Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 40 (2022) 102520

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering

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

Numerical simulation on the thermal dynamic behavior of liquid

hydrogen in a storage tank for trailers
Li Shihao a ,1 , Yan Yan a ,1 , Wei Wei b , Wang Zhao b , Ni Zhonghua a ,∗
a School of Mechanical Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China
b Zhangjiagang Research Institute of Hydrogen Energy, Zhangjiagang 215600, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In the present study, a numerical model was established to investigate the thermal dynamic
Liquid hydrogen tank behavior of liquid hydrogen in a 40-foot ISO tank. The volume of fluids (VOF) method was
Thermal dynamic applied to capture the liquid surface, and a phase change model was used to describe the
Sloshing
evaporation phenomenon of hydrogen. The mesh independence analysis and the experimental
Heat leakage
validation have been made. Under different filling levels, motion statuses, and heat leakage
CFD simulation
conditions, the variations in pressure and temperature of the tank were investigated. The
pressure of 90% filling level case was reduced by 12.09%, compared to the 50% case. Besides,
the pressure of the sloshing condition has increased twofold, contrasted with the stationary
one, and thermal stratification disappeared. Additionally, 16.67 min were taken for the ullage
pressure to reach around 1 MPa in emergencies of being extremely heated. Some valuable
conclusions and suggestions for the transportation of liquid hydrogen arrived. Those could
be the references to predict the release time of boil-off hydrogen, and primarily support for
gas-releasing control strategies.

1. Introduction

Hydrogen energy, with advantages of zero release, renewable and high energy density, was acting as an important role in
transportation fields. In the face of the gradual growth of demands, liquid hydrogen (LH2 ) storage became an ideal way to meet the
large-scale and long-distance transportation from liquefaction plants to refilling stations [1,2].
According to the storage environment, LH2 tanks could be divided into two types: fixed and mobile. The heat sources of mobile
tanks were not only from the thermal leakage of heat channels, which were supporting members and pipelines, but also frictional
heat generated by the liquid hydrogen sloshing. Due to the small latent heat of vaporization (461 kJ/kg) [3], those two heat
sources would lead to rapid evaporation of liquid hydrogen and the resulting increase in vessel pressure, which is called self-
pressurization [4]. Considering the working environment of the mobile LH2 storage tank was mostly in the crowded urban area, the
release of boil-off hydrogen in an improper time and space might cause potential threats to the citizen’s life and property safety.
During the storage, the continuous heat leakage caused thermal stratification [5] and self-pressurization [6] in the gas–liquid
two-phase flow of hydrogen. The study of fixed liquid hydrogen storage characteristics focused on self-pressurization, thermal
stratification, and vortex flow. J.C. Aydelott et al. [7], N.T. Van Dresar et al. and NASA Lewis Research Center [8] conducted
experiments focusing on the self-pressurization of LH2 at different filling levels and heat leakage power in the light-weighted sphere
or ellipsoidal tank for satellites. To investigate the pressure and temperature response of cryogenic liquid hydrogen storage tanks,

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nzh2003@seu.edu.cn (N. Zhonghua).
1 Contributed equally to this work.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2022.102520
Received 27 July 2022; Received in revised form 6 October 2022; Accepted 23 October 2022
Available online 28 October 2022
2214-157X/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
L. Shihao et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 40 (2022) 102520

Nomenclature

𝐴EX amplitude of the sloshing excitation, m/s2

𝐶1𝜀 , 𝐶2𝜀 , 𝐶3𝜀 turbulence constants
𝐸 energy term, W/m3
𝐺𝑏 generation of turbulence energy caused by buoyancy
𝐺𝑘 generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to the mean velocity
𝐾 thermal conductivity, W/(m ⋅ K)
𝑃 pressure, Pa
𝑃sat pressure corresponding to the saturation temperature 𝑇𝑠𝑎𝑡 , Pa
𝑅 ideal gas constant, J/(mol ⋅ K)
𝑅v mean gas constant of the vapor
𝑆ℎ energy source term
𝑆𝑚 mass source term, kg/(m 3 ⋅ s)
𝑇int temperature at the free surface, K
𝑇sat saturation temperature, K
𝑉cell volume of the cell in the mesh
𝑌M contribution of the fluctuation in the compressible turbulence to the overall dissipation rate
𝑎𝑥 acceleration along the 𝑥-axis, m/s2
𝑐𝜇 constant of the standard 𝑘 − 𝜀 turbulence model
𝑘 turbulence kinetic energy
𝑙 subscript, refers to the phase of liquid
𝑛 coefficient of the natural frequency
𝑟 tuning coefficient of phase change model
𝑣 subscript, refers to the phase of vapor
(𝑇V , 𝑃V ) a point on the saturation curve, (K, Pa)

Abbreviations

GH2 gaseous hydrogen

H2 hydrogen
LH2 liquid hydrogen
MLI multiple layers insulation

Greek Letters

𝛼 volume fraction function

𝜇 dynamic molecular viscosity, Pa ⋅ s
𝜇𝑡 eddy viscosity, Pa ⋅ s
𝜔EX frequency of the sloshing excitation, rad/s
𝜔mn natural frequency of the liquid in sloshing modes
𝜌 density, kg/m3
𝜎𝑘 , 𝜎𝜀 turbulent Prandtl numbers
𝜀 turbulence dissipation rate
𝛿 fraction of ideal gas constant 𝑅 and latent heat per mole, K−1

Vectors

𝐠 gravity acceleration, m/s2

𝐯 mean velocity vector of hydrogen, m/s

S. Barsi et al. [9,10] conducted self-pressurization and thermal stratification experiments, as well as numerical simulations on
ground-based LH2 storage tanks. The results suggested that the regional model did a better performance.
Besides, in the thermodynamic analysis of aboveground storage tanks, J. Joseph et al. [11] modeled a thermodynamic analysis
of multilayer adiabatic LH2 storage tanks and investigated the effect of different adiabatic structural parameters on the evaporation
rate of liquid hydrogen. To determine the characters of thermal stratification, X. Cheng et al. [12] conducted an analysis and the
conclusion. By comparing the thermal stratification phenomena of LH2 and LO2 , it pointed out that natural convection and thermal
physical parameters were important factors affecting the thermal stratification results. Besides, the thermal stratification was more

