Ground testing for the no-vent fill of cryogenic tanks - Results of tests for a 71 cubic foot tank
Open accessAbstract
NASA Lewis Research has been investigating the no-vent fill method, since it is a promising approach to transfer liquid while handling the problems of low-g venting. This paper reports the results of a test series for filling a 71 cu ft tank with liquid hydrogen without venting. 22 tests were conducted, 10 with a bottom orifice as the inlet and 12 with a spray bar. Parameters investigated included inlet saturation pressures of approximately 5, 15, and 25 psia, transfer pressures of 20, 30, and 45 psia, and various starting wall temperatures. Of the tests, only the one run at the highest wall temperature (238 R) failed to fill the tank. Test results are compared to a thermodynamic equilibrium model. Overall model-data agreement was good except for the tendency of the model to overshoot during the initial wall cool down of the higher starting wall temperature fills.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Many studies have investigated how to minimize boil-off losses and empirically determined that top fill (spray) is the most effective way to reduce transfer losses during loading, but the underlying physics remains poorly understood.
“While many studies [71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84] have investigated how to minimize boil-off losses and empirically determined that top fill (spray) is the most effective way to reduce transfer losses during loading, the underlying physics remains poorly understood.”
From Modelling of Liquid Hydrogen Boil-Off (2022) · cites this paper as [73]
The Conclusions (page unavailable) say that both the spray bar and bottom-orifice configurations maintained reasonable tank pressures and that there were few differences between their fills. Rather than finding spray fill most effective, the paper reports successful no-vent fills with both configurations; it also says its equilibrium model predicted both with good accuracy, while noting that low-gravity performance remained unproven. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) NASA Lewis Research has been investigating the no-vent fill method, since it is a promising approach to transfer liquid while handling the problems of low -venting. This paper reports the results of a test series for filling a 71 ft3 tank with liquid hydrogen without venting. 22 tests were conducted, 10 with a bottom orifice as the inlet and 12 with a spray bar. Parameters investigated included inlet saturation pressures of approximately 5, 15, and 25 psia, transfer pressures of 20, 30, and 45 psia, and various starting wall temperatures. Of the tests, only the one run at the highest wall temperature (238 R) failed to fill the tank. Test results are compared to a thermodynamic equilibrium model. Overall model-data agreement was good except for the tendency of the model to overshoot during the initial wall cooldown of the higher starting wall temperature fills. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES 14 Cryogenics: Fluid management; Reduced gravity 16. PRICE CODE A03 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Al Ghafri, S. Z., Munro, S., Cardella, U., Funke, T., Notardonato, W., Trusler, J. P. M., Leachman, J., Span, R., Kamiya, S., Pearce, G., et al. (2022) · Energy & Environmental Science · doi:10.1039/d2ee00099g · Cited by 561 · see citing works
Modelling of Liquid Hydrogen Boil-Off
Al Ghafri, S. Z. S., Swanger, A., Jusko, V., Siahvashi, A., Perez, F., Johns, M. L., & May, E. F. (2022) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en15031149 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
- Authors
- CHATO, D.
- Affiliations
- Glenn Research Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- CHATO, DAVID
- ORCID
- CHATO, DAVID
- Venue
- 29th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit
- Published
- 1993-06-28
- OpenAlex
- W2029269533
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 1.56
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit (publishedVersion)
- NASA Technical Reports Server (NASA) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Spacecraft and Cryogenic Technologies
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Rocket and propulsion systems research
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Heat transfer and supercritical fluids
- Keywords
- cryogenic storage tanks, liquid hydrogen, liquid transfer, wall temperature, thermodynamic equilibrium model, ground testing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
