Cryogenic Pressure Control Modeling for Ellipsoidal Space Tanks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model is developed to simulate pressure control of an ellipsoidal-shaped liquid hydrogen tank under external heating in normal gravity. Pressure control is provided by an axial jet thermodynamic vent system (TVS) centered within the vessel that injects cooler liquid into the tank, mixing the contents and reducing tank pressure. The two-phase cryogenic tank model considers liquid hydrogen in its own vapor with liquid density varying with temperature only and a fully compressible ullage. The axisymmetric model is developed using a custom version of the commercially available FLOW-31) software. Quantitative model validation is ,provided by engineering checkout tests performed at Marshall Space Flight Center in 1999 in support of the Solar Thermal Upper Stage_ Technology Demonstrator (STUSTD) program. The engineering checkout tests provide cryogenic tank self-pressurization test data at various heat leaks and tank fill levels. The predicted self-pressurization rates, ullage and liquid temperatures at discrete locations within the STUSTD tank are in good agreement with test data. The work presented here advances current CFD modeling capabilities for cryogenic pressure control and helps develop a low cost CFD-based design process for space hardware.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".