2
L. Shihao et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 40 (2022) 102520

serious when the liquid saturation temperature was lower. Aerospace was a common research field of cryogenic storage tanks.
The micro-gravity condition was the major distinction compared to on-ground cases, while the storage characteristics of space
orbiters were similar to those of stationary tanks. Moreover, spaces vehicles have more concerns of the maintenance of liquid status
of hydrogen. R. Zhou et al. [13] studied self-pressurization and evaporation rate of the liquid hydrogen tank, with an induced
conclusion of the existence of three stages of evaporation procedures during pressuring. By conducting a series of simulations
under micro-gravity and filling levels, Y. Jiang et al. [14] determined the heat transfer and phase change characteristics of liquid
hydrogen tank under microgravity conditions, and indicated greater gravitational acceleration enhanced convective heat transfer and
evaporation in the tank, with stronger buoyancy and convection. All of those conclusions above can be used for the pressurization
prediction of various emissions in either aerospace and civil applications of liquid hydrogen.
The characteristics of storage and transportation in mobile liquid hydrogen tanks are focused on the liquid sloshing phenomenon
caused by the dynamic environment. M.E. Moran et al. [15] conducted an experimental study of liquid hydrogen in a 1.75 m3
spherical cylinder. They completed a total of 153 sloshing tests with different frequencies, amplitudes, pressures, wall temperatures,
and other parameters. To describe the liquid motion more accurately, S. Kim et al. [16] used a CFD model to simulate the liquid
hydrogen sloshing behavior in the fuel tank of a rocket propulsion system. The results indicated that there was a significant lateral
shake in the LH2 tank after the close of the main engine. The radial moment reached 407 N⋅m, which should be taken into
account when adjusting the rocket altitude. Japanese researchers [17] made a theoretical projection of the sloshing phenomenon
generated during the delivery of liquid hydrogen on the sea. Besides, other scholars have also conducted similar studies on the
motion characteristics of cryogenic substances such as LNG under sinusoidal excitation [18,19], aiming to predict the motion of
cryogenic liquids under different frequencies and amplitudes. Z. Liu and his fellows [20–22] mainly focused on the sloshing dynamic
performance of cryogenics, such as liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. They also gave the hints about how fluids flow under different
natural frequencies while monitors indicate the different shape profiles of the liquid near and far from the wall.
From the above studies, it can be found that both thermodynamic and hydrodynamic behavior in dynamic conditions have been
able to be obtained by experimental and simulation means. But, due to the lack of correlation between liquid hydrogen sloshing
behavior and thermodynamics studies, liquid hydrogen evaporation prediction in dynamic environments has rarely been carried
out. In contrast, at the end of the last century, NASA [23,24] carried out a simulation study on the interaction of hydrodynamic
and thermodynamic phenomena inside the rocket propellant liquid hydrogen fuel tank. The results showed that the propellant sway
was highly coupled with the temperature distribution, indicating that the hydrodynamic and thermodynamic phenomena of this
system cannot be analyzed independently. Considering that the propellant fuel tank was essentially a moving process of a cryogenic
vessel during launching, it could be a reference in terms of dynamics studies. The conclusion of it could also be extended to other
transportation processes of cryogenic vessels. In addition, few researchers have researched the practical scenarios of liquid hydrogen
ISO tanks for road or railway transportation, and their practical applications lack theoretical guidance.
In this study, the thermal dynamic behavior of liquid hydrogen in a 40-foot ISO tank designed for trailer was studied via numerical
simulations. Affected by several key factors, various filling levels, motion statuses, and heat leakage power of the liquid hydrogen
tank are taken into consideration. Ultimately, the variations of hydrogen mass and temperature, as well as the ullage pressure of the
tank were determined. These would help us predict the release time of boil-off gas. Also, it is fundamental support for the ongoing
research on gas-releasing arrangement, which would effectively reduce the risks of random release of evaporated hydrogen gas, and
improve safety in the vicinity of refilling stations in urban areas.

2. Numerical calculation models

2.1. Governing equations

The general governing equations are given as follows.

Continuity equation
𝜕𝜌
+ ∇ ⋅ (𝜌𝐯) = 𝑆𝑚 (1)
𝜕𝑡
Momentum equation
𝜕
(𝜌𝐯) + ∇ ⋅ (𝜌𝐯𝐯) =
𝜕𝑡
{( )[ ]}
−∇𝑃 + ∇ ⋅ 𝜇 + 𝜇t ∇𝐯 + (∇𝐯)T + 𝜌𝐠 (2)

Energy equation
𝜕
(𝜌𝐸) + ∇ ⋅ [𝐯(𝜌𝐸 + 𝑝)] = ∇ ⋅ (𝐾∇𝑇 ) + 𝑆ℎ (3)
𝜕𝑡
where, 𝜌 is the density, 𝐯 is the mean velocity vector, 𝑆𝑚 is the mass source term, 𝑃 is the pressure, 𝜇 is the dynamic molecular
viscosity, 𝜇𝑡 is the eddy viscosity, g is the gravity acceleration, 𝐸 is the energy term, 𝐾 is the thermal conductivity, and 𝑆ℎ is the
energy source term.

3
L. Shihao et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 40 (2022) 102520

2.2. Turbulence model

The 𝑘 − 𝜀 model characterizes the turbulent viscosity with the help of turbulent kinetic energy 𝑘 and dissipation rate 𝜀, which has
the characteristics of good computational stability and high efficiency. The turbulence kinetic energy 𝑘, and turbulence dissipation
rate 𝜀 are defined by the following equations.
𝜕
(𝜌𝑘) + ∇ ⋅ (𝜌v𝑘) =
𝜕𝑡 [( ) ]
𝜇
∇ ⋅ 𝜇 + t ∇𝑘 + 𝐺𝑘 + 𝐺𝑏 − 𝜌𝜀 − 𝑌𝑀 + 𝑆𝑘 , (4)
𝜎k
[( ) ]
𝜕 𝜇
𝜇 + 𝑡 ∇𝜀
(𝜌𝜀) + ∇ ⋅ (𝜌v𝜀) = ∇ ⋅
𝜕𝑡 𝜎𝜀
𝜀( ) 𝜀2
+ 𝐶1𝜀 𝐺𝑘 + 𝐶3𝜀 𝐺𝑏 − 𝐶2𝜀 𝜌 + 𝑆𝜀 . (5)
𝑘 𝑘
where, 𝐺𝑘 , 𝐺𝑏 , 𝑌𝑀 are the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to the mean velocity, the generation of turbulence energy
caused by buoyancy, and the contribution of the fluctuation in the compressible turbulence to the overall dissipation rate. 𝜎𝑘 and 𝜎𝜀
are the turbulent Prandtl numbers with a value of 1.0 and 1.3. 𝐶1𝜀 , 𝐶2𝜀 and 𝐶3𝜀 are constants of 1.44, 1.92 and 0.2 respectively [25].
The velocity and pressure in Eq. (5) are determined by the expression of the eddy viscosity.

𝜇𝑡 = 𝑐𝜇 𝜌𝑘2 ∕𝜀 (6)
where 𝑘 is the turbulence kinetic energy, 𝜀 is the turbulence dissipation rate, and 𝑐𝜇 is a constant of the standard 𝑘 − 𝜀 turbulence
model, with a value of 0.09 [25].

