Comparison of Liquid Hydrogen no-Vent Fill Test Data with Analytic Models

  • Scott C. Honkonen
  • David J. Chato
Part of the Advances in Cryogenic Engineering book series (ACRE, volume 39)


The no-vent fill process has been identified as the most promising technique for filling cryogenic tanks in space. In-space testing of this process is extremely expensive, so less expensive ground tests have been performed to learn more about the process before a space-based test program is initiated. NASA Lewis Research Center (LeRC) has performed a series of liquid hydrogen no-vent fill tests at the K-Site facility over the past several years. These tests have proven that liquid hydrogen no-vent fills can be successfully performed in a one-g environment. The data has also provided some one-g validation of analytic models.

This paper presents actual data from the Phase IIA liquid hydrogen no-vent fill tests performed at K-Site. These tests involved pressurized transfers from a 4.96 m3 (175 ft3) supply tank to a 2.01 m3 (71 ft3) receiver tank, both located inside a 7.62 m (25 ft) diameter vacuum chamber. The tests included both spray bar and bottom jet no-vent fills of the receiver tank. However, only the spray bar tests are considered in this paper. The near flight weight receiver tank has a thermal mass-to-volume ratio of 54.5 kg/m3 (3.4 lbm/ft3). Predictions from two analytic computer models (GDNVF and NVEQU) are presented. These models show good agreement with the pressure profile test data.


Vapor Bubble Liquid Hydrogen Test Tank Tank Wall Fill Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    F. Merino, M.H. Blatt, and N.C. Thies, “Filling of Orbital Fluid Management Systems, ” NASA CR-159404, CASD-NAS-78-010, General Dynamics Convair Division, July 1978.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. Merino, J.A. Risberg, and M. Hill, “Orbital Refill of Propulsion Vehicle Tankage, ” NASA CR-159722, February 1980.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D.J. Chato, “Thermodynamic Modeling of the No-Vent Fill Methodology for Transferring Cryogens in Low Gravity, ” AIAA 88-3403, July 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Vaughan and G. Schmidt, “Analytical Modelling of No-Vent Fill Process, ” AIAA 90-2377, July 1990.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S.C. Honkonen, F.O. Bennett, and H.K. Hepworth, “An Analytic Model for Low-Gravity Tank Chilldown and No-Vent Fill: The General Dynamics No-Vent Fill Program (GDNVF), ” AIAA 91-1380, June 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S.C. Honkonen et al., “Analysis of Cryogenic Fluid Systems in Low-g, ” Report No. GDSS-ERR-89-406, General Dynamics Space Systems Division, December 1989.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    W.J. Taylor and D.J. Chato, “Comparing the Results of an Analytic Model of the No-Vent Fill Process with No-Vent Fill Test Results for a 4.96 m3 (175 ft3) Tank, ” AIAA 92-3078, July 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Y.S. Touloukian, “Recommended Values of the Thermophysical Properties of Eight Alloys, Major Constituents and Their Oxides, ” Thermophysical Properties Research Center, Purdue University, February 1966.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R.C. Hendricks, A.K. Brown, and I.C. Peller, “GASP — A Computer Program for Calculating the Thermodynamic and Transport Properties for Ten Fluids: Parahydrogen, Helium, Neon, Methane, Nitrogen, Carbon Monoxide, Oxygen, Fluorine, Argon, and Carbon Dioxide, ” NASA Technical Note D-7808, February 1975.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D.J. Chato, “Ground Testing on the No-Vent Fill of Cryogenic Tanks: Results of Tests for a 71-cubic-foot Tank, ” AIAA 93-1967, June 1993.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D.J. Chato, “Ground Testing on the Nonvented Fill Method of Orbital Propellant Transfer: Results of Initial Test Series, ” NASA Technical Memorandum 104444, June 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott C. Honkonen
    • 1
  • David J. Chato
    • 2
  1. 1.General Dynamics Space Systems DivisionSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Lewis Research CenterNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations