45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit AIAA 2009-4860

2 - 5 August 2009, Denver, Colorado

Cryogenic Sloshing Tests in a Pressurized Cylindrical

Reservoir
Tim Arndt and Michael Dreyer
Center of Applied Space Technology and Microgravity (ZARM)
University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany

Philipp Behruzi and Mike Winter

EADS Astrium Space Transportation, 28199 Bremen, Germany

Arnold van Foreest

German Aerospace Center (DLR), 28359 Bremen, Germany

Coupling between thermodynamic aspects and sloshing propellant is frequently of inter-

est in cryogenic upper stages, especially during the lift-o phase and in missions including
multiple restarts. Particularly in the rst case, the uid dynamic condition of the propel-
lant is mainly inuenced by various ight maneuvers. In contrast to storable propellant,
cryogenic liquid sloshing evokes disturbances of the thermodynamic equilibrium between
liquid and vapor. Under some circumstances, this may be critical leading to ullage col-
lapse. The understanding of these phenomena is of major importance concerning the next
generation of cryogenic upper stages. In order to investigate the coupled phenomena,
benchmark tests are currently being carried out that are focused on sloshing of LN2 in a
cylindrical tank. Three dierent setups are investigated, where the required tank pressure
is established by self-pressurization, GN2 pressurization and GHe pressurization.

Nomenclature
a acceleration vector, m s2 ushing time, s
gravitational acceleration, m s2 pressurization time, s
surf area of the undisturbed free surface, m2 characteristic velocity, m s1
specic heat capacity, J kg1 K1 u velocity vector, m s1
thermal conductivity, W m1 K1 ullage ullage volume, m3
excitation frequency, Hz excitation amplitude, mm
latent heat of vaporization, J kg1 thermal boundary layer, m
liquid ll level, m temperature, K
conrod length, m ref bulk temperature, K
characteristic length, m sat saturation temperature, K
mass ow rate, g s1 characteristic temperature dierence, K
tank pressure, Pa kinematic viscosity, m2 s1
heat transfer rate, W ref reference density, kg m3
tank radius, m characteristic time, s
time scale, s angular velocity, rad s1

Engineer, Fluid Dynamics, Mechanical Engineering, arndt@zarm.uni-bremen.de, Member AIAA

Engineer, Fluid Dynamics, Mechanical Engineering, dreyer@zarm.uni-bremen.de
Engineer, Fluid Dynamics, Mechanical Engineering, philipp.behruzi@astrium.eads.net, Member AIAA
Engineer, Fluid Dynamics, Mechanical Engineering, mike.winter@astrium.eads.net
Engineer, Fluid Dynamics, Mechanical Engineering, arnold.vanforeest@dlr.de, Member AIAA