2.3. Interface capturing method

The volume of fluid method (VOF) is the common technique to capture the interface of liquid–gas two-phase flow, and it is used
here. A series of functions, with the value of 1 or 0, is introduced to represent the volume fraction of the fluid in a single mesh unit.
Thus, the shape of liquids could be captured.
𝛼𝑙 + 𝛼𝑣 = 1 (7)
where, 𝛼 is the volume fraction function, subscripts 𝑙 and 𝑣 refer to the phase of liquid and vapor. In this study, 𝛼 = 0.5 is defined
to refer to the free surface of the liquid.
Thus, other variables in the governing equations could also be updated or determined via the VOF method.
⎧ 𝜌=𝜌 𝛼 +𝜌 𝛼
⎪ 𝑙 𝑙 𝑣 𝑣
⎨ 𝑘 = 𝑘𝑙 𝛼𝑙 + 𝑘𝑣 𝛼𝑣 (8)
⎪ 𝜇 = 𝜇𝑙 𝛼𝑙 + 𝜇𝑣 𝛼𝑣
⎩
All the thermodynamic physical properties of hydrogen were referred to NIST REFPROP [26].
𝜌𝑙 𝛼𝑙 𝐸𝑙 + 𝜌𝑣 𝛼𝑣 𝐸𝑣
𝐸= (9)
𝜌𝑙 𝛼𝑙 + 𝜌𝑣 𝛼𝑣
where the energy term 𝐸 is treated as mass-averaged variables.

2.4. Phase change model

Phase change happens when the liquid temperature is greater than the saturation temperature 𝑇sat , or similarly, vapor condenses
when the gas temperature is less than 𝑇sat . The saturation temperature and its corresponding pressure 𝑃sat of hydrogen is based on
Clapeyron Equation and its expression is shown as:
( )
1∕𝑇V − 1∕𝑇sat
𝑃sat = 𝑃V ⋅ exp , (10)
𝛿
( )
where 𝑇V , 𝑃V is a point on the saturation curve, and the pair of (20.369 K, 101325 Pa) is chosen in this study. 𝛿 is the fraction
of ideal gas constant 𝑅 and the latent heat per mole of hydrogen theoretically. Thus, it is a function of temperature, but here it is
considered as a constant. By substituting the saturation temperatures by the range of 20 K to 25 K and its corresponding pressures
value provided by REFPROP into Eq. (10), the proper value 7.935 × 10−3 of 𝛿 is obtained, with the maximum error is only 0.74%.
The mass source term 𝑆𝑚 in Eq. (1) represents the mass transfer of the phase change. Here, a simplified model of phase change
mass flux described by J.G. Collier and J.R. Thome [27] is adapted and given by Eq. (11).
(𝑃sat − 𝑃 )
𝑆𝑚 = 𝑟 √ (11)
𝑉cell 2𝜋𝑅v ⋅ 𝑇int
in which, 𝑅v is the mean gas constant of the vapor, 𝑇int is the liquid temperature at the free surface, 𝑉cell is the volume of the
cell in the mesh, and 𝑟 is the tuning coefficient of phase change model. M. Barkhudarov [28] gives the suggestion that the tuning
coefficient 𝑟 is recommended to be set between 0.01 to 0.1, and 0.05 is selected in this study.

4
L. Shihao et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 40 (2022) 102520

Fig. 1. Structure and computational region of the tank.

3. Tank structure modeling

A 40-foot ISO tank designed for road transportation of liquid hydrogen by trailer is chosen as the prototype of the research.
Ignoring the frameworks, the tank consists of a shell, a cylinder and supporting members between them.
The shell and the cylinder are made of 16MnDR steel alloy and 316 stainless steel respectively. The Surface roughness of the
cylinder is Ra 12.5 (μm). Supporting structures, made of glass fiber, are mounted on the dished heads of those parts. Besides, there is
a vacuum layer between the two parts mentioned before. Multiple layers insulation (MLI) is adapted as LH2 tank’s thermal insulation
method. As the present study does not focus on the refilling process of the LH2 tanks, some parts of affiliated structures, such as the
injector and the drain pipes are not considered here.
A quarter of the tank is selected as the computational region since the fluid domain is symmetric. The coordinate center is located
at the center of the tank, with the coordinate of (0 m, 0 m, 0 m). The structure of the tank and its mesh boundaries as well as the
computational region are shown in Fig. 1.

3.1. Boundary conditions

3.1.1. Simplification
Influenced by the convection heat exchange from external air, some heat inputs penetrate the tank. Steady heat sources of the
atmosphere and the shell with the condition of 293 K and 1 atm, continuously input heat into the vacuum layer and MLI. The
mechanics of heat transfer in the vacuum layer are complicated. Zheng et al. [29] provides the heat flux of MLI, 0.725 W/m2 , under
the circumstances of rarefied dry air whose temperature and pressure is 20 K and 0.001 Pa respectively. Therefore, both the shell
and the vacuum layer of the LH2 tank, and its surrounding atmosphere can be simplified, and their heat-transfer impact on the
cylinder can be determined.
The reason for the simplification is that the physical properties of air located in the outside atmosphere and vacuum layer are
different. The number of gas molecules within the rarefied air is small while the average free-range is wide. Such medium does not
satisfy the continuous assumption, on which the N–S equation is based. Since we should focus on the storage properties of hydrogen
tank, which means the heat transfer results are the most important for the cylinder, but not the computing details.

3.1.2. Heat flux

The heat flux of the supporting structures is determined through the static thermal calculation, which was conducted by
Zhangjiagang Research Institute of Hydrogen Energy. Computed by the product of section area and the average heat flux results,
21.985 W and 32.788 W of heat are transferred to the cylinder, through the front and the rear supporting members respectively.
And the average value of those, 27.387 W, is determined as the approximation of the heat leakage of the supporting members.
As mentioned in the previous part, the heat flux from MLI to the cylinder has been determined. The surface area of the outer
side of the cylinder is about 83.7 m2 , so the whole amount of heat leakage from MLI is 60.657 W, and a quarter of it is considered
as the heat conduction impact of MLI upon the cylinder in the computational region.
Thus, the whole amount of heat in the computation region is 42.551 W, which is the sum of the heat conducted from supporting
members and MLI. All of the heat is imposed uniformly on the surface of the cylinder during simulation. Supporting members are
neglected in case of a double consideration of heat conduction from them.
Parts of physical property parameters data, such as mass, saturation temperature and saturation pressure are obtained from
the physical property query software REFPROP and experiments reports [30,31]. The density of GH2 is determined by ideal gas
equation, since it is considered as compressible flow.

