906 1.2377 3.50
5.2. Influence of phase change

Two H2 pressurization cases, with and without considering

temperature decreases gradually along the direction far from tank
top. Fig. 9 displays the contours of temperature distribution at dif-
ferent times for LH2–He case. It shows that high-temperature
pressurant gas can penetrate a certain depth in the ullage region
(injector-influence region) and then diffuse gradually. Since it is al-
ways exposed to the high-temperature gas during discharge, the
position of x = 0.5 m reaches the maximum wall temperature,
which can be seen clearly in Fig. 8. The near-injector region is sig-
phase change effects, have been computed to investigate the influ-
ence of phase change model on the pressurization predictions, and
the vertical-outlet injectors are applied at the tank inlet. Pu and Tave
histories for the two cases are displayed in Fig. 10a. It can be indi-
cated that the two cases have the similar variations during dis-
charge. There is not an apparent difference between the two
pressure curves, while a slightly higher temperature can be ob-
served when considering the phase change effect. This can be ex-
70 L. Wang et al. / Cryogenics 57 (2013) 63–73

Fig. 5. Comparisons of computational and experimental temperature profiles both in ullage centerline and tank wall at the end of discharge for (a) case 1; (b) case 2; (c) case
3; and (d) case 4.

Fig. 7. Ullage pressure and mass-average temperature histories.

Fig. 6. Comparisons of computational and experimental temperature profiles both

in ullage centerline and tank wall at the end of discharge for (a) case 5; and (b) case
6. Fig. 8. Centerline and wall temperature profiles at the end of discharge.
 L. Wang et al. / Cryogenics 57 (2013) 63–73
Fig. 9. Contours of temperature distributions at different times for LH2–He case.
plained as follows: The integral mass transfer encountered during
discharge is condensation, which can be seen in Fig. 10b. When the
phase change effect is considered in the computation, gas amount
left in ullage is less due to consideration. The mass proportion of
mass transfer amount to the total ullage gas is approximately
1.95%. Meanwhile, latent heat is released into the ullage region
as vapor condensation so that the ullage gas has more energy to
Fig. 10. Influence of phase change on pressurization behaviors: (a) pressure and
mass-average temperature histories; and (b) ullage gas mass history.
71
arise the average temperature. In general, over the time scale of
a typical pressurized discharge case, the liquid–vapor phase
change has a fairly small influence on the pressurization perfor-
mance, and a numerical simulation without considering the phase
change is acceptable for the pressurization prediction of a foam-
insulated tank.
5.3. Effect of injector structure
Four vapor H2 pressurization cases, using vertical-outlet injec-
tor, horizontal-outlet injector, hemispherical-outlet injector, and
straight-pipe injector respectively at the tank inlet, have been sim-
ulated to evaluate the effect of injector structure on pressurization
performance, and the phase change effect has also been involved in
the computations. The comparisons of pressure altering curves, ul-
lage gas mass histories, and temperature distributions at tank
upper region are displayed in Fig. 11a–c, respectively. It shows that
the pressure histories of the first three cases are similar, while the
straight-pipe injector produces remarkable pressure decay at the
beginning stage of process. The main reason is probably that the
first three injectors are diffuser-type injectors, and the last one is
a no-diffuser injector. For the cases with diffuser-type injector,
the pressurant gas can be diffused sufficiently through the injec-
tors and similar temperature distributions within the ullage cen-
tral region are formed. The ullage pressure is close related to the
temperature distribution, so the similar pressure variations are ob-
served in the three diffuser-type injector cases. While for the case
with a no-diffuser injector, the incoming gas penetrates a longer
distance inside the ullage and exerts a direct impact on the liquid
interface over a longer time. Thus the ullage gas will be excessively
cooled by the cold liquid and a considerable proportion of energy
may be transferred to the liquid phase. Fig. 11b shows that the
integrated mass transfer during discharge is evaporation for the
no-diffuser injector case. With the gas filling process going on,
the incoming gas has a continuously decreasing influence on Qui.
Meanwhile, the gas temperature in the near-wall region is lower
for the no-diffuser injector case, leading to a smaller quantity of
heat lost to the tank wall. Therefore, the proportion of energy left
in the ullage region begins to increase and a pressure rise is ob-
tained in the subsequent process. Fig. 11c shows that the three dif-
fuser-type injectors produce the similar temperature distributions
72 L. Wang et al. / Cryogenics 57 (2013) 63–73
Fig. 11. Effect of injector structure on pressurization performance: (a) pressure histories; (b) ullage gas mass histories; and (c) temperature distribution inside tank upper
region.
within the central region except for the deviations in near-injector
region. While for the case with no-diffuser injector, the tempera-
ture distribution is quite different: there is an obvious radial distri-
bution in the upper region, in which gas temperature reaches the
minimum near the tank wall and the maximum at the center re-
gion. Furthermore, the above pressurization characteristics can
only be displayed by the current CFD model, and the existing 0-D
model and 1-D model seem to be invalid in predicting the no-dif-
fuser injector case.
6. Conclusions
In this paper, a CFD model is introduced to predict the thermal
and pressurization performance of a LH2 tank during discharge.
Several conclusions may be made as follows:
(1) The CFD model has a good adaptability in predicting the
thermal and pressurization behaviors, even when the tank
pressure maintains a high value during the discharge period.
The pressured gas requirement, pressure history, and tem-
perature distributions within the tank can be displayed in
detail.
(2) For a foam-insulated tank, the liquid–vapor phase change
has a slight influence on the pressurization behaviors and
can be ignored in the CFD simulation for convenient
analysis.
(3) The no-diffuser injector results in remarkable pressure
decay in the beginning stage of process since inlet pressu-
rant gas is excessively cooled by cold LH2. The detailed dis-
tribution characteristics can only be displayed by the
present CFD model.
Generally, the CFD model presented here can yield satisfactory
results in predicting the pressurization behaviors of a pressurized
discharge process. The investigation in this paper is of significance
and beneficial to the design and optimization of a pressurization
system.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Ph. D. Programs Foundation of
Ministry of Education of China (NO20100201110012) and the Re-
search Fund of State Key Laboratory of Technologies in Space Cryo-
genic Propellants (SKLTSCP1213). The assistance of China Academy
of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT) is greatly appreciated.
References
[1] Adnani P, Jennings RW. Pressurization analysis of cryogenic propulsion
systems. AIAA 2000-3788; 2000.
[2] Barsi S, Kassemi M. Numerical and experimental comparisons of the self-
pressurization behavior of an LH2 tank in normal gravity. Cryog
2008;48:122–9.
[3] Dewitt RL, Stochl RJ, Johnson WR. Experimental evaluation of pressurant gas
diffusers during the pressurized discharge of liquid hydrogen. NASA TN D-
3458; 1966.
[4] Fluent Inc. Fluent 6.3 User’s Guide, Lebanon, NH; 2008.
[5] Ghiaasiaan SM. Convective heat and mass transfer. 1st ed. Cambridge: New
York; 2011.
[6] Glaister D, Schmidt J, McLean C, Mills G. Long term cryogenic storage
technologies overview for NASA exploration applications. AIAA 2011-3774;
2011.
[7] Hardy TL, Tomsik TM. Prediction of the ullage gas thermal stratification in a
NASP vehicle propellant tank experimental simulation using Flow-3D. NASA-
103217; 1990.
[8] Hearn HC. Development and validation of fluid/thermodynamic models for
spacecraft propulsion systems. J Propul Power 2001;17(3):527–33.
[9] Karimi H, Nassirharand A, Mohseni M. Modeling and simulation of a class of
liquid propellant engine pressurization systems. Acta Astronaut
2010;66:539–49.
[10] Kim KH, Ko HJ, Kim K, Jung YS, Oh SH, Cho KJ. Transient thermal analysis of a
cryogenic oxidizer tank in the liquid rocket propulsion system during the
prelaunch helium gas pressurization. J Eng Thermophys Rus 2012;21(1):1–15.
[11] Lacovic RF. Comparison of experimental and calculated helium requirements
for pressurization of a Centaur liquid oxygen tank. NASA TM X-2013, 1970.
 L. Wang et al. / Cryogenics 57 (2013) 63–73
[12] Lee WH. A pressure iteration scheme for two-phase flow modeling. LA-UR-79-
975; 1979.
[13] Leuva D, Gangadharan S, Wilson P, Kutter B. A CFD study of cryogenic LH2 tank
ullage pressurization. AIAA 2012-1888, 2012.
[14] Ludwig C, Dreyer ME. Analysis of cryogenic propellant tank pressurization
based upon ground experiments. AIAA 2012-5199; 2012.
[15] Majumdar A, Steadman T. Numerical modeling of pressurization of a
propellant tank. J Propul Power 2001;17(2):385–90.
[16] Mandell DA, Roudebush WH. Parametric investigation of liquid hydrogen tank
pressurization during outflow. NASA TN D-2797; 1965.
[17] Masters PA. Computer programs for pressurization (RAMP) and pressurized
discharge from a cryogenic liquid propellant tank. NASA TN D-7504; 1974.
[18] Mattick SJ, Lee CP, Hosangadi A, Ahuja V. Progress in modeling pressurization
in propellant tanks. AIAA 2010-6560; 2010.
[19] NIST Chemistry WebBook, NIST standard reference database number 69,
October 2011 release. <http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/>.
[20] Panzarella C, Kassemi M. On the validity of purely thermodynamic
descriptions of two-phase cryogenic fluid storage. J Fluid Mech
2003;484:41–68.
[21] Panzarella C, Kassemi M. Self-pressurization of large spherical cryogenic tanks
in space. J Spacecr Rockets 2005;42(2):299–308.
[22] Panzarella C, Kassemi M. One-dimensional model of evaporation and
condensation in the presence of a noncondensable gas with applications to
cryogenic fluid storage. Int J Heat Mass Tran 2009;52:3767–77.
[23] Prasanth Kumar S, Prasad BVSSS, Venkatarathnam G, Ramamurthi K, Srinivasa
Murthy S. Influence of surface evaporation on stratification in liquid hydrogen
tanks of different aspect ratios. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2007;32:1954–60.
73
[24] Rock BS. Thermal-fluid analysis of a lithium vaporizer for a high
power magnetoplasmadynamic thruster. Worcester Polytechnic institute;
2006.
[25] Roudebush WH. An analysis of the problem of tank pressurization during
outflow. NASA TN D-2585; 1965.
[26] Sasmal GP, Hochstein JI, Wendl MC, Hardyt TL. Computational modeling of the
pressurization process in a NASP vehicle propellant tank experimental
simulation. AIAA 91-2407; 1991.
[27] Seo M, Jeong S. Analysis of self-pressurization phenomenon of cryogenic fluid
storage tank with thermal diffusion model. Cryog 2010;50:549–55.
[28] Stochl RJ, Maloy JE, Masters PA, Dewitt RL. Gaseous-helium requirements for
the discharge of liquid hydrogen from a 1.52-meter-(5-FT-)diameter spherical
tank. NASA TN D-5621; 1970.
[29] Stochl RJ, Maloy JE, Masters PA, Dewitt RL. Gaseous-helium requirements for
the discharge of liquid hydrogen from a 3.96-meter-(13-FT-)diameter
spherical tank. NASA TN D-7019; 1970.
[30] Van Dresar NT. Prediction of pressurant mass requirements for axisymmetric
liquid hydrogen tanks. AIAA 95–2964; 1995.
[31] Van Dresar NT, Stochl RJ. Pressurization and expulsion of cryogenic liquids:
Generic requirements for a low-gravity experiment. NASA TM-104417; 1991.
[32] Van Dresar NT, Stochl RJ. Pressurization and expulsion of a flight weight liquid
hydrogen tank. AIAA 1993-1966; 1993.
[33] Wang L, Li YZ, Zhao ZX, Liu Z. Transient thermal and pressurization
performance of LO2 tank during helium pressurization combined with
outside aerodynamic heating. Int J Heat Mass Tran 2013;62:263–71.
[34] Wilcox DC. Turbulent modeling for CFD. 2nd ed. Glendale: DCW Industries,
Inc.; 1994.