1 of 10

American
Copyright 2009 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Institute
Astronautics, Inc. All of Aeronautics
rights reserved. and Astronautics
 I. Introduction
iquid sloshing represents a common negative interfering side eect concerning most applications for
L propellant storage in space launcher systems. Even small vibrations can cause enormous liquid motion
inside rocket tanks that is typically called liquid sloshing 1, 7, 9
. The impact of sloshing is of particular
importance, since cryogenic propellant is utilized to power space vehicles. An example is provided in Figure 1
showing an illustration of the planned cryogenic upper stage5 of the European space launcher Ariane 5.
Initially, a cryogenic rocket tank is lled 90% with liquid propellant. The ullage contains vapor of the
propellant species or a mixture of propellant vapor and helium. Between the tank wall and the liquid surface,
the ullage is thermally stratied. Under the impact of liquid sloshing, the temperature stratication in the
ullage is perturbed. Particularly in the vicinity of the liquid/vapor interface, the oscillating propellant can
reach a sucient amplitude to disturb the thermodynamic equilibrium between the liquid and the vapor.
Under some circumstances, this can lead to a characteristic pressure drop in the cryogenic propellant tank.
Sudden pressure drops may be critical compromising the structural stability of the propellant tank.
According to previous work, the AS-203 experiment13 that was performed on the V/S-IVB stage of a
Saturn-I-B-rocket, was conducted to verify the cryogenic propellant control system in consideration of a
manned mission to the Moon. Equipped with a variety of sensors, the main focus of this mission was to
study the propellant behavior during the lift-o entering the low gravity environment. Later, Moran et
al.12 performed full size ground sloshing experiments in spherical tanks using liquid hydrogen LH2 . Varying
the excitation frequency, amplitude and ullage volume, the thermodynamic response under Earths gravity
condition could be characterized. It was found that particulary in the vicinity of the rst natural frequency,
sloshing eects have a major inuence on the tank pressure development that may lead to ullage collapse.
The pressure drop phenomenon in laboratory scale was previously observed by Lacapere et al.10 studying
laterally excited liquid nitrogen LN2 in a = 95 mm tank. For an axially excited system, Das et al.6
observed the characteristic pressure drop as well using engineering uids FC-72 and HFE7000.
The motivation of this work is driven by the development of the new cryogenic upper stage of the European
space launcher Ariane 5. The focus is dedicated to experimental sloshing tests that are performed with liquid
nitrogen LN2 as substitute for the cryogenic propellant LH2 . Hereby, the tank pressure is established (A)
by self-pressurization2 , (B) by pressurizing with GN2 and (C) by pressurizing with GHe. Predominantly,
the matters of interest are to acquire pressure and temperature developments to quantify the characteristic
pressure drop caused by the sloshing propellant. The results are presented in nondimensional form to allow
predictions for the full size application.

Figure 1. Illustration of the Ariane 5 space launcher8 (A) and the planned cryogenic ESC-B upper stage5 (B).

2 of 10

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 Figure 2. Experimental setup for the cryogenic sloshing tests in laboratory scale.

II. Experimental Setup and Instrumentation

The experimental setup2, 3 is illustrated in Fig. 2. In order to excite the liquid, the facility is driven by the
electric engine (1) where the crank drive (2) is used to transfer the induced rotation into a linear oscillation.
The conrod length is = 1.11 m. Since the generated oscillation is approximately harmonic, it is dened
by the excitation frequency given by the motor speed and the excitation amplitude given by the
eccentric displacement of the crankshaft drive. Thus, the equation of motion yields
[ ]
() = cos ( ) sin2 ( ) . (1)
2
To enable a one degree of freedom excitation with = 0, = (), and = 9.81 m/s2 , the sloshing
platform (3) is mounted on three grooved ball bearings (4). The cylindrical tank with spherical bottom
geometry (5) of radius = 0.145 m is installed on top of the sloshing platform, while it is closed using a
polyacetal lid (6). The inner wall temperature of the tank lid is measured to be lid 280 K. The required
contact pressure between lid and tank is induced by 12 compression springs. The ll level is set to = 2.
This is sucient to prevent inuences from the tank bottom geometry on the sloshing liquid7 . The glass
insert is illustrated in the inset of Fig. 2. The tank (5) consists of a two layered glass container with a
vacuum between both glass walls to minimize the heat transfer by conduction or convection. Additionally,
the inner glass layer is provided with a reective coating to reduce the radiative heat losses. The parasitic
heat input is estimated to be approximately 6 W for a pre-cooled tank and a ll level of = 2. For
temperature measurements in the ullage, the tank is equipped with two glass-reinforced plastic retainers (7)
to carry 4 temperature sensors each. A similar retainer is attached underneath the liquid surface (8).
Here, the retainer carries 5 sensors to resolve the temperature stratication in the liquid (T11 T15). For
pressurization purpose, the tank is connected to either a GN2 bottle or a GHe bottle. The pressurization
mass ow rate of the GN2 is = 0.1 g s1 and for GHe = 0.02 g s1 . In cylindrical tanks, the natural
1, 7
frequency can be determined based on
[ ]
2
11 = 1.84 tanh 1.84 . (2)

Consequently, the rst natural frequency corresponds to 11 = 1.81 Hz. To perform the sloshing tests, the
excitation frequency is set to = 1.4 Hz to prevent the swirling motion of the liquid in the vicinity of the
rst natural frequency. The excitation amplitude is set to = 10 mm. This is appropriate to excite the

