i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 0 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1 5 0 6 7 e1 5 0 7 7

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Development of thermal stratification in a rotating

cryogenic liquid hydrogen tank

Zhan Liu a, Lei Wang a, Yonghua Jin a, Yanzhong Li a,b,*

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

article info abstract

Article history: Accurate prediction of thermal stratification in cryogenic propellant container is of sig-
Received 16 June 2015 nificance to space missions. In the present paper, a thermal stratification model, consid-
Received in revised form ering phase change transmission at the liquid vapor interface, is developed and adopted to
10 September 2015 investigate the pressurization performance and stratification development in a rotating
Accepted 11 September 2015 liquid hydrogen tank. Heat exchange associated with viscous flow is particularly consid-
Available online 9 October 2015 ered to ensure that the flow and heat exchange are continuous when Ra is in the range of
0.1 to 1015. The calculated results show that the stratified layer in a rotating tank develops
Keywords: more slowly than in a non-rotating tank. With the rotation rate increasing from 1.0 deg/s to
Thermal stratification 4.0 deg/s, the required time of stratification developing fully has increased approximately
Liquid hydrogen 1.82 times. The speed of the stratification development with aspect ratio of 0.5 is approx-
Phase change imately 2.27 times faster than that with aspect ratio of 1.0. The fluid stratification under
Rotation tank different gravity levels express different developing speed, slower developing speed is
observed at the micro-gravities. More than 10 times consumed time needs to reach fully
field stratification at 10
4g0 comparing at 1g0. Meanwhile the ullage pressure increases
faster with the greater gravity level. It is also found that the liquidevapor phase change has
great influence on the tank pressure. The deviation of ullage pressure increased reaches by
18.27% with the consideration of phase change. It is suggested that phase change effect
should be accounted for in the prediction of thermal stratification and ullage pressure of
liquid hydrogen tank.
Copyright © 2015, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights
reserved.

make fully understanding of thermal stratification

Introduction
Thermal stratification should be taken into consideration in
the design of cryogenic tank since it may exert a remarkable
influence on the pressurization rate. Therefore, to maintain
the successful operation of space missions, it is necessary to
phenomena.
Many investigators have conducted researches on ther-
mal stratification, and the approaches include experimental
study, theoretical derivation and numerical simulation.
Experimental investigations of liquid hydrogen thermal
stratification have been conducted by Tatom et al. [1], Barnett

* Corresponding author. School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an 710049, China. Tel.: þ86 29 82668738;
fax: þ86 2982668725.
E-mail address: yzli-epe@mail.xjtu.edu.cn (Y. Li).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.09.039
0360-3199/Copyright © 2015, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
15068 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 0 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1 5 0 6 7 e1 5 0 7 7
et al. [2], and Schmidt et al. [3]. Thermal stratification devel-
oped under the effects of sidewall heating and bottom wall
heating have been investigated by Joseph [4], Vliet [5], and
Fan et al. [6]. A number of theoretical derivations have been
carried out to predict the thermal stratification phenomena
in cryogenic liquid. Bailey et al. [7] developed an analytical
algorithm to predict the stratification phenomenon and
compared the results with experimental data. Tellep and
Happer [8] analyzed the transient stratification in a closed
cryogenic container by assuming the dimensionless tem-
perature profile in the stratified layer was not varying with
time. Vliet et al. [9] developed a stratified layer flow model to
numerically simulate the liquid temperature stratification,
and Bourgarel et al. [10] built a theoretical model according to
the stratification similitude laws and validated by experi-
mental date of a subscale model.
With the boundary layer phenomena being considered,
Robbins and Rogers [11] developed a computer program to
predict thermal stratification in variable conditions, Yu et al.
[12] adopted an integral method to research the transient free
convective boundary layer along the concave surface, Oli-
veira et al. [13] developed a thermal stratification model to
handle boundary layer transition and tank rotation, and
Daigle et al. [14] improved one reduced dynamic model to
describe the thermal stratification with considering temper-
ature and velocity boundary layers in both ullage and liquid
regions in the cryogenic tank implemented in MATLAB.
Different from the smooth wall flow correlations, Khurana
et al. [15], Justin et al. [16,17] and Faure et al. [18] had exper-
imentally researched the effect of isogrid-type obstructions
on thermal stratification. Despite of the experimental
research on liquid hydrogen stratification, some in-
vestigators have conducted a lot of numerically simulations.
Shankar and Sherif [19] developed a numerical model to
study the thermal stratification in a storage dewar under
both normal and reduced gravity conditions. Kumar et al. [20]
numerically researched the influence of tank aspect ratio on
thermal stratification with considering the surface evapora-
tion. Walter and Ramaswamy [21] numerically investigated
the thermal stratification in a rectangular tank and a hemi-
spherical tank, considering the effect of convection. Fu et al.
[22] adopted the VOF method, considering phase change in
the interface, to numerically investigate the self-
pressurization process and stratification under different rib
spacing-to-height ratios, and different rib material and
shapes. Except for liquid hydrogen, thermal stratifications of
liquid nitrogen, liquid oxygen, and LNG or PLG had been
investigated by Barnett [23], Yu et al. [12], Ren et al. [24], and
Seo and Jeong [25].
The previous studies have mainly concentrated in the
liquid region and considered a lot of influence factors, but
ignored the viscous flow in laminar and change of pressure
increase, thermal property change, interface transmission
effect and conversion from turbulence to laminar flow in the
growing process of thermal stratification. As the cryogenic
tank will experience orbital transfer, slow rotation and atti-
tude adjustment during the coast period, developments of
fluid stratification in the above conditions needs to give
enough attentions. So far, it is found that only Oliveira [13]
and his team have done a preliminary study on thermal
stratification in the rotating tank. Based on the previous
research, the present paper is specially aimed at investi-
gating thermal stratification in a rotating cryogenic liquid
hydrogen tank. Heat and mass transfer mechanisms are
accounted for in detail. Meanwhile the change of fluid ther-
mal physical property and the conversion of layer flow from
turbulence to laminar are given full consideration firstly.
With the developed thermal stratification model, the in-
fluences of spin rate, aspect ratio and gravity level on thermal
stratification are respectively investigated. The present work
develops and enriches the thermal stratification model in
rotation tanks, broadens and deepens the research field in
cryogenic fluid thermal stratification. Moreover, some valu-
able conclusions are of significance to the design of propel-
lant tank and its affiliated systems.
Thermal stratification model
Formation of thermal stratification
Fig. 1 displays the development of liquid thermal stratification
in a cylindrical liquid hydrogen tank. Heat transfer through
the tank wall creates a free convection boundary layer along
the wall interior surface. The fluid within the boundary layer
is heated and consequently its density decreases due to the
temperature variation. Under the effect of upward buoyancy
force, warm fluid moves up and finally out of the boundary
layer and then enters the central region. Simultaneously the
cold fluid is supplemented by moving into the boundary layers
in the bottom portion of the tank. With this process pro-
ceeding, warm liquid will be taken to the bulk central region
and accumulated there, providing a warmer liquid layer along
the axial direction, which is named as thermal stratification.
The thickness of stratified layer D increases as the input heat
continuously transferred into the tank.
In the present paper, a cylinder cryogenic tank, as shown in
Fig. 1, is selected as the research objective to conduct the
thermal stratification analysis. The main parameters in this
model are listed in Table 1.
Fig. 1 e Schematic of thermal stratification phenomena in
cryogenic tank.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 0 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1 5 0 6 7 e1 5 0 7 7 15069

Table 1 e Modeling parameters of cryogenic liquid

hydrogen tank.
Parameter Value
Initial tank pressure (P) 150.0 kPa
Initial ullage temperature(TU) 24.5 K
Initial liquid temperature (TB) 21.0 K
Initial fluid fill height (H) 1.0 m
Tank height (L) 2.0 m
Tank radius (R) 0.5 m
Reduced gravity 10
4g0
Tank wall flux (qʺ) 10.0 W/m2

Interface shape in rotation tank

For a typical cryogenic fuel tank, it may experience significant

gravity variation during the whole launch process, both
gravity level and fluid surface tension may exert certain effect
on the liquidevapor structure. To evaluate their effects, a non-
dimensional number of Bond number (Bo), which represents
the ratio of gravity force to surface tension, is introduced.

gðrl
rv Þl2
Bo ¼ (1) Fig. 3 e Thermal stratification in rotation tank.
s
Where s is the surface tension. Fig. 2 displays the varia-
tions of Bo with gravity acceleration. It can be seen that in the
range of 10
4g0 and greater values of gravity level, values of
log(Bo) are obviously larger than 0.0, which means the surface Here, u is the tank spin rate, and the values of u and g
tension is still very weak compared with the gravity force. should be reasonably selected.
Therefore, the effect of surface tension can be neglected for The vertex of the parabolic surface is located a distance of
the present cryogenic liquid hydrogen tank. h/2 below the original free surface, and the highest point of the
When the cryogenic storage tank rotates around its central parabolic is h/2 above the original free surface. In the case of
axis with a constant angular speed, the free surface becomes a rotation, the area of the tank wall covered by liquid becomes
parabolic surface, as shown in Fig. 3. The height of the para- larger, which can be described as 2pR(H þ h/2). The area of the
bolic free surface can be written as: parabolic free surface could be calculated by integrating the
parabolic equation, which can be expressed as:
.
h ¼ ðuRÞ2 ð2gÞ (2) ("  2 #3=2 )
pR4 2h
Sp ¼ 1þ
1 (3)
6h2 R

To determine the pressurization and stratification param-

eters, some assumptions are made as follows: (1) The liquid
and vapor reach thermal equilibrium during the whole pro-
cess, and the liquidevapor interface temperature equals the
saturation temperature of the ullage pressure. (2) Liquid phase
is treated as incompressible with constant properties, except
for density, which is taken as a linear function of liquid tem-
perature. (3) Ignoring the effect of surface tension.

Stratification model in rotation tank

The non-dimensional Rayleigh number Ra is used to classify

the flow type of free convection in the boundary layer, which
is the product of the Grashof number Gr and Prandtl number
Pr. For constant wall heat flux qʺ, the modified Ra* is defined as
[13]:
00
gbq l4 rcp v
Ra* ¼ (4)
lv2 l
Fig. 2 e Relation between gravity acceleration and Bond For free convection in a constant wall heat flux, there exists
number. boundary layer transition from laminar to turbulent when
15070 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 0 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1 5 0 6 7 e1 5 0 7 7

Ra* ¼ 1011. Even in the laminar part, there are two different   ("  2 #3=2 )"  2=7 #
dD pR3 r 2h n Ra*u
flow patterns. When Ra* ranges from 105 to 1011, the nature of mB ¼ Sp r ¼ 1þ
1 0:286
dt 3h2 R Pr4=7
flow is laminar boundary layer, and the flow type is viscous
flow while Ra* is less than 105 [26]. Viscous flow has generally (13)
been ignored by many researchers, but it has been emphati- Here, a new parameter is defined as Hu ¼ H þ h/2. The
cally considered in the flow pattern transformation in the modified Ra*u is evaluated based on the characteristic length
present paper. Hu.
As shown in Fig. 1, the growth of the stratified layer is Considering the parabolic surface area and external heat
directly related to the mass flow rate of boundary layer absorbed by the augmented surface area, D(t) could be derived
crossing the stratified stratum bottom, which is located at as [13]:
(H
D(t)) measured from the bottom of the tank. The bound- For laminar:
ary layer mass is calculated by the following equation [13]:
"  * 1=5 #5
DðtÞ Hu pR Rau 1
Zd ¼ 1
1
0:616 f (14)
mB ¼ 2pRr uðyÞdy (5) Hu Sp ð4=5 þ PrÞ1=5 Pr2=5 u
0
For turbulent:
Where u is the boundary layer vertical velocity, d is the
boundary layer thickness. "  2=7 #
7
DðtÞ Hu pR Ra*u
The energy balance equation between the heat entering ¼ 1
1 þ 0:082 fu (15)
Hu Sp Pr4=7
the tank below the stratified layer and the heated mass flow
exiting the boundary layer at the stratified interface is given
Where fu is defined as fu ¼ vt=H2u .
as:
As the expression above, the convective heat transfer co-
Zd efficient should be confirmed firstly. For (H
D(t)) reduces with
rcp qðyÞuðyÞdy ¼ aqw ðH
DðtÞÞ (6) the growth of the stratified stratum, the heat transfer coeffi-
0 cient would also decrease with the reducing of Ra*u . The pre-
The vertical velocity and temperature profile within the vious researchers generally focused on free convection with
boundary layer are given by the following equations [13,18]. Ra*u being larger than 105, ignoring the viscous flow [26] for Ra*u
For laminar: ranging from 0.1 to 105. Differing from the previous re-
searchers, viscous flow is particularly considered to ensure
y y2 the continuity of the flow in the present paper. Expressions
uðyÞ ¼ u0 1
(7)
d d are listed as follows [13,26].

 y2 8(  1=6 )2
qðyÞ ¼ qw 1
(8) >
> 0:387 Ra*u
d >
> 0:825 þ h i8=27 ; 0:1 < Ra < 105
>
>
< 1 þ ð0:492=PrÞ9=16
For turbulent: Nu ¼
>
>  1=4
y1=7  >
> 0:59 Ra*u ; 105 < Ra < 1011
y4 >
>
:
uðyÞ ¼ u1 1
(9)  * 1=3
d d 0:11 Rau ; 1011 < Ra < 1015
 (16)
y1=7 
qðyÞ ¼ qw 1
(10)
d
Nul
a¼ (17)
Where q(y) and qw are defined as q(y) ¼ T(y)
TB and qw ¼ Tw
TB. l
It is assumed that the mass flow exists in the boundary Where Nu is Nusselt number, l is characteristic length defined
layer, instantaneously forms a uniform thickness disk of the as l ¼ Hu
DðtÞ.
stratified fluid. Therefore, mB could be also expressed as: For the no-spin condition, the energy balance for the
  stratified layer [8] yields.
dD
mB ¼ pR2 r (11)
dt Zt ZD
00

For the rotating case, the increase of parabolic surface area 2pRH q dt ¼ pR2 rcp ðT
TB Þdz þ Qpch (18)
0 0
Sp should be considered, consequently, the boundary layer
mass expression [13] is modified as follows:
Here, T is the local temperature in the stratified layer. Qpch
For laminar:
is the heat used to produce the phase change [8], given by:
 
dD
mB ¼ Sp r Qpch ¼ hpch ðvr=vTÞS ðTS
TB ÞVU (19)
dt
("  2 #3=2 )"  1=5 #
pR3 r 2h n Ra*u
¼ 1þ
1 1:541 (12) .
3h2 R Pr4=5 ð4=5 þ PrÞ1=5 mpch ¼ Qpch hpch (20)

For turbulent: Where hpch is the latent heat used to generate phase
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 0 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1 5 0 6 7 e1 5 0 7 7
change, mpch is the total phase change quantity, VU is the ul-
lage volume, written as pR2(L
H), (vr/vT)S is density change
rate of the stratified fluid. As (vr/vT)S changes with tempera-
ture, its value is solved at each calculation time step.
TS could be solved by integrating Equation (18).
00
2Hq t
TS
TB ¼
rcp RID þ hpch ðvr=vTÞS RðL
HÞ
In the above equation, the energy integral factor I refers to
the expression in Ref. [8].
Z1
T
TB  z 
I¼ d (22)
TS
TB D
0
The energy integral factor represents the average temper-
ature rise in the stratified layer normalized with respect to the
surface temperature rise. According to the experimental re-
sults in the Ref. [8], I ranges from 0.31 to 0.40.
When the tank rotation is considered in the thermal
stratification calculation, H would be changed by Hu, and the
augmented free surface area should be considered as well.
Here, one modified parameter is defined as h ¼ Sp =ðpR2 Þ.
Therefore, Equation (21) can be written in the following form.
00
2Hu q t
TS
TB ¼
rcp RID þ hpch ðvr=vTÞS RðL
HÞh
Suppose that qU is the temperature difference between
tank wall and ullage, the following equation can be obtained
according to the energy conservation law.
dqU 00
rpR2 ðL
HÞcp ¼ 2pRq ðL
Hu Þ
dt
From the above equation, the ullage temperature TU is
calculable as.
00
2q tðL
Hu Þ
TU ¼ TU;i þ
Rrcp ðL
HÞ
Where TU,i refers to the initial ullage temperature. The ullage
pressure can be determined from the following expression.
mU RTU þ Qpch
P¼
(26)
VU þ mpch rU
It needs to point out that details of the fluid temperature
distribution and velocity vector field within the tank can not
be displayed with the limitations of the calculation model.
However, the present model, with the advantages of conve-
nient calculation and accurate prediction, is still acceptable in
the engineering applications.
Validation of thermal stratification model
The thermal stratification model has been validated by the
results of an experiment conducted on the ground with water
[27]. The comparisons of the stratified layer thickness D/H and
temperature TS have been conducted between the experi-
mental data, the reference data and the calculation data. As
shown in Fig. 4a, the calculation data of D/H agrees well with
the reference data, of which the relative errors are within
15071
±9.0%. Compared with the experimental data, one of points is
obviously jumped out with approximately 58.68% deviation,
which means large deviation still exists between the calcula-
tion data and the experimental data. However, the calculation
data is identical with the experimental data and reference
data in tendency, even though some points have larger rela-
tive errors. For the comparisons of TS shown in Fig. 4b, the
(21)
relative errors between the calculation data and the reference
data are all within ±5.0%, and the calculation results are more
close to the experimental data. Therefore, the above results
imply that the present model can be used to predict the
thermal stratification in rotation tank under normal gravity
condition.
Thermal stratification in rotation tank
The thermal stratification has been investigated in a rotation
tank with the spin rate of 2.0 deg/s. The free surface area of the
rotation tank is 9.1% larger than that of the tank without
rotation due to a parabolic free surface under a rotating con-
dition. Fig. 5 shows the stratification parameters of tanks with
and without rotation.
Fig. 5a presents comparisons of D and P between two
conditions. On the one hand, the stratified layer thicknesses in
(23)
two conditions have the same change tendency, both of which
increase with time. On the other hand, owing to the increase
of liquid height caused by the rotation, thermal stratification
becomes slower for the rotating tank. It needs more time for
the heat to penetrate the same length down along the tank
rotation axis. For instance, it spends 2254 s for the stratified
(24)
layer to expand from 0.0 m to 1.0 m in the tank without
rotation, while 2376 s needs to the bottom in the tank with
rotation. When the stratified layer develops fully reaching to
the maximum liquid height of 1.07765 m, it is required
approximately 2426 s. It can be noted that when D is larger
(25)
than 0.8 m, the rising rate becomes faster. This is because the
stratification model is derived in constant heat flux condition.
The change of D is closely related to the boundary layer
thickness and boundary layer mass, as shown in Fig. 5c. In
addition, the flow types with Ra ranging from 1.0 to 1015 are all
considered here, while it is only considered the flow is only in
turbulence in experimental validation part. Hence, there are
differences between two stratified change profiles. The heat
leaked into the ullage becomes less in the rotation tank,
because the contact area of the tank wall with the ullage gas
becomes smaller. As a result, the tank pressure rise rate is
108.68 kPa/h for the rotation tank, which reduces 4.78%
compared to that of the tank without rotation.
It can be seen that the ullage temperature increases line-
arly with time for two conditions from Fig. 5b. Due to the
contact area between tank wall and the ullage becoming
smaller when the tank is rotating, TU of the rotation tank is
smaller than that of the tank without rotation in the same
time. The variation of TS is similar with the change of TU. As
shown in Fig. 5b, TS of the two conditions rise with time and
the value of TS in rotation tank is always smaller than that in
tank without rotation.
Fig. 5c demonstrates variations of boundary layer mass
and total phase change quantity in tanks with and without
15072 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 0 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1 5 0 6 7 e1 5 0 7 7
Fig. 4 e Comparisons of D/H and TS between experimental, reference [27] and calculation data.
rotation. As Fig. 5c shows, mB of both conditions reduce with
time and the value of mB in tank without rotation is always
less than that in a rotating one. This is because the charac-
teristic length of free convection close to tank wall diminishes
as D increases with time, which leads to the decrease of Ra*. In
addition, since Ra* of the tank without rotation is smaller than
that of the rotation tank due to the smaller characteristic
length, it is also the same for mB, which is directly influenced
by Ra*. The values of mpch of both conditions are increasing. In
addition, the thermal stratification in non rotation tank de-
velops faster than that in rotation tank. Driven by larger
temperature difference between the ullage temperature and
the fluid temperature, mpch of the non rotation tank is always
larger than that in rotation tank.
It can be concluded from Fig. 6 that the free convection
between the tank wall and the liquid within the tank is
laminar flow, since the Ra* under the two conditions range
from 1.0 to 1011.
Analysis of rotation influence factors
Rotation rate
Fig. 7a illustrates the variations of thermal stratification
thickness and ullage pressure of tanks with different rotation
rates. The time needed for the stratified layer fully developing
increases as the rotation rate increases. When u is set as
1.0 deg/s, the required time is approximately 2262 s. However,
it has increased approximately 1.82 times relative to the value
of 2262 s when u increases to 4.0 deg/s. This is because both Hu
and Sp are correlated with the rotation rate and it requires
more time for the thermal stratification to develop from free
surface to the liquid height for higher rotation rate condition.
Under the effect of external heat leak, the ullage pressure
values of four conditions are all increasing and the ullage
pressure reduces with the increase of the rotation rate in the
same time. For instance, it needs 2262 s for the thermal
stratification fully development with 1.0 deg/s rotation rate,
and the ullage pressure reaches 221.20 kPa. For the same
consuming time, the tank pressure values of other three
rotation rate are reduced by 1.18%, 2.39% and 3.62% relative to
1.0 deg/s, respectively.
As shown in Fig. 7b, variations of the ullage temperature TU
and the stratified temperature TS are similar with the change
of ullage pressure, all of them increase with time elapse.
Moreover, both TU and TS reduce with the increase of rotation
rate in the same time. When the thermal stratification in tank
with 1.0 deg/s develops fully, values of TU and TS reduce from
31.55 K to 30.06 K and from 23.388 K to 23.216 K.
Fig. 7c displays comparisons of mB and mpch in different
rotation rates. As the liquid height and the boundary layer
thickness are closely related to the rotation rate, conse-
quently, an increase in rotation rate leads to an increase in the
boundary mass. The total phase change quantity mpch rises
more rapidly for a smaller rotation rate. Compared to the
value of mpch in tank with 1.0 deg/s under the same time, it has
decrease approximately 2.72%, 5.68% and 9.06% when rotation
spin ranges from 2.0 deg/s to 4.0 deg/s.
Aspect ratio
As the tank radius R is closely related to the height of parabolic
surface formed in tank rotation. To obtain the influence of
tank radius on thermal stratification, the aspect ratio of tank
radius R and the liquid filling height H is defined, and three
different aspect ratios are chosen to investigate the influence
of tank radius on the tank stratification.
Fig. 8 demonstrates comparisons of relative parameters of
thermal stratification with different aspect ratios. In these
three cases, the liquid filling height H is constant and the
aspect ratio will change with the tank radius. As shown in
Fig. 8a, the thermal stratification of larger R/H requires more
time to develop fully. When R/H changes from 0.50 to 1.00, the
required time has increased approximately 2.27 times.
Because the ratio of heat to volume drops as the aspect ratio
increases, the ullage pressure also decreases with the rise of
the aspect ratio. Based on the parameter values with aspect
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 0 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1 5 0 6 7 e1 5 0 7 7
Fig. 5 e Comparisons of thermal stratification parameters
of tanks with and without rotation.
ratio setting as 0.5 in 2426 s, the ullage pressure values of the
other two conditions decrease approximately 8.50% and
13.39%.
As shown in Fig. 8b, tendencies of the ullage temperature
and the stratified layer temperature are almost the same as
that of the ullage pressure. It proves that values of ullage
temperature and the stratified layer temperature has reduced
15073
Fig. 6 e Effect of rotation on Ra*.
approximately 7.08% and 11.39%, and about 1.76% and 2.85%
for R/H increasing from 0.75 to 1.0, compared to the corre-
sponding parameters values of aspect ratio setting as 0.5.
Both mB and mpch are larger with a higher aspect ratio in the
same time, as Fig. 8c displays. The boundary layer mass of
three cases all reduces with time and with aspect ratio. While
it is opposite to the change of mpch, which is closely related the
liquid vapor free surface area. With the liquid height
remaining constant, mpch increases with the rising of aspect
ratio in the same time. When thermal stratification in the tank
with aspect ratio being 0.5 develops fully, the final value is
0.154 kg. The values of mpch increase approximately 84.76% for
R/H being 0.75 and 176.03% for R/H being 1.0 relative to the
final value for R/H being 0.5. While the aspect ratio sets as 1.0,
the required time of thermal stratification development fully
is the longest. Therefore, mpch achieves the largest value of
0.895 kg.
Gravity level
As the gravity level has a significant influence on the shape of
free surface in a rotation tank, five different gravity levels,
ranging from 10
4g0 to 1.0g0, have been used to research the
gravity level effect on the development of cryogenic fluid
stratification. Fig. 9 gives the comparisons of relative param-
eters of thermal stratification in different gravity levels. It is
obvious seen that all the stratification parameters have the
similar change tendencies in different gravity levels. Hu is
negatively correlated with the gravity level and it needs less
time for the stratification fully grows in a larger gravity levels.
As Fig. 9a shows, the required time of fully development of
thermal stratification is approximately 234 s for 1.0g0, while
they increase 1.66 times, 2.91 times, 5.23 times and 10.37 times
as gravity levels ranges from 10
1g0 to 10
4g0. The ullage
pressure increases with the rise of gravity level under the
same time. For instance, the ullage pressure is the largest with
the value of 157.77 kPa when the thermal stratification de-
velops fully in the condition of 1.0g0, while the corresponding
values reduce 0.04%, 0.15%, 0.27% and 0.49%, respectively,
with the gravity varying from 10
1g0 to 10
4g0.
15074 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 0 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1 5 0 6 7 e1 5 0 7 7

Fig. 8 e Comparisons of thermal stratification results with

different aspect ratios.

Fig. 9b demonstrates the changes of TU and TS in different

gravity levels. Obviously, tendencies of ullage temperature
and the stratified layer temperature appear similar to the
change of ullage pressure. The final ullage temperature and
Fig. 7 e Comparisons of thermal stratification results with
the stratified layer temperature in 1.0g0 are about 24.85 K and
different spin rates.
21.86 K. With gravity level ranging from 10
1g0 to 10
4g0,
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 0 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1 5 0 6 7 e1 5 0 7 7 15075

acceleration, natural convection close to tank wall becomes

more intense with larger boundary layer vertical velocity and
larger boundary thickness d. Consequently, boundary layer
mass mB has a larger initial value in higher gravity accelera-
tion. Moreover, the thermal stratification develops much
faster in larger gravity condition with less time needed for the
stratification layer developing fully. Therefore, intersection
point exists in any two mB profiles. The phase change quantity
mpch rises with time. Meanwhile, it increases with gravity level
in the same time. Compared to the final total phase change
quantity in constant gravity with the value of 0.019 kg, the
corresponding values of gravity level changing from 10
1g0 to
10
4g0 in the same time, decrease approximately 2.99%, 8.84%,
14.79% and 19.25%, respectively.

Influence of phase change on thermal

stratification

With the liquidevapor phase transmission considered in the

thermal stratification model, the influence of phase change is
specially investigated in this part. The corresponding param-
eters are given in Fig. 10. It seems that D is almost unaffected

Fig. 9 e Comparisons of thermal stratification results with

different gravity levels.

values of TU in the same time decrease approximately 0.03%,

0.10%, 0.19% and 0.34%. When it comes to TS, reductions are
respectively 0.03%, 0.16%, 0.26% and 0.48%.
It is clear to find from Fig. 9c that mB decreases with time,
which is larger in higher gravity levels at first, and then be- Fig. 10 e Comparisons of stratification results with phase
comes smaller with the time continuing. As in higher gravity change considered or not.
15076 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 0 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1 5 0 6 7 e1 5 0 7 7

corresponding ullage pressure for 10
4g0 is compared to

Table 2 e Comparisons of calculation error between two
that for 1g0 under the same time.
different conditions.
(4) The phase change has generated great influence on the
Parameter Maximum values Relative
tank pressure in the present condition. The ullage
error
Without phase With phase pressure rises from 150.0 kPa to 219.82 kPa with phase
change change change taken into account, which has increased 18.27%
P 185.86 kPa 219.82 kPa 18.27% compared to that without considering phase change
TU 27.94 K 31.66 K 13.34% whose values increasing from 150.0 kPa to 185.86 kPa.
TS 22.59 K 23.36 K 3.42% Even though the total evaporation mass is approxi-
DP
38.29 kPa/K 40.86 kPa/K 6.69%
DTS
mately 0.154 kg relative to the initial liquid mass of
63.96 kg. It is indicated that a little change of phase
change quantity has caused a large increase of the ul-
by phase change. The ullage pressure, ullage temperature and lage pressure. Therefore, the effect of phase change
the stratified layer temperature have larger differences for should be given significant considerations.
both with and without phase change consideration. Both P
and TU have the similar increase trends for two conditions.
The relative deviations of P, TU and TS between two conditions
are listed in Table 2. The maximum deviations of P, TU and TS
are 18.27%, 13.34% and 3.42%, respectively. Here, DP/DTS is Acknowledgments
defined to reflect the relationship of the increase of ullage
pressure and stratified layer temperature, they are 38.29 kPa/K This work was supported by the National Natural Science
and 40.86 kPa/K for without and with phase change consid- Foundation of China (51376142) and the Research Fund of
eration, approximately 6.69% of difference is reached. State Key Laboratory of Technologies in Space Cryogenic
Propellants (SKLTSCP1311).