5
L. Shihao et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 40 (2022) 102520

Table 1
Case A - Temperature comparison between probes @ 27.2 s.
Probe 𝑇 , experiment [K] 𝑇 , simulation [K] 𝛥𝑇 [K]
N30 70.01 52.34 −17.67
R5 44.46 50.26 5.8
R4 36.25 47.76 11.51
R3 34.69 43.41 8.72
R2 28.92 38.77 9.85
R1 20.92 22.91 1.99
R12 20.23 20.38 0.15

3.1.3. Initial state and boundaries

In the initial state, the fluids region of the storage tank is partly filled with LH2 , and the ullage contains gaseous hydrogen.
The initial liquid temperature is 20.36 K, while the gas temperature ranges from 20.369 K to 20.371 K, increasing along the
opposite direction of gravity. The initial absolute pressure of the ullage is set to be 1 atm, and the external environment pressure
and temperature are 1.0 atm and 293 K. Time step size is set as 2.5 ms for the transient calculation.
The boundaries of the mesh are divided into two sorts. One is set as a wall with a constant temperature of 293 K to represent
the circumstances of atmosphere. The other one is set as symmetric because it coincides with the XOZ and YOZ symmetry plane.

3.2. Mesh construction and independence analysis

3.2.1. Mesh construction method

An uniformed Cartesian mesh is applied in our research. Unlike other common mesh construction methods, it simply and
accurately represents the complex surface in the domain without body-fitted meshes. However, its accuracy is limited by the
resolution of the computational grid, and the cell size should be less than the minimal feature of the structures to avoid unrecognized
failure. Thus, the cell size is recommended to be smaller than 6 mm, which is the thickness of the shell and cylinder. Under
such circumstances, the total amounts of meshes would reach tens of millions, which would cost unacceptable enormous time
and computational resources.
Hence, the thickness of the shell and cylinder have been optimized from 6 mm to 60 mm manually, in a bid to increase the
mesh cell size. As the tenfold thickness of shell and cylinder have been operated, the specific heat values of the materials have been
reduced correspondingly by the factor of increased volume, to maintain the heat absorption capacity unchanged.

3.3. Model validation

The results of the self-pressurization experiment [7] of a 9-inches spherical liquid hydrogen tank conducted by NASA in the
1960s were used to validate the results of the numerical model. Validation is performed in two steps, the construction of the initial
conditions of the experiment (Case A) and the self-pressurization simulation experiment (Case B) are completed sequentially. In order
to solve the problem that the liquid hydrogen tank wall is too thin for analysis, the previously mentioned thickening operation is
used.
Seven probes, whose positions are the same as those in the experiment, are set in three regions. R1 ∼ R5 is located in the bulk
gas region, while R12 is set in the liquid region, and N30 is cling to the inner side of the tank wall.
In Case A, a simulated environment similar to the experiment conditions is established. At the start of Case A, a amount of heat
was imposed on the spherical tank until 5.0 s. And the initial working pressure of the experiment, 1.13 bar, was basically reached
in the sphere at 27.2 s. The temperature results of the probes at this moment, and the temperature distribution inside the spherical
tank and are shown in Fig. 2(a) and (b), respectively. The comparison between the experiment’s initial conditions and simulation
data are listed in Table 1. The simulation temperature in the bulk liquid hydrogen, referring to the Probe R12, has 0.15 K differences
with the experiment data, which accounts 0.74% in the digit of temperature collected in the experiment. The difference rates of the
other probes are between 13% ∼ 34%. But because the mass of the gas phase is rather few compared with that of the bulk liquid,
and the heat storage capacity is not strong, the unstable temperature distribution has a great impact on the temperature value of
gas, resulting in the deviation between the experiment and simulation.
In Case B, the spiral heater inside the vacuum layer of the sphere tank generates heat to the liquid hydrogen with 205 W/m2
heat flux, and the temperature and pressure results of some probes in 80 s are shown in Fig. 2(c) and (d). In this case, probes
R5, R12, and N30 collect the temperature in three regions, including the gas phase region, the liquid phase region, and the tank
wall, respectively. As can be seen from the figure, the temperature results of the three sensors are in good agreement with the
experiment data. In the pressure plot, there is a difference between the two results with an error rate of less than 10%. However,
both the simulation results and the experiment data share an approximate growth rate since 25 s, which illustrates the system in
the simulation gained a similar ability of pressure increase comparing the counterpart condition. In summary, the reliability of the
model is effectively proved by the calculation results.

6
L. Shihao et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 40 (2022) 102520

Fig. 2. Probes position, temperature and pressure comparison of model validation.

Table 2
Simulation design and key parameters of cases.
Case Filling Level 𝑛 Heat Aim(s)
1 0.5 \ 1× controlled trial
2 0.9 \ 1× higher filling level
3 0.5 0.5 1× sloshing
4 0.5 \ 100×
massive heat leakage
5 0.5 \ 1000×
6 0.5 0.5 100× massive heat leakage
7 0.5 0.5 1000× & sloshing

4. Results and discussions

In this study, filling level, sloshing condition, and massive heat leakage are taken into consideration as the factors that impact the
pressurization and temperature increase of the tank. Filling level and sloshing are two typical features of general working conditions.
Yet massive heat leakage is a factor signaling emergencies, including the loss of vacuum insulation, and heated by flames.
Seven cases in four control groups involving those factors and their combination are analyzed to quantify the influence,
respectively. Key parameters of those seven cases are listed in Table 2.
Two situations are considered as the termination conditions of the calculation.

• Ullage pressure of the tank reaches 1 MPa;

• Duration of the case lasts for more than 10,000 s.

If either were met, the simulation would stop immediately. Thus, except Case 1 ∼ 3, other cases’ duration are all less than 10,000 s.

Case 1 is the controlled trial of the four simulation groups, with static-storage state and normal heat leakage. The filling level
of it is 50%, whose free surface is located around the plane z = 0. Compared with Case 1, the filling level of Case 2 increases to
90%, and its height reaches about 0.68 m.

7
L. Shihao et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 40 (2022) 102520

In the sloshing condition (Case 3), the filling level of the tank is also 50%. Besides, it endures a sinusoidal excitation along the
𝑥-axis which can be expressed as:

𝑎𝑥 = 𝐴EX sin(𝜔EX ⋅ 𝑡), (12)

where 𝑎𝑥 is the acceleration along the 𝑥-axis, 𝐴EX is the amplitude with the value of 0.3 m/s2 . 𝜔EX is the frequency of the sinusoidal
excitation, which is also the product of coefficient 𝑛 and the natural frequency 𝜔mn of the liquid in sloshing modes, and can be
expressed as 𝜔EX = 𝑛 ⋅ 𝜔mn .
The natural frequency of liquid in the tank is determined by the mode of horizontal cylinders subjected to longitudinal
excitation [32], as the result of treating the cylinder as a circular cylindrical tank. The value of the natural frequency of the liquid
under 50% filling level in the cylinder is about 3.541 rad/s.
In the massive heat leakage conditions (Case 4 & 5), the heat magnitude was set as the multiples of the heat flux mentioned
in Section 3.1. It is worth mentioning that, the heat flux of MLI under 20 K but 1 atm pressure is also given as 7.61 W/m2 [29].
That indicates a fact of the well performed MLI in Case 1 contributing to the slump in heat leakages by at least 90.47%. Thus, the
heat flux of MLI under vacuum-lost conditions is approximately 10 times that of the controlled trial case. So, it is clear that both
100 and 1000 times heat leakage are excessive and seldom seen in real situations. Therefore, those are enough to emulate possible
vacuum loss and even severe fire occasions.
Case 6 and Case 7 are the mixed conditions of sloshing plus massive heat leakage. They represent the analog situations where
the tank endures vacuum totally loss or fire burning while transporting.

4.1. Control group 1: Influence of filling level

Several probes are used to collect temperature and pressure variation of the fluid, which is shown in Fig. 3(a). Probes are evenly
interspersed in the fluid phases along the line 𝑥 = 3 m on the plane XOZ. Specially, there is a probe Ps near the free surface in this
condition of 50% filling level.
Fig. 3(b) shows the temperature variation of probes in Case 1. Probe Pg1 , Pg2 and Pg3 are located in the gas region, and their
data are depicted as lines with colored markers in the figure. Other probes are at or beneath the free surface, and their temperature
are depicted with dash lines.
Starting from 20.36 K, probes in the liquid region grow steadily and reach 20.89 K approximately at the final moment. In the
same manner, the probes above the free surface obtain optimistic temperature increase, but there is a significant distinction in
the growth rate: the closer to the top of the tank vertically, the more temperature increment gains. Although the growth rate of
temperatures drop after the 4000th second and nearly goes flat after 6000th second, the temperature of Pg3 at the highest position
still rises to 22.5 K, and its increment is roughly twofold as that of Pg2 Attributed to closing to the liquid, the temperature increase
of the probe at 𝑧 = 0.3 m is not as impressive as that of those probes in the gas-phase region, consequently only slightly higher than
the free surface’s temperature by 0.1 K.
The subfigure (c) of Fig. 3 includes the temperature contours on the XOZ plane at the 2500th, 5000th, 7500th and 10000th
second. Thermal stratification occurs vertically in the tank, and the temperature range in the cylinder continues to expand from
0.9 K to about 2.2 K. At the final moment, the highest temperature of the liquid reaches about 23.2 K, while the lowest is about
21.0 K.
As shown in Fig. 4(a), Case 2 adapted a different set of probes’ position, which is designed for filling level of 90%.
In Fig. 4(b), the temperature data collected by probes of Case 2 are depicted in the same way as in Case 1. The temperature of
the probes above the free surface periodically fluctuates with quite limited increasing tendency. In addition, although the regularity
of ‘‘positive correlation between temperature and height’’ in the gas region of Case 1 is still effective, the temperature difference in
Case 2 is not obvious. On the other hand, the liquid part also achieves steady growth, with an increment of 0.95 K at 𝑡 = 10000 s.
However, it should be pointed out that the temperatures of the three probes beneath the free surface are almost the same after the
beginning of the simulation. In other words, the thermal stratification in the liquid phase region of Case 2 is not apparent at the
0.01 K level. Furthermore, although the tank wall continues to heat the gas phase area, free convection leads the heated gas and the
cooler gas close to the free surface to mix in a small confined volume. That results in a sophisticated flow action, so the temperature
range in the gas phase area is not as great as in Case 1.
Seven line probes, along the 𝑦-axis on three YZ planes, are used to reflect the horizontal temperature change of fluid at the
6000th second. The selected plane is vertical to line 𝑥 = 1 m, 𝑥 = 3 m and 𝑥 = 5 m respectively. Three line probes capture the gas
region data, while the rest record the liquid region. In the gas region, the temperature of the majority line probes along the 𝑦-axis
dips in 0.02 K first, then fluctuates and finally rises again. In the liquid region, all the temperature profiles fluctuate in the range
of 0.001 K and the most present an upward trend. Apparently, in a YZ plane, subjected to the heat transfer from the tank wall, a
ring contiguous to the tank wall has a warmer temperature distribution than the circle surrounded by the annular shape. It is worth
mentioning that, the temperature in the liquid region of the plane 𝑥 = 5 m is warmer than that of 𝑥 = 1 m and 𝑥 = 3 m, which can
be explained by heat transfer from the tank wall again. But apparently, the temperature changes on all the lines along the 𝑦-axis
are quite limited, which indicates that taking any points along the 𝑦-axis direction to study and discuss the temperature change will
not affect the accuracy of the results‘ trend.

8
L. Shihao et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 40 (2022) 102520

Fig. 3. Controlled trial—Temperature variation and contours of Case 1.

4.2. Control group 2: Influence of sloshing

Sloshing condition roughly imitates the road transportation situations of the tank. In this subsection, an analysis approach similar
to the former group is applied.
Shown in Fig. 5, seven probes whose coordinates are the same as those used in Case 1 record the temperature variation of the
fluids. Nonetheless, there are different phenomena from Case 1. Probes in both gas and liquid region obtain a linear temperature
growth and reach 25.7 ∼ 25.9 K at the final moment. The maximum temperature increment in the liquid region of Case 3 is about
tenfold greater than such amount of Case 1, while the increment in the vapor region of Case 3 is 2.6 times greater than that of the
controlled trial. Noticed that, the temperature of the upper probes is still warmer than the lower one, which can be substantiated
in the enlarged subgraph.
Such distinctions can be explained by sloshing conditions. Taken the moment of the 500th second of Case 1 and 3 as examples,
Fig. 6(a) and (b) are the temperature and vector contours of Case 1, while Fig. 6(c) and (d) are the contours of Case 3. In Case 1,
the majority liquid are quasi-static, except the hydrogen near the free surface which is driven upforward by natural convection at a
speed of no higher than 0.15 m/s. Yet in Case 3, led by the forced sinusoidal movement, the same phase liquid rolls up and down
at a mean velocity of 0.7 m/s, causing an even distribution of external thermal energy in liquid. Thus, the temperature range of
Case 3 is only 0.15 K, comparing over 0.4 K in the controlled case.
By and large, the temperature difference between vapor and liquid is diminished by forced convection on account of the
continuous sloshing. Thus, the structure of thermal stratification is almost destroyed, and the temperature gains subtle changes
along the vertical lines. Furthermore, the internal energy, which is transformed from kinetic energy due to the velocity difference
of the viscous fluid, macroscopically manifests as increments in fluid temperature.

9
L. Shihao et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 40 (2022) 102520

Fig. 4. Group 1—Temperature variation of Case 2.

Fig. 5. Group 2—Temperature variation of Case 3.

4.3. Control group 3: Influence of massive heat leakage

In this part, the heat flux of Case 4 and Case 5 are respectively enlarged by 100 times and 1000 times compared with the previous
cases. Due to the intense pressure rise, those simulations’ duration are all less than 10000 s. More specifically, Case 4 lasts 9000 s
while the time span of Case 5 is only 1000 s.
Fig. 7 shows the temperature and pressure variations in the vertical direction of Case 4 and 5. In the beginning, the temperature
of the probes in the vapor region increased steeply. Then, the growth of temperature in Case 4 slowed down after the 1000th second,
and the three probes’ temperatures reach their maximum which are 74.2 K, 45.7 K, and 25.1 K during 0 ∼ 2000 s, respectively.
Since the 3000th second, the temperatures in both phases of hydrogen gain a similar increment rate.
While in Case 5, after the 300th second, the temperature growth stagnates and fluctuates within a certain range. However, the
higher the position is, the wider the fluctuation range it possesses. For example, the temperature of the probe at 𝑧 = 0.9 m fluctuates

10
L. Shihao et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 40 (2022) 102520

Fig. 6. Group 2—Temperature and vector contours of Case 1, 3 @ 500 s.

in the range of 300 ± 50 K, while that of the probe at 𝑧 = 0.3 m fluctuates within 65 ± 10 K. In the area of free surface and below,
the temperatures of the two cases have achieved a steady increase. But the fluid temperature of Case 5 rises to around 30 K, while
it is only about 22.5 K in Case 4.
Fig. 8 shows the temperature and vector contours on a YOZ plane (𝑥 = 3 m) of Case 1, 4 and 5, which can illustrate the intensity
of convection and phase change in a visualized method.
As shown in Fig. 8, the overall fluid behavior of Case 1 is the most complicated. The fluid area in the controlled trial has slow
natural convection flowing along the tank wall, which moves upward in the gas phase area and flows downward in the liquid region.
Near the brink of the free surface, there is a relatively fast flow, while the rest fluid flows disorderly. Owing to the temperature
range in the gas phase area of Case 4 exceeding 50 K, the vapor near the centerline of the tank appears upward convection, while the
liquid near the edge of the tank wall has upward convection along with it. Consequently, a clockwise vortex across the two phases

11
L. Shihao et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 40 (2022) 102520

Fig. 7. Group 3—Temperature variation of Case 4 & 5.

formed, with its center is located at the midpoint of the free surface. The temperature difference in the gas region of Case 5 is over
250 K, thus the direction of convection movement is consistent vertically upwards. The liquid flows up and inward rapidly along
the tank wall, which forms a small vortex at the bottom of the tank, and contributes to another factor of significant convection.
However, there is a difference between the previous two cases. The fastest flow of Case 5 occurs on the tank wall in the liquid
region, instead of at the brink of the free surface. The vector contour also indicates that Case 5 has significant evaporation on the
free surface, rather than condensation or even two-direction phase change presented in the former two cases.

4.4. Control group 4: Influence of the combination of sloshing and massive heat leakage

Plus the sloshing condition introduced in 4.2, Case 4 and Case 5 are formed Case 6 and Case 7 separately. Fig. 9(a) shows the
temperature variation of the aforementioned two cases. Similar to the former cases, the duration of the new two are 6450 s and
1000 s, respectively.
As shown in the upper part of Fig. 9, compared with the temperature variation of Case 4, the temperature of Case 6 is roughly
the same, and the differences are concentrated in three aspects. Firstly, the maximum temperature of the probes is about 36 K,
which is much lower than the 74 K in Case 4. It occurs at the final moment rather than the rapid temperature increase period in
the early stage of the simulation. Secondly, the stabilization speed of the temperature difference at each probe in the gas phase
region is greatly accelerated, and a relatively stable thermal stratification has been formed around the 1000th second. Thirdly, the
temperature of liquid hydrogen still maintains a linear increase, but the average temperature increment rate of Case 6 increases
from 0.492%/100 s in Case 4 to 0.715%/100 s. The maximum temperature of the detection point Pl3 also increases from 30.028 K
to 30.985 K.
It can be seen in the subfigure (b) of Fig. 9 that, the temperature variation pattern of each probe in Case 7 is also very similar
to Case 5. And they also share an indistinguishable pattern of the temperature difference between Case 4 and Case 6. In the first
place, the maximum temperature among all the probes in Case 7 is 71.33 K, which is much lower than the 325.33 K in Case 5.
Besides, the time of the formation for the stable thermal stratification is shortened from about 800 s to about 550 s. Nevertheless,
the average temperature increment rate also increases from 3.986%/100 s to 4.318%/100 s, so the temperature of liquid hydrogen
reaches 31 K at the 1000th second, which is only about 1 K lower than Case 5.

12
L. Shihao et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 40 (2022) 102520

Fig. 8. Group 3—Temperature and vector contours of Case 1, 4, 5 @ 800 s.

Obviously, sloshing can effectively reduce the maximum temperature of the gas phase space in the case of massive heat leakage,
and accelerate the formation of stable thermal stratification. This will help reduce the pressure rise caused by overheating, and help
prolong the dormancy in the case of large-scale heat leakage. However, due to the inevitable kinetic energy conversion into internal
energy, the overall temperature of the liquid phase fluid is increased, resulting in the shortening of dormancy.

4.5. Variation of tank pressure and hydrogen mass

4.5.1. Variation of pressure

For cryogenics containers, the period from the filling process completeness to the safety valve jumping off is called dormancy.
Theoretically, the longer the dormancy is, the less liquid cryogenics loss has in the containers. Therefore, dormancy is a crucial basis
for evaluating the maintenance capacity of an LH2 tank, while the pressure of the ullage affects the dormancy directly and mostly.
Fig. 10(a) shows the pressure variation results of all seven cases.
Except for Case 1 ∼ 3, the other cases reach or exceed the safety valve jumping-off pressure of 1 MPa in 10,000 s. Among them,
Case 3 reaches 0.369 MPa before the end of the simulation, Case 1 and Case 2 are 0.118 MPa and 0.104 MPa, respectively. For the
cases that reach the pressure of 1 MPa in advance, Case 4 takes 9000 s, which is the longest among the four cases. Case 6 takes
6450 s, while the pressure of Case 5 and Case 7 are very close to 1 MPa at the 1000th second, so both stop at the moment. But
there is still a gap of about 0.019 MPa between the two’s pressure, so Case 7 is still slightly faster than Case 5. Comparing the three
sets of cases between Case 1 and Case 3, Case 4 and Case 6, as well as Case 5 and Case 7, it can be seen that with the frequency of
0.5𝜔mn of sloshing, the tank’s pressure will increase, but its effect will be negligible with the soaring of heat leakage.
The polynomial fitting is performed on the pressures of Case 1 ∼ 3. The calculations indicate that the time required for the
pressure to reach 1 MPa is 4.548 days, 13.843 days and 0.236 days, respectively. The fitting results are shown in Table 3.
In addition, except for Case 1 & 2 where the pressure increases slowly, the pressure curves of other cases are all nonlinear,
which can be confirmed theoretically. According to the ideal gas equation, the gas pressure 𝑃 of the tank is related to the gas’
volume, temperature, and mass. However, the results show that the change rate of the gas phase volume is about 1h/500 s, which
is insignificant compared with the changes in hydrogen mass and temperature. And that indicates the volume of the gas region
can be regarded as a constant. Therefore, the pressure of the tank is simplified as a physical quantity that is linearly related to the
hydrogen temperature and mass.

13
L. Shihao et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 40 (2022) 102520

Fig. 9. Group 4—Temperature variation of Case 6 & 7.

Table 3
Estimated dormancy of three cases.
Case Fit equation 𝑅2 Estimated dormancy
2
1 𝑦 = 2.000E–6𝑥 97.35% 4.548(d)
+1.496𝑥 + 1.032E5
2 𝑦 = 4.320E–7𝑥2 99.99% 13.843(d)
+0.273𝑥 + 1.013E5
3 𝑦 = 1.600E–3𝑥2 99.98% 0.236(d)
+11.398𝑥 + 1.018E5

4.5.2. Variation of hydrogen mass

Fig. 10(b) gives the variation of hydrogen mass in the gas region. At the initial moment, except that the hydrogen mass of Case
2 is 2.428 kg, the other cases with a 50% filling level are 6.123 kg. For cases with small heat leakage, such as Case 1 & 2, the
hydrogen mass increment is relatively small, where the growth rate is less than 20% during the whole simulation. The hydrogen
mass in case 3 increases linearly and reaches 11.853 kg. For the cases with massive heat leakage, the mass growth rates of them is
significantly greater than that of the formers. And the rate of the 1000 times heat leakage cases is significantly greater than that of
the 100 times.
Particularly, both Case 5 and 7 experience a decrease in the hydrogen mass in the early stage. This is related to the instability
of the thermal balance at the initial moment of the simulation. In detail, part of the hydrogen in the gas phase region near the free
surface condenses, resulting in a decrease in the quality of the hydrogen. As the large-scale heat leakage continues, the superheated
liquid hydrogen continues to evaporate, so that the hydrogen mass resumes growth. A similar situation also occurs in the other
cases, but it is not well represented in the figure due to the long sampling interval.
Since the hydrogen temperature and mass keep increasing with time in each case, the pressure of the tank should increase
nonlinearly with the variation of time.

14
L. Shihao et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 40 (2022) 102520

Fig. 10. Pressure and evaporated hydrogen mass comparison among seven cases.

Fig. A.1. Pressure comparison among different meshes.

5. Conclusions

In this study, a numerical simulation of the thermal dynamic behavior of LH2 in a 40-foot ISO tank is conducted, and a series of
key factors including high filling level, sloshing and massive heat leakage are analyzed, with a controlled trial case. Several valuable
conclusions and suggestions are acquired from the results for the tank as follows.

(1) Compared with the controlled trial case, the pressure of the higher filling level scenario at the final moment is reduced by
12.09%, which is a effective sign of a prolonged dormancy.

15
L. Shihao et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 40 (2022) 102520

(2) Sloshing conditions do destroy the thermal stratification, but the ullage pressure increased by 99.01% compared to the
controlled trial, as the ramification of more internal energy being transformed from kinetic energy under half of 𝜔mn frequency
excitation, which shortens the dormancy of LH2 by 94.81%.
(3) 100 times and 1000 times of heat leakage boost the forming of thermal stratification. Besides, in the scenarios of the
combination of sloshing and large-scale heat leakage, the temperature difference of the thermal stratification is significantly
reduced, and the formation of a stable thermal stratification is accelerated.
(4) After the first delivery of the tank-stored LH2 transportation to the refilling stations, more attention is needed to the ullage
pressure, because the filling level of the tank drops, and considerable internal energy accrues as the liquid endures hours of
high-density sloshing behaviors.
(5) Under emergency conditions such as loss of vacuum or fire, the safe time for the LH2 trailers to evacuate to a safe area is
more than 20 min. It is recommended that the transportation company should design an plan for emergencies in advance,
avoiding driving in closed environments such as culverts and tunnels after the safe time. And make sure that the evaporated
gas will be released in open and higher terrain.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Li Shihao: Writing – original draft, Software, Visualization. Yan Yan: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Funding
acquisition. Wei Wei: Methodology, Writing – review & editing. Wang Zhao: Project administration, Funding acquisition. Ni
Zhonghua: Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

The authors do not have permission to share data.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Project of Emission Peak and Carbon Neutrality of Jiangsu Province, China (grant number
BE2022001-2), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 51905093).

Appendix. Mesh independence analysis

Five uniformed meshes are compared, with total amounts of 235,410 (cell size = 45 mm), 336,600 (40 mm), 500,175 (35 mm),
792,000 (30 mm), and 1,025,472 (27.5 mm).
The LH2 tank with 50% filling level is under a longitude (𝑥-axis direction) sinusoidal acceleration excitation whose expression
is the same as Eq. (12). Here, the amplitude 𝐴EX equals to 1.0 m/s2 , 𝜔EX , 𝜔EX is with the value of 3.14 rad/s. A probe is set to
monitor the absolute pressure of the ullage. It is located at (3 m, 0 m, 0.5 m), which is the middle point of the gas region. The
pressure data are shown as Fig. A.1.
It can be seen with the increase of calculated mesh numbers, pressure results of five meshes at different moments all have
increased trends. However, with the increase in the number of meshes, the calculation results of pressure are gradually stabilized.
Especially in the 20th second, the calculation results of the three latter meshes had almost no obvious fluctuation, while the
maximum calculation errors between 3 meshes in other moments were less than 0.1%. Therefore, it is suggested that when the
mesh amounts increase to 500175, the calculated results have independent with the mesh. For the present study, the mesh with
792000 meshes is selected for the following investigation, as the trade-off between accuracy and efficiency.

References

[1] J. Andersson, S. Grönkvist, Large-scale storage of hydrogen, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44 (2019) 11901–11919, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.
03.063.
[2] R.R. Ratnakar, N. Gupta, K. Zhang, C. van Doorne, J. Fesmire, B. Dindoruk, V. Balakotaiah, Hydrogen supply chain and challenges in large-scale LH2
storage and transportation, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46 (2021) 24149–24168, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.05.025.
[3] M. Aziz, Liquid hydrogen: A review on liquefaction, storage, transportation, and safety, Energies 14 (2021) 5917, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14185917,
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/18/5917.
[4] P. Srikanth, S.H. Collicott, Estimation of thin-film contribution in phase change calculations involving cryogenic propellants, J. Spacecr. Rockets 56 (2019)
1646–1650, http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.A34495.
[5] Y.M. Han, R.Z. Wang, Y.J. Dai, Thermal stratification within the water tank, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (2009) 1014–1026, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2008.03.001.
[6] J. Fu, Research on Self-Pressurization Phenomenon and Liquid Volume Measurement Method in Low Temperature Propellant Storage (Ph.D. thesis), National
University of Defense Technology, 2014.

16
L. Shihao et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 40 (2022) 102520

[7] J.C. Aydelott, Normal Gravity Self-Pressurization of 9-Inch-/23 cm/Diameter Spherical Liquid Hydrogen Tankage, Technical Report, NASA, 1967,
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19670028965/downloads/19670028965.pdf.
[8] N.T. Van Dresar, C.S. Lin, M.M. Hasan, Self-pressurization of a flightweight liquid hydrogen tank: Effects of fill level at low heat flux, in: 30th Aerospace
Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, 1992, http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/6.1992-818.
[9] S. Barsi, M. Kassemi, Investigation of tank pressurization and pressure control — Part I: Experimental study, J. Therm. Sci. Eng. Appl. (2013)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4023891.
[10] S. Barsi, M. Kassemi, Investigation of tank pressurization and pressure control — Part II: Numerical modeling, J. Therm. Sci. Eng. Appl. (2013)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4023892.
[11] J. Joseph, G. Agrawal, D.K. Agarwal, J.C. Pisharady, S.S. Kumar, Effect of insulation thickness on pressure evolution and thermal stratification in a
cryogenic tank, Appl. Therm. Eng. 111 (2017) 1629–1639, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.07.015.
[12] X. Cheng, Y. Li, Characteristics analysis of cryogenic thermal stratification, Cryogenics (2011) 32–36.
[13] R. Zhou, W.L. Zhu, Z. Hu, S. Wang, H. Xie, X. Zhang, Simulations on effects of rated ullage pressure on the evaporation rate of liquid hydrogen tank, Int.
J. Heat Mass Transfer 134 (2019) 842–851, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHEATMASSTRANSFER.2019.01.091.
[14] Y. Jiang, Y. Yu, Z. Wang, S. Zhang, J. Cao, CFD simulation of heat transfer and phase change characteristics of the cryogenic liquid hydrogen tank under
microgravity conditions, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy (2022) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2022.04.006.
[15] M.E. Moran, N.B. Mcnelis, M.T. Kudlac, M.S. Haberbusch, G.A. Satornino, Experimental Results of Hydrogen Slosh in a 62 Cubic Foot (1750 Liter) Tank,
Technical Report, NASA, 1994.
[16] S. Kim, Sloshing in liquid hydrogen and LOX propellant tanks after main engine cut-off, in: JANNAF 5th Spacecraft Propulsion Subcommittee Meeting,
Huntsville, AL, 2011.
[17] S. Odahara, Effect of Sloshing on Boil Off Rate of Liquid Hydrogen in Spherical Tank, Technical Report, Kagoshima National College of Technology, 2013.
[18] Y. Yan, Z. Ni, X. Liu, J. Yin, Numerical study of bottom shape effect on pressure performance in a sloshing FLNG membrane tank, in: ASME 2017 36th
International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2017-61008, V001T01A029.
[19] Y. Yan, J.M. Pfotenhauer, F. Miller, Z. Ni, Numerical study of free surface flow in a 3-dimensional FLNG tank under coupled rotational–heave excitations,
J. Mar. Sci. Technol. (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00773-017-0467-5.
[20] Z. Liu, Y. Feng, G. Lei, Y. Li, Fluid sloshing dynamic performance in a liquid hydrogen tank, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44 (2019) 13885–13894,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.04.014.
[21] Z. Liu, Y. Feng, Y. Liu, G. Lei, Y. Li, Fluid sloshing dynamic performance in a fuel storage tank under sinusoidal excitations, Appl. Therm. Eng. 168 (2020)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.114814.
[22] Y. Qiu, M. Bai, Y. Liu, G. Lei, Z. Liu, Effect of liquid filling level on sloshing hydrodynamic characteristic under the first natural frequency, J. Energy
Storage 55 (2022) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2022.105452.
[23] G.D. Grayson, Coupled thermodynamic-fluid-dynamic solution for a liquid-hydrogen tank, J. Spacecr. Rockets 32 (1995) 918–921, http://dx.doi.org/10.
2514/3.26706.
[24] G.D. Grayson, J. Navickas, Interaction between fluid-dynamic and thermodynamic phenomena in a cryogenic upper stage, in: AlAA 28th Thermophysics
Conference, 1993, p. p. 2753, http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/6.1993-2753.
[25] Flow-Science, FLOW-3D Documentation Release 11.2.0, 2016.
[26] E.W. Lemmon, I.H. Bell, M.L. Huber, M.O. McLinden, NIST standard reference database 23: Reference fluid thermodynamic and transport
properties-REFPROP, version 10.0, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Standard Reference Data Program, Gaithersburg, 2018.
[27] J.G. Collier, J.R. Thome, Convective Boiling and Condensation, Clarendon Press, 1994.
[28] M. Barkhudarov, Two-Field Temperature Model for Two-Fluid Flows, Technical Report, Flow Science, 2019.
[29] J. Zheng, L. Chen, J. Wang, X. Xi, H. Zhu, Y. Zhou, J. Wang, Thermodynamic analysis and comparison of four insulation schemes for liquid hydrogen
storage tank, Energy Convers. Manage. 186 (2019) 526–534, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.02.073.
[30] T.K. Chu, C.Y. Ho, Thermal conductivity and electrical resistivity of eight selected aisi stainless steels, in: Thermal Conductivity 15, Springer, 1978, pp.
79–104, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9083-5_12.
[31] R.H. Bogaard, P.D.D. H., Thermophysical properties of stainless steels, Thermochim. Acta (1993) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0040-6031(93)80437-F.
[32] J.L. MacCarty, D.G. Stephens, Investigation of the Natural Frequencies of Fluids in Spherical and Cylindrical Tanks, volume 252, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, 1960, p. 5.

17