3 of 10

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 Table 1. Fluid properties11 at = 101.3 kPa.

sat ref Pr
K kg m3 m2 s J kg1 K1 W m1 K1 J kg1
liquid LN2 77.35 806.09 1.99107 2041 0.15 1.99105 2.25
LH2 20.28 70.80 1.88107 9666 0.10 4.45105 1.24
gas GN2 77.35 4.61 1.18106 1124 0.0075 0.81
280.00 1.15 1.39105 1041 0.025 0.72
GH2 20.28 1.34 8.02107 12240 0.017 0.77
280.00 0.09 9.74105 14229 0.18 0.69
GHe 20.28 2.41 1.50106 5249 0.026 0.72
77.35 0.63 1.32105 5196 0.062 0.70
280.00 0.17 1.09104 5193 0.15 0.66

liquid in the lateral sloshing mode (1,1), where the liquid surface forms a at disk, while it is alternately
tilted around the lateral middle axis. In contrast to liquid hydrogen LH2 , utilized in the planned upper stage
ESC-B, the laboratory size sloshing tests here are performed with liquid nitrogen LN2 . Properties of the
uids are provided in Tab. 1. In terms of a Prandtl number Pr = ref /, the similarity of LN2 and LH2
is sucient.

III. Results
In order to perform the experimental tests, the pre-cooled tank is lled with LN2 up to the dened ll
level of = 2. Then, the tank is closed with a polyacetal lid that includes the instrumentation for the
pressure and temperature measurement and the data acquisition is started. Three dierent scenarios are
considered in this work where the tank is pressurized by (I) self-pressurization, (II) GN2 pressurization and
(III) GHe pressurization, as illustrated in Fig. 3. Self-pressurization always occurs due to parasitic heat

Figure 3. Scenarios for the sloshing test with (I) self-pressurization, (II) GN2 pressurization, and (III)
GHe pressurization.

4 of 10

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 that continuously leaks into the closed tank provoking evaporation eects at the free surface where the
liquid has saturation temperature. Therefore, the tank pressure increases. The GN2 or GHe pressurization
is induced by means of external gas bottles. However, after reaching the required initial pressure 0 , the
external pressurization is stopped. The characteristic temperature proles in the liquid and in the vapor
for = 0 indicated by the light grey area enclosed by the dashed line in Fig. 3 (A). The temperature in
the liquid is constant except of a gradient in the vicinity under the free surface. This denes the depth of the
thermal boundary layer . The gradient strongly depends on the type of pressurization. With exception of the
2-species-systems, the free surface has saturation temperature sat that only depends on the corresponding
tank pressure. For the helium pressurized system in (III), the temperature of the free surface corresponds to
the partial pressure of the nitrogen vapor. However, in the gas phase, the temperature strongly increases in
the vicinity of the free surface and then linearly rises with the characteristic thermal stratication as shown
in Fig. 3 (A). The temperature at the lid is lid . In general, this represents the thermal initial condition
in a pressurized propellant tank. However, after reaching the required initial pressure, the excitation of the
tank is initiated. Under the impact of sloshing, the former thermodynamic equilibrium at the liquid/vapor
interface is perturbed. Here, the deection of the surface is sucient to disturb the coupling between the
heat and mass transfer in the transition between liquid and vapor. Particularly when the free surface moves
upward, the warmer vapor in higher ullage regions gets into contact with the colder liquid. This implicates
that the vapor condensates at the colder liquid surface. Due to this condensation eect the pressure in the
tank rapidly decreases. Thereby, the released latent heat of vaporization is dissipated through the
liquid. This phenomenon is supported by mixing of the liquid in the thermal boundary layer where the
liquid temperature increases although the tank pressure decreases. Reaching the local pressure minimum
min indicates the periodic steady state where the thermal conditions in the vicinity of the liquid surface are
re-balanced so that the tank pressure stops to decrease. Henceforward, the pressure slowly increases.
The data in this work is presented in nondimensional form in order to ensure the comparability between
the dierent scenarios including self-pressurization, GN2 pressurization and GHe pressurization as well as to
previous results10, 12 . Therefore, the data is scaled by appropriate nondimensional quantities (indicated by
asterisk symbols) that are dened by the velocity u, pressure , temperature , time and acceleration a
and their corresponding characteristic quantities in order to satisfy
u ref a
u = = 2
, = , = , a = . (3)
ref
Here, ref is the liquid density and ref is the liquid temperature at ambient pressure. According to the
lateral
excited sloshing case, where the acceleration is the main driving force, the characteristic velocity
corresponds to the group velocity of surface waves. The characteristic acceleration corresponds
to Earths gravity and the time scale = 1 is based on the system excitation. Depending on the physical
consideration of the particular sloshing case, the characteristic length may vary. Here, is dened as
ratio of the ullage volume to the area of the free surface as illustrated in Fig. 1 (B). This is most suitable to
compare dierent tank shapes including cylindrical and bulk head geometries. For the actual test cases, it
gives = ullage /surf = 0.36.
The temperature in the tank varies between 77 K measured in the liquid bulk and 280 K measured
at the tank lid. For an adequate scaling, this requires the discrete consideration of the temperature in the
ullage as well as in the liquid. Therefore, the temperature in the liquid is scaled by a characteristic liquid
temperature dierence dened as = sat,0 ref . Here, sat,0 corresponds to the saturation temperature of
an initial pressure of 0 . The characteristic temperature dierence in the vapor is dened as = lid sat .