Nomenclature
Conclusions
cp specific heat at constant pressure, J/(kg K)
In the present paper, a computer model is built and applied to g gravity acceleration, m/s2
investigate the liquid thermal stratification in a rotating liquid g0 constant gravity acceleration, 9.81 m/s2
hydrogen tank. The influences of tank rotation rate, aspect Gr Grashof number
ratio and gravity level on stratification performance are H liquid height, m
analyzed and compared. Main conclusions are drawn ob- h height of the parabolic surface, m
tained as follows. hpch latent heat, kJ/kg energy integral factor
I energy integral factor
(1) For a rotating cryogenic tank, both of the liquid height L tank height, m
adhering to tank wall and the liquid free surface area l characteristic length of free convection, m
increase, and the extended distance for near-wall nat- m fluid mass, kg
ural convection flow further leads to a longer time Nu Nusselt number
assumption for a certain stratified layer thickness P tank pressure, kPa
compared to the non-rotating tank. With the rotation Pr Prandtl number
spin increasing from 1.0 deg/s to 4.0 deg/s, the required q heat transfer flux, W/m2
time of stratification developing fully has increased Q phase change heat, W
approximately 1.82 times, while deviation of ullage R radius of tank, m
pressure increase has reduced 3.62% as it grows fully for Ra* modified Rayleigh number
the fluid stratification in the tank of 1.0 deg/s. T temperature, K
(2) The time needed for the thermal stratification fully t time, s
development increases as the aspect ratio rises, which u boundary layer vertical velocity, m/s
has increased approximately 2.27 times for aspect ratio
increase from 0.5 to 1.0. The ullage pressure in the tank Greek letters
with aspect ratio of 1.0 has reduced 13.39% comparing a free convection heat transfer coefficient, W/(m2 K)
to that of aspect ratio 0.5 when the fluid stratification b thermal expansion coefficient, 1/K
fully develops. d boundary layer thickness, m
(3) The gravity level has a strong effect on the fluid thermal h modified factor
stratification. Slower developing speed is observed at l thermal conductivity, W/(m K)
the micro-gravities. More than 10 times consumed time v kinematic viscosity, m2/s
needs to reach fully field stratification at 10
4g0 q excess temperature difference, K
comparing at 1g0. However the weak affection to the r density, kg/m3
ullage pressure with the gravity level increase is dis- u tank spin rate, deg/s
played, approximately 0.49% reduction of the D stratified layer thickness, m
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 0 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1 5 0 6 7 e1 5 0 7 7
Subscripts
B bulk fluid
H liquid height
i interface or the initial state
il from the interface to the stratified layer
pch phase change
S stratified layer
U ullage
ui from the ullage to the interface
w tank wall
references
[1] Tatom JW, Brown WH, Knight LH, Coxe EF. Analysis of
thermal stratification of liquid hydrogen in rocket propellant
tanks. Adv Cryog Eng 1964:265e72.
[2] Barnett D, Mcreynolds L, Winstead T. An investigation of
liquid-hydrogen stratification in a large cylindrical tank of
the saturn configuration. NSF GP-3144, NASA. January, 1965.
[3] Schmidt AF, Purcell JR, Wilson WA, Smith RV. An
experimental study concerning the pressurization and
stratification of liquid hydrogen. Adv Cryog Eng 1960:487e97.
[4] Ruder JM. Stratification in a pressurized container with
sidewall heating. AIAA J 1964;2:135e7.
[5] Vliet GC. Stratification with bottom heating. J Spacecr
Rockets 1966;3:1142e4.
[6] Fan SC, Chu JC, Scott LE. Thermal stratification in closed
cryogenic containers. Adv Cryog Eng 1969:249e57.
[7] Bailey T, Jefferson T, Skartvedt G, Vandekoppel R. Cryogenic
propellant stratification analysis and test data correlation.
AIAA J 1963;1:1657e9.
[8] Harper EY, Tellep DM. Approximate analysis of propellant
stratification. AIAA J 1963;1:1954e6.
[9] Brogan J, Hines FL, Morse FH, Sheppard TS, Vliet GC.
Stratified layer flow model e a numerical approach to liquid
temperature stratification. J Spacecr Rockets 1964;1:666e72.
[10] Bourgarel MH, Segel MP, Huffenus JP. Study of stratification
similitude laws in liquid hydrogen. Adv Cryog Eng
1967:103e11.
[11] Robbins JH, Rogers JAC. An analysis on predicting thermal
stratification in liquid hydrogen. J Spacecr Rockets
1988;3:40e5.
[12] Yu CM, Aydemir NU, Venart JES. Transient free convection
and thermal stratification in uniformly-heated partially-
filled horizontal cylindrical and spherical vessels. J Therm Sci
1992;1:114e22.
[13] Oliveira JM, Kirk DR, Schallhorn P. Analytical model for
cryogenic stratification in a rotating and reduced-gravity
environment. J Spacecr Rockets 2009;46:459e65.
15077
[14] Daigle MJ, Smelyanskiy VN, Boschee J, Foygel M.
Temperature stratification in a cryogenic fuel tank. J
Thermophys Heat Transf 2012;27:116e26.
[15] Khurana TK, Prasad BVSSS, Ramamurthi K, Murthy SS.
Thermal stratification in ribbed liquid hydrogen storage
tanks. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2006;31:2299e309.
[16] Justin O, Daniel K, Paul S. Effect of isogrid roughness on
thermal stratification. In: 43rd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint
propulsion conference & exhibit: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics; 2007.
[17] Justin O, Sunil C, Daniel K. Thermal stratification modeling
improvements for isogrid-lined tanks. In: 37th AIAA fluid
dynamics conference and exhibit: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics; 2007.
[18] Faure JM, Oliveira JM, Chintalapati S, Gutierrez HM, Kirk DR.
Effect of isogrid-type obstructions on thermal stratification
in upper-stage rocket propellant tanks. J Spacecr Rockets
2007;51:1587e602.
[19] Shankar V, Sherif S. Self-pressurization and thermal
stratification in a liquid hydrogen tank under varying gravity
conditions. In: 42nd AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and
exhibit: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics;
2004.
[20] Kumar SP, Prasad BVSSS, Venkatarathnam G, Ramamurthi K,
Murthy SS. Influence of surface evaporation on stratification
in liquid hydrogen tanks of different aspect ratios. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2007;32:1954e60.
[21] Walter D, Ramaswamy B. Convection effects on thermal
stratification inside enclosures due to wall heat flux. In: 46th
AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit: American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; 2008.
[22] Fu J, Sunden B, Chen X. Influence of wall ribs on the thermal
stratification and self-pressurization in a cryogenic liquid
tank. Appl Therm Eng 2014;73:1421e31.
[23] Barnett D. Liquid nitrogen stratification analysis and
experiments in a partially filled spherical container. Adv
Cryog Eng 1967;13:174e85.
[24] Ren J-J, Shi J-Y, Liu P, Bi M-S, Jia K. Simulation on thermal
stratification and de-stratification in liquefied gas tanks. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2013;38:4017e23.
[25] Seo M, Jeong S. Analysis of self-pressurization phenomenon
of cryogenic fluid storage tank with thermal diffusion model.
Cryogenics 2010;50:549e55.
[26] Ghoshdastidar PS. Heat transfer. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press; 2012.
[27] Winter E, Schoenhals R, Haug R, Libby T, Nelson R,
Stevenson W. Improved fluid dynamics similarity, analysis
and verification. Part 5: analytical and experimental studies
of thermal stratification phenomena. 1968.