Why Stratified Tanks Stir Me Up

Brent Cullimore

It might be apparent by now that I get bothered by silly or strange things. But what’s the point of even having a pet peeve if you can’t enjoy it?

Thermally stratified tanks bother me.  Fill a tank partially full of cryogenic liquid, leave it alone for a few hours … maybe even days. Even with great insulation, you’ll have a heat leak into the tank. The liquid will boil at the wall perhaps, and may also vaporize at the surface. The pressure will build slowly.

Why does this bother me? Because this scenario seems so simple compared to all the other wild thermal/fluid problems I have dealt with. After all, the fluid just sits there, doesn’t it? Yet this situation defies modern simulation methods. You will have a hard time even predicting the pressure inside the tank, which means it is hard to predict how many hours or days it will be until a vent valve opens, or how that venting affects the tank contents, or how much cryogen you’ll lose while you wait for a need to drain the tank.

Who even lets cryogens sit around like this? People storing liquefied gases (including LNG) while waiting for their ship (or train) to come in. People filling rocket fuel and oxidizer tanks and topping them off while waiting for their launch window to open. People who fill dewars with liquid helium to cool MRI magnets (so that when I’m told that I should have my head examined, I know just where to go).

You might wonder why this is even an issue. For cryostats and dewars, isn’t the heat leak pretty insensitive to the temperature inside, so that you can just estimate the average boil-off rate using a first-order closed-form back-of-the-envelope front-of-the-bar-napkin calculation?

Sure, but that is only good for preliminary sizing. Complex flow patterns form inside the tank. Here are a few cartoons of the highly-simplified patterns that can occur. (You’ll just have to imagine the increased complexity due to domes, anti-slosh or anti-swirl baffles, internal structures, isogrids or orthogrids on the straight sections of the walls, and so forth.)

Mostly-vertical temperature gradients will form in both the liquid and vapor (ullage, perhaps with pressurant gases) portions of the tank. This is why it is called a “stratified tank” in the first place.

Stratification makes it hard to predict the liquid surface temperature, which is what is needed to estimate the saturation pressure. A tank with enough pressure will suppress nucleate boiling in the liquid phase as that portion of the tank subcools. (That phrasing makes it sound like it is cooling down, when in fact it is really pressurizing faster than it is warming up.) The ullage will superheat, which can mean it is condensing in the cold section of the wall near the liquid. And that superheat just ruined your first-order heat leak calculation, BTW. It is also is creating gradients within the structures that carry heat to the liquid.

The kicker is that the degree of stratification itself is something you need to determine, not just the pressure and boil-off rate. Why would you care? Well, if you are pulling out the liquid using the pump end of a high-speed turbopump, the degree of subcooling (related to the NPSH) that is arriving at your pump’s inducer can mean the difference between succeeding and failing.

If you are a salesperson for a CFD program, you haven’t read this far. You’ve already decided that your program can do this, so you stopped reading because surely I’m an ignorant crank. Or a git, depending on which country you are from. If you’re right, please educate me. I could use a good gob-smacking, and you’re just the salesperson to do it!

But I’m not worried about getting any calls (or smacks), because you didn’t read this far, remember? Sheesh, keep up!

OK, you can mesh the bejesus out of the ribs and baffles and the fluid cells near those, and you can exploit your latest VOF improvement or your other free-surface tracking technology, and you can turn on all the two-phase physics, complete with phase change in all the right places (don’t forget diffusion-blocked condensation!). Hopefully you can get away with axisymmetry, and hopefully you have a spare cluster that is being underutilized for a week or two, because you have to run a transient for days of real time with simulations of discrete venting events. Then do it a few more times to characterize uncertainties, OK? Oh, and sometimes the tanks move around if they're on a ship, train, or truck.

The thermal event is arduously slow, so even calling it an ‘event’ is a stretch. But you can’t do a good job without resolving all the slow-moving and often unstable natural convection motions, usually augmented by a little nucleate boiling at the wall, especially near the liquid surface.

I’m not dissing CFD codes. They will be the ultimate solution, after all. Someday in the future my gob will get a well-deserved smacking, and I will welcome that day. We’re just not there yet; my face is safe for the foreseeable future.

How do I know? Because people keep coming to us asking for help modeling thermally stratified cryogenic vessels, even though I’m not thrilled with the progress we’ve made so far in our 3D-thermal plus less-than-3D fluid world.

What progress and I talking about? Some “bring-your-own boundary layer and mixing estimate” methods that apply to pancake-stacked control volumes. Some “bulk-ullage meets bulk-liquid” Compartments (see fuel tanks, or LNG rail cars) that include orientation factors for localized augmentation and degradation of heat transfer (for example, plumes  near the bottom). Pretty good for pressure estimates. Not so much for predicting the temperature profiles of the out-flowing liquid.

We’re still working madly to improve the state-of-the-art in stratified tank modeling, and are currently chasing down various strategies. While the salesperson gave up reading long ago, if you are a researcher who understands the difficulty of this problem, and you’d like to work together on this, please contact us.

I’d love nothing more than to shed this pet peeve, so I can move on to the next one.

FloCAD model of a loop heat pipe

Since a significant portion of LHPs consists of simple tubing, they are more flexible and easier to integrate into thermal structures than their traditional linear cousins: constant conductance and variable conductance heat pipes (CCHPs, VCHPs). LHPs are also less constrained by orientation and able to transport more power. LHPs have been used successfully in many applications, and have become a proven tool for spacecraft thermal control systems.

However, LHPs are not simple, neither in the details of their evaporator and compensation chamber (CC) structures nor in their surprising range of behaviors. Furthermore, there are uncertainties in their performance that must be treated with safety factors and bracketing methods for design verification.

Fortunately, some of the authors of CRTech fluid analysis tools also happened to have been involved in the early days of LHP technology development, so it is no accident that Thermal Desktop ("TD") and FloCAD have the unique capabilities necessary to model LHPs. Some features are useful at a system level analysis (including preliminary design), and others are necessary to achieve a detailed level of simulation (transients, off-design, condenser gradients).

CRTech is offering a four-part webinar series on LHPs and approaches to modeling them. Each webinar will last 60 minutes and are designed to be attended in the order they were presented. If you miss one in the series, please check out our video page for a recording, or contact us before the next webinar starts. While the first webinar presumes little knowledge of LHPs or their analysis, for the last three webinars you are presumed to have a basic knowledge TD/FloCAD two-phase modeling.

Part 1 provides an overview of LHP operation and unique characteristics
Part 2 introduces system-level modeling of LHPs using TD/FloCAD.
Part 3 covers an important aspect of getting the right answers: back-conduction and core state variability.
Part 4 covers detailed modeling of LHPs in TD/FloCAD such that transient operations such as start-up, gravity assist, and thermostatic control can be simulated.

May 31, 2018, 1-2pm (PT), 4-5pm (ET)

This webinar provides an overview of LHP design and operation, from a basic understand of components to a review of important performance considerations and limitations.

Many topics will be covered, from start-up issues to the purpose of the evaporator bayonet to capillary flow regulators to load balancing in parallel LHP units. However, we will cover these topics only in enough depth that you will be able to understand the reasons for various modeling approaches that will be covered in later webinars. In other words, this webinar will survey the various ways in which LHPs require a specialized approach to design analysis and simulation.

This webinar is one of a four-part webinar series on LHPs and approaches to modeling them. Each webinar will last 60 minutes and is designed to be attended in the order they were presented. If you miss one in the series, please check out our video page for a recording, or contact us before the next webinar starts.

Prerequisites: Basic understanding of two-phase thermodynamics and heat transfer.
Please register for Part 1 here

June 5, 2018, 8-9am (PT), 11am-noon (ET)

This webinar explains how the toolbox approach of Thermal Desktop and FloCAD can be used to design and simulate LHPs at a system level, where the focus is on predicting conductance of nominally operating LHP, including thermostatic control (variable conductance).

This webinar is one of a four-part webinar series on LHPs and approaches to modeling them. Each webinar will last 60 minutes and is designed to be attended in the order they were presented. If you miss one in the series, please check out our video page for a recording, or contact us before the next webinar starts.

Prerequisites: Basic understanding of Thermal Desktop and FloCAD operation as applied to two-phase systems. Basic familiarity with LHP components and operation (see Part 1).
Please register for Part 2 here

June 7, 2018, 8-9am (PT), 11am-noon (ET)

Modeling wick back-conduction in an LHP is critical to accurate prediction of the overall loop conductance and operating point. This prediction can't be separated from an understanding of what is happening in the wick core. This webinar presents time-honored methods of dealing with these complex topics in a relatively simple (if abstract) thermal/fluid network.Prerequisites:

This webinar is one of a four-part webinar series on LHPs and approaches to modeling them. Each webinar will last 60 minutes and is designed to be attended in the order they were presented. If you miss one in the series, please check out our video page for a recording, or contact us before the next webinar starts.

Basic understanding of Thermal Desktop and FloCAD operation as applied to LHP modeling (see Part 1 and Part 2).
Please register for Part 3 here

June 12, 2018, 1-2pm (PT), 4-5pm (ET)

This webinar explains how Thermal Desktop and FloCAD can be applied to simulate complex and transient phenomena in LHPs, including condenser design, start-up, thermostatic control, and gravity assist (evaporator below condenser). The design of an actual LHP will be used to demonstrate concepts; the implications of attaching large masses to the evaporators (cooled electronics and support structures) will become clear as a result.

This webinar is one of a four-part webinar series on LHPs and approaches to modeling them. Each webinar will last 60 minutes and is designed to be attended in the order they were presented. If you miss one in the series, please check out our video page for a recording, or contact us before the next webinar starts.

Prerequisites: Familiarity with LHP modeling approaches in TD/FloCAD (see Part 1Part 2 and Part 3).
Please register for Part 4 here