(I) Self-pressurization
The liquid temperature distribution after self-pressurization is shown in Fig. 4 (A). On the -axis, = 0
corresponds to ref , while = 1 gives the saturation temperature sat,0 for the according initial pressure
0 . The -axis is scaled between the tank bottom where / = 0 and the free surface where / = 2. The
temperature distribution for = 0 is indicated by open symbols. The temperature at the liquid surface is
sat,0 while the thermal boundary layer below is colder showing the highest temperature gradient between
the liquid surface and the liquid temperature sensor T12. In deeper regions between T12 and T13, the
gradient decreases while the temperature in the bulk between T13 and T15 does not change signicantly.
The character of the thermal boundary layer strongly depends on the tank pressure indicated by varying

5 of 10

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 4. Results for the self-pressurized sloshing tests; (A) temperature distribution in the liquid, (B) pressure
development in the tank. The open symbols in (A) correspond to = 0 at = 0 while the lled symbols in
(A) and (B) indicate the temperature distribution at the periodic steady state where = min . The dashed
line in (A) indicate the free surface while the dot dashed line in (B) indicate the ambient pressure level.

temperatures at T11.
The scaled pressure development for self-pressurization is provided in Fig. 4 (B) where is plotted
versus dimensionless time . The self-pressurization phase of the system is shown for < 0. Here, the
liquid surface is quiet. Since parasitic heat continuously leaks in the closed tank, the pressure linearly
increases until reaching the required initial pressure 0 at = 0. Depending on the required initial pressure,
the duration of pressurization varies between 991 3620. Then, the excitation is initiated and the
liquid content starts to slosh for > 0. After a few oscillations, the tank pressure decreases under the
impact of the sloshing liquid until the periodic steady state is reached where = min . This is indicated by
the full symbols in Fig. 4 (B). During the pressure drop phase, the condensation of the vapor in the vicinity
of the colder free surface dominate the pressure development in the tank. This eect strongly depends on
the initial pressure.
The observed temperature distribution in the liquid at the pressure minimum min is indicated by the full
symbols in Fig. 4 (A). In comparison to the temperature distribution for the corresponding initial pressure
0 at = 0, the liquid temperature here is signicantly higher. While the tank pressure decreases but the
liquid temperature in the thermal boundary layer increases. This can be explained by the dissipation of the
latent heat of condensation through the liquid. Depending on the tank pressure, the surface temperature
is sat . Mixing supports the formation of a more homogeneous boundary layer with a small gradient. This
conrms previous results by Lacapere et al.10 using LN2 as well and Das et al.6 using engineering uids
FC72 and HFE7000.

(II) GN2 pressurization

The temperature distribution in the tank along the scaled tank height / after GN2 pressurization is
indicated by the open symbols in Fig. 5. Contrary to the self-pressurization results in (I), the temperature
below the liquid surface between T11 and T15 is about = 0. In particular, the gradient in the thermal
boundary layer between the free surface and T11 is stronger as observed after self-pressurization. As well as
in (I), the liquid temperature at the free surface correspond to the saturation temperature for the according
initial pressure sat,0 . Due to thermal inertia, the temperature below the surface appears colder than observed
in (I). The duration of pressurization varies between 101 412. This is a factor 10 smaller than the

6 of 10

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 5. Results for the GN2 pressurized sloshing tests; (A) temperature distribution in the liquid, (B)
pressure development in the tank. The open symbols in (A) correspond to = 0 at = 0 while the lled
symbols in (A) and (B) indicate the temperature distribution at the periodic steady state where = min .
The dashed line in (A) indicate the free surface while the dot dashed line in (B) indicate the ambient pressure
level.

duration of self-pressurization. Therefore, it is assumed that the thermal boundary layer under the liquid
surface is smaller than in (I).
The scaled tank pressure development for external GN2 pressurized experiments is provided in Fig. 5 (B)
where is plotted versus scaled time . Again, the symbols correspond to dierent initial pressures
varying between 40.75 0 54.33 at = 0. For < 0, the tank is pressurized with GN2 . Due to
the obvious gradients during pressurization, the liquid bulk appears more subcooled with respect to the
saturation temperature sat,0 = 1 for = 0 as observed in (I). The excitation of the system is started at
= 0 in order that > 0 corresponds to the sloshing phase. The pressure decreases immediately after
starting the excitation. In contrast to self-pressurized systems which are thermodynamically more balanced
due to the long duration pressurization, the duration to pressurize the GN2 pressurized system is a factor
10 smaller. Nevertheless, the liquid temperature at the free surface is assumed to be saturation temperature
sat . However, the characteristic pressure drop for > 0 is similar to the eect observed for a self-pressurized
system whereas the magnitude of pressure decrease is larger in the GN2 pressurized case particularly for
higher initial pressures. The periodic steady state is reached at the local pressure minimum min during the
sloshing phase. This is indicated by full symbols in Fig. 5 (B). The corresponding temperature distribution
of the periodic steady state at = min is indicated by the full symbols in Fig. 5 (A). Due to mixing eects
particularly in the thermal boundary layer between the free surface and T12, the temperature stratication
in the upper liquid regions appear more homogeneous as observed after reaching the according initial pressure
as indicated by open symbols. Here, it seems that the thermal boundary layer expands under the impact of
sloshing. The temperature of the liquid in the bulk between T14 and T15 is not inuenced by the sloshing
motion corresponding to the sloshing theory for high ll levels1, 7 where / > 1.

(III) GHe pressurization

In order to reduce the concentration of nitrogen vapor (GN2 ) in the ullage rst, the tank is ushed with
helium before the pressurization is started. Therefore, GHe from the external helium reservoir is fed into the
tank through the inlet, while the displaced GN2 near the liquid surface is ushed out through the venting
line into the environment as illustrated in Fig. 3 (III). The tank is ushed for dierent time periods to

7 of 10

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 6. Results for the GHe pressurized sloshing tests; (A) temperature distribution in the liquid, (B)
pressure development in the tank. The open symbols in (A) correspond to 2,0 = 0 He,0 at = 0 while the
lled symbols in (A) and (B) indicate the temperature distribution at the periodic steady state where = min .
The dashed line in (A) indicate the free surface while the dot dashed line in (B) indicate the ambient pressure
level.

test the inuence of the helium concentration in the ullage on the impact of pressure drop in the tank. The
ushing duration as well as the pressurization duration are provided in Fig. 6 (A). All GHe experiments
presented in this work are pressurized up to an initial pressure of 0 = 47.54. The temperature distribution
in the liquid along the scaled tank height / after ushing and pressurization for = 0 is provided in
Fig. 6 (A). Likewise as observed during the GN2 pressurized experiments, the highest temperature gradient
in the liquid appears in the thermal boundary layer under the free surface. The liquid temperature at
the free surface N2,0 corresponds to the GN2 partial pressure N2,0 at = 0. Satisfying 2 = He ,
the nitrogen partial pressure is connected to the helium concentration in the tank and therefore primary to
the ushing duration . Of course, the highest liquid temperatures are measured for the smallest ushing
times. While the liquid temperature is = 0 for 0 / 2 before ushing and pressurizing the tank,
the liquid temperature in the bulk does not change signicantly during this phases.
The pressure developments of the GHe pressurized systems are provided in Fig 6 (B). The symbols
correspond to dierent ushing times and therefore to the dierent helium concentrations in the tank.
The dashed line at = 0 indicate the point where the required initial pressure of 0 = 47.54 is reached and the
excitation is started. Values for < 0 correspond to the pressurization phase. The slightly dierent gradients
allow the assumption that the compressibility characteristics of the gas mixture varies for increasing helium
concentration in the tank. Here, the highest gradient corresponds to the highest helium concentration at
= 319. For > 0 the system is excited provoking a changing of the tank pressure. The occurring pressure
drop strongly depends on the helium concentration in the tank. While the impact of pressure drop increases
for decreasing helium concentration, the pressure drop even disappears for the highest GHe concentrations.
Helium, as non-condensable gas in a nitrogen environment has a strong impact particularly on the heat and
mass transfer in the liquid/vapor interface in the vicinity of the free surface. Hence, the presence of an
inert gas implies the existence of a partial pressure dierence of the condensable vapor toward the phase
interface14 where the vapor must diuse through. According to the respective partial pressure N2 that
decreases for increasing helium concentration, the saturation temperature of the GN2 decreases as well as
the heat transfer at the phase interface slows down. For increasing helium concentration, the condensation
at the liquid/vapor boundary may even be stopped as shown by the development for 277 in Fig. 6 (B).

8 of 10

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 IV. Conclusion
The experimental results are summarized in Fig. 7 whereas the magnitude of the pressure drop is shown
in Fig. 7 (A). Here, the pressure dierence = 0 min is plotted as a function of the required initial
pressure 0 . The data is plotted on a double logarithmic scale, since the initial pressure ranges over three
orders of magnitude. Open symbols correspond to the actual results. For both, self-pressurized as well
as GN2 pressurized experiments, the development is indicated by the solid lines that are based on linear
extrapolations of the test data. Equations are provided in Fig. 7 (A). Although the pressure dierence in both
cases increases linearly for increasing initial pressures, however their dierence on the full size pressure range
between self-pressurized (lower solid line) and GN2 pressurized experiments (upper solid line) appears less
signicant than expected. The adequacy of our scaling is conrmed by previous high pressure experimental
results performed by Moran et al.12 using liquid hydrogen LH2 pressurized with GH2 in a = 0.75 m tank
( symbol) and by Lacapere et al.10 using liquid nitrogen LN2 pressurized with GN2 in a = 0.095 m tank
( symbol). In both works, external pressurized one-species-systems are considered with an ullage volume
to surface area ratio of ullage /surf = 0.36. The slightly dierence of Morans result can be explained by
the utilization of LH2 . But even though, our prediction is in quite good agreement with these results. The
application of GHe as pressurant gas is indicated by the symbols. For increasing helium concentration
in the tank the impact of the pressure drop strongly decreases as indicated by the large arrow. This is not
surprising since helium as non-condensable gas prevents condensation eects at the liquid/vapor interface.
The magnitude of the pressure gradient / , a measure of the dynamic property of the pressure
drop, is provided in Fig. 7 (B). Here, the pressure gradient is plotted as a function of the scaled initial
pressure 0 . Taking into account that the highest pressure loss appears right after starting the excitation,
the pressure gradient is dened as pressure loss per time frame . Corresponding to the solid lines,
the development of the pressure gradient appears linear for increasing 0 as well. The application of helium
as pressurant gas reduces the impact of / . Equations are provided in Fig. 7 (B). According to the
magnitude that decreases under the inuence of helium, the pressure gradient decreases too. However, our
predicted development shows variations to previous data acquired by Moran et al.12 using liquid hydrogen
( symbol) and Lacapere et al.10 using liquid nitrogen ( symbol). According to Das et al.6 , this may be
explained by higher wave amplitudes in the vicinity of the rst natural frequency causing chaotic sloshing.

Figure 7. Characterization of the pressure drop eect. The magnitude of the pressure drop is shown in (A)
while the pressure gradient is shown in (B). The one-species-systems are indicated by solid lines while the
two-species systems are indicated by the dashed lines. Open symbols indicate our current results while full
symbols indicate previous results10, 12 from the literature.

9 of 10

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 As a nal conclusion, the prediction of the magnitude based on our experimental data is in good agreement
with previous results that are gained by high pressure experiments10, 12 . Dierences in predicting the pressure
gradient can be traced back to dierences of the excitation and therefore dierent sloshing amplitudes6 .
Hence, the impact of the sloshing amplitude is reected by the pressure gradient for a higher extent than
by the magnitude of the pressure drop. Our expectations to prevent the condensation at the liquid/vapor
interface is conrmed by the application of helium as non-condensable pressurant leading to the reduction
of the eect for increasing helium concentrations in the tank.

Acknowledgments
The funding of the research project by the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi)
through the German Aerospace Center (DLR) under grant number 50 RL 0741 is gratefully acknowledged.
Furthermore, the authors acknowledge the support of our project partner EADS Astrium Space Transporta-
tion to provide the sloshing facility as well as the support of P. Prengel, F. Ciecior and S. Kastens.

References
1 H. N. Abramson, The Dynamic Behavior of Liquids in Moving Containers, Tech. Report NASA-SP-106, 1966.
2 T. Arndt and M. Dreyer, Damping Behavior of Sloshing Liquid in Laterally Excited Cylindrical Propellant Vessels, J.
Spacecraft Rockets, Vol. 45, No. 5, 2008, pp. 10851088.
3 T. Arndt, M. Dreyer, P. Behruzi and M. Winter, Laterally Excited Sloshing Tests with Liquid Nitrogen, AIAA 2008-4551,

JPC & Exhibit Hartford, CT, 2008.

4 H. D. Baehr and K. Stephan, W arme- und Stoubertragung, Vol. 5, Springer Verlag, 2006.
5 K. P. Behruzi and G. Netter, PMD Design for Upper Stages, 4 International Conference on Launcher Technology,

Liege, Belgium, Dec. 2002.

6 S. P. Das and E. J. Hopnger, Mass transfer enhancement by gravity waves at a liquid vapour interface, Int. J. Heat

Mass Tran., Vol. 52, No. 56, 2009, pp. 14001411.

7 F. T. Dodge, The new dynamic behavior of liquids in moving containers, SwRI San Antonio, Texas, 2000.
8 Credit ESA.
9 R. A. Ibrahim, Liquid sloshing dynamics, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
10 J. Lacapere, B. Vieille and B. Legrand, Experimental and numerical results of sloshing with cryogenic uids, EUCASS

Conference Proceeding, Brussels, Belgium, Jul. 2007.

11 E. Lemmon, A. Peskin, M. McLinden and D. Friend, NIST Standard Reference Database 12, Version 5.0.
12 Moran, M. E., McNelis, N., Kudlac, M. T., Haberbusch, M. S. and Satornino G. A., Experimental Results of Hydrogen

Slosh in a 62 Cubic Foot (1750 Liter) Tank, AIAA Conference Proceeding 943259, Indianapolis, IN, Jul. 1994.
13 W. D. Ward, L. E. Tool, C. A. Ponder, M. E. Meadows, C. W. Simmons, J. H. Lytle, J. M. McDonald and M. Kavanaugh,

Evaluation of AS-203 low gravity orbital experiment, Tech. Report HSM-R421-67, Contract NAS8-4016, Chrysler Corporation,
Space Division, 1967.
14 K. Stephan, Heat Transfer in Condensation and Boiling, Springer Verlag, 1992.

10 of 10

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics