You are on page 1of 78

INVESTIGATIONS OF THE EFFECT OF SIPHON

DRAIN AND TANK BOTTOM SHAPE ON BATHTUB


VORTEX AND CRITICAL HEIGHT
THESIS REPORT
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
award of the Degree of Master of Technology in Mechanical
Engineering (Thermal Science)
of the University of Kerala

Submitted by
G NAGESWARAN
M.Tech Thermal Science
Reg No: 11400004

Guided by
Dr S ANIL LAL
Professor

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING


COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING TRIVANDRUM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-16
January 2015
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I have great pleasure to express my gratitude and obligation to Dr. S. Anil Lal, Professor,
in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum, for his
valuable guidance, constant encouragement, motivation and innovative suggestions to complete
this thesis work successfully. It was his guidance that shaped this thesis.

I express my sincere thanks to Prof G L Aswinikumar, Head of the Department and Dr.
Jayaraj K, Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering for their support, suggestions
and encouragement towards this thesis work. I also acknowledge with gratitude, the whole
hearted support rendered by other faculty of the department.

I express my sincere thanks to Prof T M Mohan PG Coordinator, in the Department of


Mechanical Engineering, for his constant support and encouragement in the project work.

I express my sincere thanks to Prof J. Meerakumari Head of the Department, Evening


degree courses, for her constant support and encouragement throughout the project work.

I also acknowledge the technical support rendered by Dr. Muthukumar Deputy Director,
S/Shri. Srinivas, Viswanath, Kumaresan and Sarath of MDA entity of LPSC.I immensely
indebted to my team members S/Shri.Amalnath and Sanjay, without whose support testing on
model tanks would not have been possible. Their involvement in realising the test article,
assembly and disassembly of the siphons preparing the test facility as well as in executing the
experimental work with perfection was truly professional and is acknowledged.

I also take this opportunity to acknowledge my gratitude to my family and friends, who
offered valuable suggestion and encouragement to complete this thesis. I sincerely express thanks
to Ms. Jayashree, Engineer PRS/LPSC for guiding me in ‘MATLAB’ programs and help in
analytical solution of the governing equations, which provided very valuable insight into the air-
core vortex behaviour.

Above all, I record my indebtedness to the God Almighty who gave me the wisdom and
strength to conceive and complete this thesis work successfully.

Thiruvananthapuram
31-01-2015 G NAGESWARAN
ABSTRACT

Bath tub vortex occurs during draining a liquid from a tank, when free surface reaches a
‘critical height’. Critical height for flat bottom tanks has been extensively studied by analysis and
experiments. The effect of tank bottom shape and siphon drain has not been investigated much.
Liquid propellant tanks especially cryogenic tanks commonly employ spherical tank bottom with
siphon drain and so such an investigation is of current interest.
In this thesis work, bath tub vortex behavior is investigated for 1) siphon in flat tank, 2)
spherical bottom with downward drain and 3) siphon in spherical tank bottom. The governing
equation for these aspects is derived after minor modifications to Lubin Springer method,
considering the parameters like siphon size, height from tank bottom and tank bottom
radius.Solution methods for these equations are derived to obtain critical height. When compared
with Lubin Springer critical height, the siphon drain can have lower or higher critical height
depending on siphon size and height. Spherical tank bottom gives higher critical height for both
downward and siphon drain than the corresponding flat bottom tanks.
Experiments were carried out to verify the results and confirm the modeling. Around
sixty tests were done on a 1:5 scaled model transparent tank with flat bottom.Non-dimensional
similarity was applied on variations in flow rate, bell-mouth size and height.The effect of
variations on critical height was assessed from the tests. The critical height data from the tests
matched well with analytical results, confirming correctness of the model.Using this model, an
optimal siphon drain is designed and recommended for a new booster liquid stage which shall
result in less critical height and so reduce the left-out mass.
Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

CONTENTS

List of figures
List of tables
1. Introduction ……… 1
2. Literature review ……… 4
2.1 Review of literature ……….5
2.2 Summary of literature review and identification of gaps ……….8
3. Problem definition and objective of thesis work ……….9
3.1 Problem definition and objectives ……….9
3.2 Analytical study ……….9
3.3 Experimental study ………10
4. Analytical studies for bath tub vortex ………11
4.1 Analytical model for drain vortex ………12
4.2 Analytical model for siphon drain ………15
4.3 Analysis for spherical bottom effect ………21
4.3 Analysis for siphon drain from spherical dome tanks ………24
4.4 Assessment for flight conditions ………28
4.5 Summary of analytical model results ………28
5. Experiments for siphon drain on a model tank ………30
5.1 Operational liquid stage and scaled model ………30
5.2 Estimation of equivalent flow rates ..……..33
5.3 Model tank and siphon details ………34
6. Test setup design and sequence ………37
6.1 Orifice sizing ………37
6.2 Varying parameters for test ………38
6.3 Test setup and data recording ………39
6.4 Test procedure and sequence ………40
6.5 Test parameter variations ………40
6.6 Summary of test setup and test sequence ………41
7 Test data analysis and comparison with analytical results ………42
7.1 Test data analysis ………42
7.2 Test results comparison with analytical results ………45
7.3 Summary of observations …........45
8 Design of a siphon for liquid propellant tank ………53

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum i


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

8.1 Assessment of existing design ………53


8.2 Siphon design approach ………54
8.3 Effect of acceleration ………55
8.4 Results of parametric studies ………55
8.5 Critical flow area ………56
8.6 Bell mouth size optimization ………56
8.7 Design of siphon for liquid propellant tank ………59
8.8 Overall assessment for liquid booster stage ………65
9 Conclusions ………68
References ………69

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum ii


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Bath tab vortex phenomenon


2. Analytical model for drain vortex
3. Analytical results for critical height
4. Analytical results for surface dip (Hc – Hd)
5. Non- dimensional critical height
6. Analytical model for siphon drain from flat bottom tank
7. Critical height for siphon with two flow rates
8. Critical height for siphon and normal drain
9. Non- dimensional critical height for siphon drain
10. Effect of siphon gap ‘h’
11. Effect of siphon radius ‘a’
12. Effect of siphon parameters on Hc*
13. Analytical model for spherical dome tanks
14. Critical height for spherical bottom tanks
15. Analytical model for siphon drain in spherical bottom tank
16. Critical height for siphon in bottom tank
17. Critical height for different configurations
18. Torri-spherical tank bottom design
19. Details of siphon in liquid propellant tank
20. Details of liquid strap-on stage configuration
21. Photograph of Perspex model tank and siphon arrangement
22. 1/5th scaled model tank
23. Siphon scheme for spherical bottom tank
24. Orifices and bell mouths used
25. Ball valve in feedline
26. Assembly of flat bottom
27. Test setup with tank and feed line
28. Bell mouth variations attempted in the experiment
29. Offset of 7mm in the left scale
30. Liquid level crossing 120 and 60 mm
31. Liquid level without and with vortex
32. Video snaps of vortex formation in siphon drain -I

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum iii


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

33. Video snaps of vortex formation in siphon drain -II


34. Video snaps of vortex formation in siphon drain -III
35. Video snaps of vortex formation in siphon drain -IV
36. Critical height analysis results and comparison with test data
37. Liquid booster stage with downward drain
38. Siphon design for liquid booster stage
39. Critical height for strap-on stage 1g and 3g conditions
40. Critical height for booster stage 1g and 3g conditions

LIST OF TABLES
1. Nomenclature used
2. Hc* for siphon in mm.
3. Crtitical height for Spherical bottom tanks
4. Hc* for different flow rates
5. Comparison of critical height in higher acceleration
6. Operation parameters of liquid strap-on stage
7. Design parameters of model tank for experiments
8. Test results analysis for siphon in model tank
9. Siphon in Flat tank Bottom – Model Results covering Test domain
10. Strap-on stage siphon parametric variations and optimization -1g
11. Strap-on stage siphon parametric variations and optimization -3g
12. Comparison of critical height for strap-on stage
13. Booster stage siphon parametric variations and optimization -1g
14. Booster stage siphon parametric variations and optimization -3g
15. Comparison of critical height for booster stage

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum iv


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Table 1. Nomenclature Used

Symbol Description
Ac Flow area of control volume, m2
F Froude number
Hc Height of free surface, m
Hd Height of dimple in control volume, m
Hc* Critical height of free surface, m
Hd* Critical height of dimple, m
P Pressure over free surface, Pa
Q Volume flow rate, m3.s-1
Rd radius of dome, m
U Velocity of fluid m.s-1
V Volume of fluid, m3
a Radius of the siphon bell mouth or radius of drain port, m
Dt Diameter of cylindrical tank, m
g Acceleration due to gravity m.s-2
h Height of siphon from tank bottom, m
∆t Time taken for liquid fall, s
ρl Density of the liquid, kg m-3

ρg Density of the gas, kg m-3

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum v


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION
When a liquid is drained from a storage tank, as liquid level reduces, the gas phase
above the liquid forms a dip or dimple like depression, on the free-surface. When the level
further reduces, this dip accelerates into a deep depression. When the liquid level reaches a
critical value, it further intensifies into an air core vortex which extends suddenly into the drain
hole. This behaviour is popularly known as ‘bathtub vortex’ or ‘air-core vortex entry into the
drain’. Entry of gas core into the drain port causes two phase flow into downward systems.
Most propulsion systems have a centrifugal pump downstream and entry of two phase flow
because of ‘bath tub vortex’, into the pump can lead to cavitation and eventual collapse of
pump delivery head. This when detected as ‘depletion of liquid’ in the tank by on-board
systems, can trigger ‘premature shut-down of liquid stage, resulting in performance loss. Bath
tub vortex is characterized by the following features

- Presence of two fluids in a container, with significant mass density difference


- Acceleration field that causes a free surface separating the fluids
- Draining of one fluid, resulting in the continuous shift in free surface

Bath tub vortex problem has been extensively studied analytically or experimentally for
many applications, such as

a. Propellant left-out in rocket stages or premature shutdown of liquid engine;


b. Coolant circulation inside a nuclear reactor core;
c. Non-availability of pure air over CO2 dominated smoke in a fire fighting service.
The liquid height at which the dimple rapidly grows as ‘air-core vortex’ into drain port is
known as ‘critical height’. A lower critical height indicates a better expulsion and is a merit of
design. Design of in-take of devices is made to minimize the critical height of air core vortex,
so that effective liquid outage can be obtained. Bath tub vortex problem has been investigated
by analytical, numerical and experimental methods for prediction and verification of critical
height. Critical height for downward drain flow from flat bottom tanks is analytically derived,
as a function of flow rate, acceleration field and density of fluids, assuming flow without any
vorticity. Presence of tangential motion (liquid rotation) leads to higher critical height and so
avoided in the design.

Research on ‘bath tub vortex’ focused mainly on assessing the influencing parameters
to minimize actual critical height and help the designers in achieving maximal expulsion

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 1


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

efficiency for the liquid phase, that minimizes the left out, unused liquid in the storage tank. In
liquid rocket propulsion systems, both fuel and oxidizer are carried in separate storage tanks,
mounted axially one above the other. As per structural design, tanks are treated as pressure
vessels and provided with spherical shaped top and bottom. For multiple tanks placed one
above the other, liquid supply line for the upper tank has to be taken radial outward, using a
siphon system and routed outside the lower propellant tank before taken to the engine.

Therefore, spherical bottom tanks are a common practice in rocket propulsion systems,
for an optimal mass to meet the structural margin requirement. Siphon drain from tanks are
normally provided in such spherical bottom tank. These two effects are to be assessed for
critical height of bath-tub vortex included through analytical methods.

- Presence of spherical surface at the tank bottom, against the flat surface analyzed earlier.
- Upward draining using the siphon. With the flow inside the tank has to reverse its flow
direction from downward flow inside the tank to the upward flow inside the siphon bell
mouth. This is different from the downward draining through a hole in tank bottom.

Both the changes viz, spherical tank bottom and siphon drain are to be introduced
simultaneously to the existing analytical model. When both changes are introduced together,
the effect of either of them is not assessed individually, but as the combined effect of both. It
is therefore felt essential, to introduce each change a) effect of tank spherical bottom and b)
upward flowing siphon drain effect independently as well as combined effect of siphon in
spherical bottom tank. This can generate enough data to understand the effect of both siphon
drain and spherical bottom, on the critical height. This understanding is of immense practical
utility and help in designing siphon drain system in spherical bottom tank, since almost all
liquid propellant systems have this configuration.

In this thesis work, the following investigations have been carried out.
a. Bath-tub vortex characteristics while entering into drain port, importance of critical height
and the factors that influence critical height as well as the physics behind the derivation of
the governing expressions and solution techniques are studied.
b. Derive the results from the analytical model, to gain an insight into the factors that lead to
the final solution; suitably modify the model including additional parameters relevant to
vortex for other variations and obtain the governing equation and solution. The results are
extended for the proto liquid propulsion system, accounting for the density of actual fluids
and acceleration conditions at the time of draining in flight.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 2


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

c. The results of analytical study for siphon from flat tank bottom and downward drain flow
from a spherical bottom tank are reported for the first time. Experiments were done on
siphon in flat bottom tank, with variations of influencing parameters to verify the results.
Similar experiments are recommended, on siphon drain flow and downward drain flow
from spherical bottom tanks, as future work.
d. An operational liquid strap-on stage, in which upward draining siphon is provided inside a
spherical bottom tank was selected for model study. A 1/5th scaled model tank and siphon
arrangement was designed, realized using transparent Perspex material and mounted for
experiments. A siphon line with similarity equivalence geometry to flight system,
facilitating variations was realized. Variations of bell-mouth size, siphon height from tank
bottom as well as flow rate were applied in combinations to evaluate critical height and
compare with analytical results.
e. Detail test data analysis was completed, to evaluate the flow rate, critical height under
different combinations and compared with the corresponding analytical results, generated
from the newly proposed model. The assessment was extended to the flight operation
conditions and to confirm the design adequacy of the siphon for the strap-on liquid stage.
f. A new design approach for ‘siphon in spherical bottom tank’ is worked out. Using this
approach, a booster liquid stage working in downward drain from spherical bottom tank,
was studied for an optimal siphon design. A siphon system, optimized by analytical studies
to reduce the critical height significantly under flight environment and increase the useful
propellant quantity, is recommended for the booster liquid stage.

This thesis reports the details of analytical work on critical height for siphon flow in flat
bottom tank, normal flow in spherical tank bottom and a siphon in spherical bottom tank. It
reports the design and configuration details of a model tank, both for geometry as well as for
similarity parameters required for experiments to capture the vortex phenomenon and assess
the critical height. The details of test set up, test plan, sequence, data analysis methodology and
model test results are summarized. The results from experiments are compared with the
analytical results, after suitable interpolation / extrapolation for the actual test measured
parameters. The matching was good and validated the analytical model, solution methodology
as well as understanding of the physics of the problem. Future work related to validation of
other analytical models with spherical tanks is highlighted.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 3


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Bath tub vortex phenomenon had always been an interesting fluid dynamic
phenomenon that attracted many researchers. Practical requirement to assess the adverse
effects of ‘bath tub vortex’ on many operational systems including the space programmes is a
driving force, to further the research. Ever since liquid and cryogenic propellants are used in
launch vehicles, this phenomenon has been under research studies. The studies have been
mainly confined to downward drain of liquid from a storage tank with liquid free surface
through a hole in the bottom of the tank. Research on ‘bath tub vortex’ focused on assessing
the influencing parameters on critical height and reduction of critical height through different
means, with the objective to help the designers, achieve improved expulsion efficiency.

Many researchers had experimentally verified that the vortex rotation of liquids, while
draining from a reservoir, is counter clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the
southern hemisphere, This was explained by Coriolli’s effect, a contribution of earth’s rotation
around its axis and such investigations were part of research on bath tub vortex, earlier. The
vortex motion or liquid rotation is not included in the models that predict critical height. But
CFD analysis as well as experiments could give a theoretical and practical means, to confirm
that presence of vortex motion that intensifies and advances the air-core vortex entry into drain
hole. This results in increase of the critical height and so is not desired. This implied that
vortex formation needs to be avoided.

Anti-vortex baffles, such as cruciform section provided at drain pipe inlet can reduce
the transport of vortex into the drain hole, by straightening the fluid flow as it approaches the
drain port; the tangential component of the fluid motion is arrested at the cruciform section.
Other systems such as base surface inclination, locating the drain port eccentric to the axis of
tank and other similar means have been proved to be effective to reduce the vortex effect and
achieve the critical height closer to that obtained from analytical models without vortex.

Siphon arrangement is used since a long time ago. It is employed as an engineering


solution to route the feed line, rather than its influence on critical height of bath tub vortex.
Spherical bottom tanks are very common in pressurized storage tank design, which gives
optimal mass of tank to meet the structural design. The studies on bath tub vortex for siphon
arrangements are limited.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 4


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

This thesis was initiated for the objective to investigate the effect of siphon drains and
spherical bottom tanks on the liquid draining and formation of vortex, both analytically and
experimentally. The relevant literature are given in ‘References.’ The aspects covered in each
reference, problem investigated by the researchers, results obtained and conclusions drawn as
given in the literature are summarized below.

2.1 Review of literature

Olli Kiviniemi et al[1] in their thesis on scale model experiments using PIV methods
quotes the research work done in Alden Research Laboratory (ALR, 1981) to classify the
vortex strength into six stages, starting from

- Stage 1: Surface swirl or a constant swirl on liquid free surface


- Stage 2: Dimple, a small impression formed in the centre of the swirl
- Stage 3: Dye core or a stream of gas core tries to reach into the intake
- Stage 4: Trash pulling core, vortex pulls the floating trash into drain port
- Stage 5: Gas bubbles along the core enter drain hole after pulled by vortex and
- Stage 6: Full air-core where vortex pulls a constant stream of gas into drain port

This gives a visual picture of how air core vortex initiates as a dip on liquid free surface
and suddenly grows in size to enter the drain hole resulting in gas phase entry into outlet port.
Presence of eddy motion over the centre of vortex is also indicated. Singh, Pavan Kumar [2] in
his Master’s Thesis gives a similar classification with four stages which is also along the
similar lines. It describes how the bath tub vortex phenomenon develops.

Bath tub vortex problem is a phenomenon associated with the free surface flow. Andes
Andersen explains in his PhD thesis [3] the challenges of free surface flow modeling and
solving. The presence of a free surface in fluid flow provides a challenge in modeling, unlike
pipe flow wherein the flow is confined to solid boundary. This is because the free surface is not
a permanent boundary and is also influenced by the flow dynamics underneath and so one has
to assume a free surface and solve iteratively in such fluid flow problems.

Bath tub vortex problem has been investigated by analytical, numerical and
experimental methods for prediction and verification of critical height. Lubin and Springer [4]
analytically derived the relationship for critical height as a function of liquid flow rate for the
downward drain flow from a flat bottom tank. They assumed a hemi-spherical control volume
over the drain port of radius Hd and derived the relationship between this radius and actual
Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 5
Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

liquid level. This paper gave the first analytical approach to the ‘bath tub vortex’ and focused
mainly on assessing the influencing parameters and methods to minimize critical height.
Vortex motion of liquid is not considered in Lubin and Springer study; the actual ‘critical
height’ could be higher than their prediction, if vortex motion is present.

Many investigators focused their study for assessing the influence of rotation motion on
critical height and for proposing alternate design options to reduce liquid vortex motion and
through that, reach a ‘critical height’ close to that derived from Lubin-Springer model. Anti
vortex devices or other methods, that can reduce vortex transport from the periphery to the core
and preventing the tangential velocity component from entering the drain pipe, are developed.
These studies tried to improve and achieve the critical height predicted by that model.

Ramamurthi and John Tharakan [5] studied the influence of spherical bottom tanks on
vortex behavior by experiments. They assessed the effect of an eccentric drain port, base
surface inclination, settling time for filling disturbances, presence of vibration and rotating
motion on critical height and observed that
- Eccentric drain port dissipates the flow disturbances through providing cross-flow and
reduces the critical height
- Base inclination also gives a positive influence on dissipation of disturbances and so
reduces critical height
- Presence of spherical bottom helps in dissipating the disturbances and so reduces the
critical height, by reducing the transport of vortex motion.

B H L Gowda et al [6] investigated the effect of tank bottom surface inclination to


reduce vortex transportation. He concluded through experiments which had several inserts of
inclination varying from 0o to 30o, used two drain port sizes of 6 and 10mm and under 150 rpm
rotating container of 92 mm diameter that

- Presence of inclined base reduced the critical height under rotating motion
- Vortex could be suppressed at base inclination of 20o for 6mm drain and 30o for 10 mm
drain port, due to asymmetry introduced into the flow field.
- At lower inclination than the above (that suppressed the vortex), appearance and
disappearance was seen. This indicated the flow to be reorganized intermittently.

Sohn et al [7] investigated the influence of eccentric positioned drain holes to reduce
vortex motion. In another study, Sohn et al [8] assessed the effect of square cross section tanks

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 6


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

in reducing vortex motion. They carried out experiments with rotating tanks. The presence of
eccentric drain ports was varied and square cross section tanks with corner rounded were used.
PIV study was adopted for flow field visualization and finally concluded that

- Above 90 rpm the rotation speed did not influence the critical height and so all tests were
done at 120 rpm.
- Presence of eccentric drain ports as well as square tanks reduced the transportation of
vorticity; so helped in dissipation and through that reduced the critical height.

Basu et.al [9, 10] tried to analyse the reason for why such air core vortex forms and the
factors that help it intensify with time, through volume of fluid (VOF) method. The effect of
fluid density, acceleration, suction pressure and eccentric drain port are found to significantly
influence vortex motion. They also assessed the influence of spherical bottom tanks, draining
under microgravity, when the retention effect is only surface tension which is modeled. The
reduced acceleration field increases the critical height, as can be seen from the basic analytical
model. VOF method analysis results indicate different free surface profiles under low-g before
air core vortex enters into drain port. They also concluded that critical height of bath tub vortex
in spherical bottom tanks is higher than the flat bottom tanks. The increase is marginal for low
swirl velocity to as high as 80% higher for higher swirl velocity of 10rad/s.

Mohammadi et al [11] reported the first study on siphon flow inside spherical bottom
tank for a specific geometry. The solution for critical height is analytically derived for the
spherical bottom tank of specific geometry, with siphon drain flow. The results were verified
by experiments, with and without anti vortex device. They studied air-core entry into drain hole
for a siphon drain flow from a spherical tank and obtained the critical height. It is noted that
this governing equation did not include the gap between siphon intake and tank bottom. The
total height of liquid free surface was considered instead, which is similar to downward drain
flow model of Lubin-Spinger.

Free air core vortex that occurs at water intake pipe or sumps is a problem encountered
in hydraulic engineering. The critical submergence of intake pipes is important in such
engineering design. Analytical studies and experimental data have been published [12, 13].
These cases are considered as slight variations with respect to the present thesis work, on bath-
tub vortex. In the thesis work, upward draining siphon is employed in circular tanks;

Annie Claude Bayeul-Laine et.al [12] studied a similar problem with a transparent
intake system, to visualize the air core vortex entry as a symmetric formation. CFD simulations

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 7


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

are done to understand the pattern of gas entry in submerged intake systems. Noderi et.al. [13]
describe the challenges in positioning the submerged intake, which is for downward drain but
the drain pipe is kept at a height and not flush with the tank bottom. Importance of bottom
boundary layer on vortex formation has been studied experimentally by Hiroshi Niino et.al [14]
and concluded to be very important to understand the formation of bath tub vortices.

2.2 Summary and identification of gaps

Over the last 50 years, many studies are reported on air core vortex for drain flows from
tanks with a free surface, through a hole in tank bottom. Analytical methods were developed
through governing equations to describe the physical observations. Liquid rotation enhances
vortex formation resulting in higher critical height and so is avoided through various designs.
CFD, PIV study for flow visualization are extensively done. Lubin-Springer model has been
verified by many researchers and found to be the minimum critical height for downward drain.
In summary vortex phenomenon for downward drain flow from flat bottom tanks is
analytically modeled adequately, verified by experiments and CFD methods.

The significant gap in research is seen in the assessment of the effect of siphon drain as
well as presence of spherical bottom on critical height. Analytical models for critical height for
such systems can be derived from fundamentals, using the same approach as used by Lubin and
Springer. This forms the main objective of this thesis work. Analytical model for critical height
of bath tub vortex, for the following three flow and tank bottom shape systems were developed
as part of this thesis work;

i. Siphon flow from a flat bottom tank


ii. Downward flow in spherical bottom tanks through a central drain hole
iii. Siphon flow from spherical bottom tanks (combination of i and ii)

Verification of the analytical results through experiments on scaled model transparent tanks,
with variations in the influencing parameters was also carried out.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 8


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Chapter 3

PROBLEM DEFINITION AND OBJECTIVE OF THESIS WORK

Based on literature review, a significant gap was seen in modeling the bath tub vortex
for the siphon drain as well as for the spherical tank bottom surface. The effect of siphon drain
and tank bottom geometry on bath tub vortex and assessment of critical height is felt essential,
for practical configurations uses in liquid propulsion systems. This can lead to optimization of
siphon design to minimize left-out liquid and increase useful propellant for the mission. In this
chapter, the problem is defined and objective of the thesis work is explained.

3.1 Problem definition and objectives

The objective of the thesis is to identify the additional parameters required to derive
the governing equations for the proposed analytical models, derive the governing equations and
evolve an analytical solution procedure to solve these governing equations to predict critical
height for ‘air-core vortex’. The specific configurations included for this analytical study are

- Siphon drain in a flat bottom tank


- Downward drain flow from spherical bottom tanks
- Siphon drain flow from spherical bottom tanks
The method used by Lubin and Springer is extended, based on the understanding of the
fundamental principles applicable to bath tub vortex. For siphon systems, geometry parameters
can influence the critical height of air core vortex, as listed below;.
- the gap between the siphon and tank bottom, ‘h’
- the size of bell mouth, radius ‘a’
Since similar study results are not reported earlier, verification of the results of analytical
model newly developed, was also required. For this purpose, suitably designed and executed
experiments, data analysis and comparison of results with analytical data are carried out. These
details are outlined in the next two sections below.

3.2 Analytical Study: The analytical studies planned are as follows;

Base line problem: Downward drain flow from a flat tank bottom cylindrical tank and the
critical height for bath tub vortex, is the base line problem. Governing equations are studied for
the dip in free surface at different heights to derive the expression for critical height. This study
of baseline problem can help in modeling the other three variations and develop a solution

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 9


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

methodology. Alternate approaches using fundamental concepts are verified with Lubin-
Springer model results.
Siphon in flat bottom tank: Analytical study for siphon in flat bottom tank is the first effect
taken to extend the base line problem. Starting from identification of additional geometry
parameters for use in the model and extending the governing equations, these are included in
this model. The analytical results of critical height are compared for both siphon and Lubin-
Springer model for downward drain. This helped to identify the sensitivity of the influencing
parameters on critical height as well as for optimizing.
Downward drain flow in spherical tank bottom: Analytical studies are extended for the
presence of spherical tank bottom on critical height. The additional variable of tank bottom
radius [Rd] is included. The expressions are derived, solved for critical height for downward
drain flow. The results are compared with flat tank bottom downward drain (Lubin Springer
model) under varying flow rate parameters.
Siphon drain in spherical tank bottom: Analytical model developed for siphon in flat bottom
and downward drain flow from spherical bottom tank of radius [Rd] are combined for this
model. The results are compared for identical flow and geometry parameters, with the results
obtained for other variants.

In spherical bottom and siphon cases, critical height could be obtained as a polynomial
function. For siphon in spherical bottom tank, the governing expression is not amenable for
analytical solution. Hence, critical height is obtained from fundamental concepts as an
alternative approach that was initially validated for baseline model. The analytical work carried
out for critical height of siphon in flat bottom tank, normal drain in spherical bottom tanks and
siphon in spherical bottom tanks are presented in detail, in this report.

3.3 Experimental Study

The analytical study planned under 3.1 is the first such data to be published. Hence the results
are verified through carefully planned experiments. Though experiments are planned for all
three variants, ‘siphon drain from flat bottom tank’ alone was completed. Others are
recommended as future experiments to be reported later.

Using a model tank with flat bottom, siphon drain flow and parametric variations, the
experiments were completed. The details of tests done, results obtained and comparison with
analytical results are presented in this report.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 10


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Chapter 4

ANALYTICAL STUDIES FOR BATH-TUB VORTEX

In this chapter, development of analytical methods for critical height of bath-tub vortex,
derivation of the governing equations and solution methodology adopted by Lubin-Springer [4]
for “downward drain from a flat bottom tank” are explained. Based on this understanding, the
model is modified including additional parameters to derive the governing equations for the
three configurations. The solution methodology for the governing equations, results and
comparison between different cases are presented. Based on that, the relative merits and de-
merits of different configurations are presented.

The formation of dip or dimple in free surface while draining a liquid of density (ρl)
from a tank of sufficiently large size, through a drain port of circular cross-section with radius
‘a’ under earth’s gravity ‘g’ is described in the figure 1. Presence of two fluids, free-surface,
drain flow from the tank through a hole in tank bottom, formation of dip or dimple and its
extending into drain port at critical height are indicated. Lubin and Springer observed that
liquid maintains a free surface initially and air-core enters into drain port in steps, as shown in

Hc Hc*

Figure 1 Bath-tub Vortex phenomenon


Experiments for flat bottom tanks with a tank bottom drain hole, have shown that [4]

- As draining starts liquid level is high, free surface appears flat and smooth. As draining
progresses, liquid height reduces and a ‘dimple’ like depression is observed on the free
surface. When liquid height falls further, this dimple grows in size.
- When the critical height Hc* is reached, the dimple like depression extends rapidly and
enters into the drain port instantaneously, forming a ‘vortex rope’. ‘Critical height’ is
independent of ‘initial height’ at which experiment started. The discharge or drain flow rate
is constant till dip extends into drain port, for a large tank radius to drain port radius ratio.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 11


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

4.1 Analytical Model for Drain Vortex

The analytical model assumed quasi-steady flow based on these observations. The governing
equations for critical height is derived using the model shown in fig 2.

Hd

Hc
Q

Ø2a

Fig. 2 Analytical model for drain vortex


The final expression [4] for critical height was derived through the following steps; From the
application of fundamental principles, the results obtained from this model are verified.

a) Pressure at any point on liquid-gas interface is ullage gas pressure, Pa + static head.
P = Pa + ρ2. g. ∆H ….....…... (1)
b) A spherical control volume was assumed over the drain port with fluid flow velocity ‘U’
normal to control surface, results in dip as follows;
Q = 2.π Hd2. U …………….. (2)
U = Q / [2π Hd2] ……….….. (3)
c) Pressure difference between free surface and dip is due to static column of 2nd liquid
Pd - Pc = 2.ρ2 g. (Hc - Hd) ……… …. (4)
d) Bernoulli’s theorem applied at c and d, gives equation (5), which after differentiation results
in the final expression obtained in Ref 4.
Hc = Hd + Q2 / (8.π2.g Hd4 (1- ρg / ρl)) ……..…….. (5)

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 12


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Note: In Ref [4] Hc and Hd are used to represent the height of free surface and dimple both in
general term and at critical height. But they are related by equation (5) not only at critical
height but also at any non-critical heights. Hence it is proposed in this report, to identify the
critical height by Hc* and Hd*, when rapid growth of dip occurs, to distinguish them from free
surface height Hc and Hd which are heights at any condition related through equation (5). Thus,
at (Hc= Hc*) ,
(dHc/dt)/(dHd/dt) = (dHc/dHd) = 0
[1+1/Q2/2π2(1-ρ2/ρ1).gHd5]=0 .…….…. (6)
Hd* = [Q2/ 2π2 (1-ρ2/ρ1).g]1/5 ……..… (7)

Substituting Hd* in equation (5) we get;

Hc* = Hd* + Q2/ (8.π2.g Hd*4 (1- ρ2 / ρ1))


Hc* = [Q2 /(1-ρ2/ρ1).g]1/5 [1.25]/ (2. π2)1/5
Hc* = 0.6884 * [Q2/(1-ρ2/ρ1).g]1/5 …….….. (8)
The final non-dimensional form expression is obtained by dividing both sides by, ‘a’ as;
(Hc*/a)= 0.6884*[Q2/(1-ρ2/ρ1).g.a5]1/5 …………. (9)
Ref[4] stated that Hc* is the smallest height below which equation (5) has no valid solution; To
gain insight into this statement, Hc variation as a function of Hd, for four different flow rates is
estimated using a computer program and Hc vs Hd variation is shown in fig 3. The dip size (Hc
–Hd), as a function of Hd is shown in fig 4, for the four flow rates. The observations are;

- When ‘Hc’ is high, all curves show ‘no dip’; ie., Hc−Hd=0. As liquid height reduces, Hc
reaches a minimum that corresponds to critical height Hc*.
- Below this, Hd requires Hc > Hc*, which is not a feasible solution. For higher flow rate
4Q, free surface starts to dip at higher Hc and critical dip size ( Hc*- Hd*) is higher.
- Ratio of dip size to critical height Hc* is derived from the same relationship below

Hd*,(Hd) = 0.55 [Q2/(1-ρg/ρl).g]1/5 = 0.8*(Hc) ………… ..…. (10)


[Hc-Hd] = 0.2 * Hc = 0.25 * Hd …………....... .(11)

Note: Dip or dimple size is the difference between liquid free surface height Hc and control
volume radius Hd. At Hc=Hc*, this difference Critical Dip = 0.25.Hd* or 0.2.Hc*. This is a new
understanding based on this analysis and is seen from the plot for four flow rates.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 13


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Figure 3 Analytical results for critical height

Figure 4 Analytical results for free surface dip (Hc-Hd)

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 14


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

For any system, when flow rate increases, critical


height Hc* increases and the surface dip which is
20% of critical height, also increases.

Fig 5 is log-log plot of height parameter (a/Hc) vs


flow parameter [Q2/(1-ρg/ρl)g a5], sim2ilar to the
data published by Lubin-Springer [4].

Critical height Hc* is always an increasing function


of discharge Q. The log-log plot has negative slope
because (a/Hc*) is considered as height parameter.
The critical height Hc* is proportional to Q0.4 and
g-0.2.

Figure 5 Non-dimensional Critical Height

4. 2 Analytical Model for siphon drain

Rocket propulsion systems use tandem mounted tanks with a siphon or bell mouth
drain. It is interesting to investigate the bath tub vortex phenomenon for siphon drain flow.
Lubin-Springer method is extended to derive the governing equations for siphon drain flow
from flat bottom tank. The model is shown in fig 6. The liquid free surface is at Hc and dimples
are formed above the siphon, at a height Hd. The circular drain pipe has diameter ‘2a and is at a
height ‘h’ from tank bottom.

Figure 6 Analytical model for siphon drain in flat bottom tank

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 15


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

a) The control volume (CV) is a torri-spherical surface of radius Hd assumed over siphon
drain port; fluid velocity is uniform and normal to CV surface area (CSA). It can be seen
that this area excludes equivalent flow area above the siphon, as it does not contribute.
b) Control volume surface area or CSA is obtained as
A = 2*π (Hd2+ π.a.Hd/2 + a.h + h. Hd) … ...……….…...... (12)
Hc = h + Hd + Q2/(2. g. (1-ρg/ρl)* A2) .....……….…..…. (13)
Combining the above equations (12) and (13)
[Hc - Hd] g (ρ1 − ρ2) = − ρ1 Q2/ (A2) ……………. .. (14)
Hc = h+Hd+Q2 /(2 A2.g (1- ρ2 / ρ1)) = f(Hd) ...………….… (15)

Equation (15) relates ‘Hc’’ to Hd through the surface dip due to draining. At critical height
(Hc*) dip of fluid surface extends into drain port. At critical height, (dHc/dt) = 0
(dHc/dt) = f´(Hd) * (dHd/dt) = 0 ` ………….….... (16)

Where f´(Hd) is obtained by differentiating RHS of equation (15), which after simplification
results in a 6th order polynomial in Hd and is the critical height solution.

For siphon drain flow from a flat bottom tank, critical control volume radius, Hd* satisfies a
polynomial of 6th order, as follows;

[A1.Hd6 + A2.Hd5 + A3.Hd4 + A4.Hd3 + A5.Hd2 + A6.Hd + A7] =0 …. …..…… (17)


In this, A1=1; A2 = 3.(h+π.a/2); A3 = 3.(a.h+π2.a2/4 +h2+π.a.h)
A4= π3.a3/8+h3+3.(π2.a2,h/4 + π.a.h2/2 +2h2.a + π.a2.h)
A5 =3.(a.h3+ π2.a3.h/4 + a2.h2+ π.a2.h2) ; A6 = 3.a2.h3 +3.π.a3.h2/2 – 2G
A7 = h3.a3 –π.a..G/2 –h.G ; and G = Q2 / (4.π2.g. (1 − ρg/ρl))

Positive real root for equation (17) gives critical Hd* which is substituted in eq (15) to get Hc*,
the critical height. If there is no positive real root, Hd*=0; This normally happens with higher
‘h’, since the passage below is large enough to feed the siphon. The results obtained
numerically for two cases using the model eq (17) are given below;
Sample cases: An example problem, with major siphon parameters as follows;
a = 0.015m; h = 0.020m, (1-ρg/ρl) = 0.99875 and g=9.80665m/s2 Q = 0.0021m3/s
Roots for Q =0.0021m3/s
The coefficients A1 to A7 are as follows;
A2 = 0.1306858 A3 = 6.592929E-03
A4 = 1.610765E-04 A5 = 1.977879E-06

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 16


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

A6 = -1.104859E-08 A7 = -4.698309E-10
The roots of eq (17) for Hd are four roots are imaginary and two roots are real.
R1-2 = -0.0486 + 0.0156i R3-4= -0.0113 + 0.0247i
R5= +0.0111 R6 = -0.0220
Since the case has one real, positive root R5, it is a solution to the example problem. ie., Hd* =
0.0111; Substituting H* in eq (16), Hc* is 0.0381m.

Roots for Q=0.0061 lit/s

The roots of polynomial with flow rate Q alone increased from 2.1 to 6.1/lit/s, are
-0.0604 + 0.0254i -0.0070 + 0.0409i
0.0258 -0.0218
Hd* = 0.0258; substituting in eq (16), Hc* is 0.0568. Thus the 6th order polynomial given by
eq (17) gives critical dimple size, Hd*; Substituting this Hd* in eq (15) gives critical height
Hc*, for a siphon flow drain. The variation of Hc and Hd for the model data for the two sample
flow rates is computed using a program and plotted below in fig 7.
It shows that for the I case Hd* is 0.011 and Hc* is 0.0381 and for the second sample case, Hd*
is 0.0258 and Hc* is 0.0568 same as the solution obtained from analytical model eq(17).

Thus Hd* and Hc* obtained from the analytical model can be verified directly.

Figure 7. Critical height for siphon with two flow rates

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 17


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Hc variation as a function of Hd (eq 15), shows the minimum value as critical height Hc*. The
minimum points for both flows correspond to the root obtained for the equation 17. Eq(17) can
be used to obtain critical height of any design with ‘a’, ‘h’ and ‘Q’. To evaluate the sensitivity
of critical height of the two parameters, ‘a’ and ‘h’, the governing equation is programmed into
MATLAB, which has a solver for roots of polynomial. Critical height values obtained for
siphon drain and downward drain cases are as follows;
Fig 8 shows Hc* as a function of flow rate for bell-mouth radius ‘a = 15mm’ and axial gap
‘h=20mm’ and compared with Lubin-Springer Hc*. Hc* siphon matches with downward drain;
but Hd* for siphon and Lubin-Springer differs nearly by the siphon gap‘h’.

Figure 8 Critical height for siphon and normal drain

The logarithmic relation between flow and height parameters for normal and siphon drain
(a=15mm; h=20mm) are shown in fig 9. Both curves are close till Q< 1.5lit/s. This shows some
combinations of ‘h’ and ‘a’ can give the same critical height for certain range of flow rate..

To assess how the two siphon parameters affect the critical height in flat bottom case, the
critical height solution was obtained for different ‘h’and ‘a’ combinations for different flow
rates. The variations done to assess the sensitivity as follows;
Siphon gap ‘h’: 5 to 30mm (6 cases)
Bell radius:‘a’: 5 to 30mm (6 cases)

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 18


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Flow rate: ‘Q’ 1 to 7 lit/s (6 cases)

.Figure 9 Non dimensional critical height or siphon drain

The results indicate that for the considered cases, critical height is obtained as solution of the
algorithm, for most of the ‘flow rate-a-h’ combinations, except a few. In such cases, Hd* roots
are negative or no solution. In such cases, applying Hd*=0 , Hc* can be obtained. In general,
lower ‘h’ and large ‘a’ reduce Hc*. Higher ‘Q’ demands higher Hc*, for the same siphon.

Critical height variation for different values of ‘h’ is given in fig 10 and for different values of
‘a’ in fig 11. From this data the following can be inferred

a. Axial gap ‘h’ increases critical height; Siphon radius Table 2 Hc* for siphon, mm

‘a’ decreases critical height. Q a mm h mm Hc* LS

b. Combination of ‘a’ and ‘h’ can produce same Hc* as 5 5 26.5


1.0
given by Lubin-Springer. 15 15 26.3 27.5
lit/s
c. Critical height for siphon can be less than Lubin- 20 20 27.0
Springer value for combination of ‘a’ and ‘h’, for the 2.0 20 20 34.8
36.3
given flow rate. lit/s 30 30 36.4

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 19


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Figure 10. Effect of Siphon gap ‘h’

Figure 11. Effect of siphon radius ‘a’

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 20


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Critical Height for Siphon Drain- Compared with Lubin Springer


Q,Lit/s Hcr, m
For each Q and h, 'a' varied 30 to 5mm 'h' 5 to 30mm
20 0.08

0.07
matches
Lubin Springer
Hcr for Siphon
15 Flow rate
0.06

0.05
10
0.04

0.03
5

0.02
Q 1 to 7 lit/s

0 0.01
0 40 80 120 160 200

Test case Sl Number


Figure 12 Effect of siphon parameters on Hc*

Siphon analytical data summary


a. A 6th order polynomial relation, for critical height Hd*, is established from the governing
equation. The real, positive root is Hd* and it is applied in eq (15) to get Hc*. ‘no positive
roots’ Hd* = 0.0.
b. Parametric studies carried out by varying ‘a’, ‘h’ and ‘Q’ to assess the sensitivity. Lower ‘h’
and large ‘a’ result in lower Hc* as seen in fig 12. Siphon design (a, h combination) can be
done for a critical height < Lubin-Springer value and can be optimized for given flow rate.

4. 3 Analysis for spherical bottom effect

Pressurized tanks used in liquid rocket systems demand optimal structural design. It results in
spherical or torri-spherical bottom tanks. Ramamurthy and John Tharakan [5] brought out
based on experiments that, presence of spherical bottoms have negligible effect on critical
height, if there is no liquid rotation. But if there is good vorticity, spherical bottom can reduce
critical height. Presence of spherical bottom helps in dissipating the vorticity. Dheeraj Agarwal
[9] observed through CFD analysis that presence of spherical bottom increases critical height.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 21


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

In this section, the bath tub drain vortex model (Lubin-Springer) is modified, for drain flow
from a tank with spherical bottom. The governing expressions are derived and same solution
methodology as adopted for siphon in flat bottom tanks, is used to estimate critical height Hc*.
The governing equation for Hc vs Hd for spherical bottom tank, is derived as follows;

Governing Equation:

The model used for spherical bottom effect is shown in figure 13. The bottom is spherical with
radius Rd. Control volume (CV) of radius Hd is assumed over drain port, with flow velocity
normal to its hemispherical surface. The presence of spherical bottom reduces control surface
area for the same Hd and so it results in marginal increase in velocity U. The governing
equations are slightly modified to account for bottom effect, as follows;

Figure 13 Analytical model for spherical bottom tanks

A = 2 π Hd2 [ 1-Hd/2.Rd ] ……………. (18)


Hc = Hd + Q2/(2. g. (1-ρg/ρl)* A2) …………… (19)

In eq (18) the marginal reduction in control surface area (CSA) due to spherical surface
at tank bottom is included as [1-Hd/2.Rd ] which other wise will be 1. Subsequent solution
method remains same. The governing equation (19) is differentiated to get the solution for
Hd*. The resulting equation for Hd*is an 8th order polynomial with coefficients given below.
The smaller, positive real root is taken as Hd*. This is applied in (18) to get Hc*.

[A1.Hd8 +A2.Hd7 +A3 Hd6 +A4 Hd5 +A5.Hd4 +A6 Hd3 +A7.Hd2 +A8.Hd +A9] = 0 …….... (20)
A1= 1/8Rd3 ; A2 = -3/ 4Rd2 ;
A3 = 3/ 2Rd; A4 = -1 ; A5 = A6 = A7 = 0.0

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 22


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

A8 = -3G/ 2Rd; A9 = 2.G And G = Q2 / (4.π2.g. (1 − ρg/ρl))

Analysis Results for spherical bottom


Q Rd 0.2m Rd 0.3m Rd 0.4m Rd = ∞
Presence of spherical bottom is expected to
1 lit/s 28.2 27.9 27.8 27.5
increase the critical height, since the control
2 lit/s 37.5 37.1 36.9 36.3
volume surface area is decreased by its presence.
Sample cases are analyzed using the governing 3 lit/s 44.3 43.7 43.5 42.7
equation (20). 4 lit/s 50.0 49.2 48.9 47.9

Flow rate Q, bottom radius Rd data were used in 5 lit/s 54.9 54.0 53.6 52.4
a MATLAB program, to get roots of 8th order 6 lit/s 59.2 58.2 57.7 56.4
polynomial; the results are summarised in table 3
7 lit/s 63.2 62.0 61.5 59.9
and fig 14. The flat bottom tank data is also
given.

Table 3. Critical height for spherical bottom tank

Q: 1 to 7 lit/s (7 cases) and Rd 0.2m to 0.4m (3 cases) so 21 data points. The figure 14 shows
both Hc* (sphere) and Hc* (Lubin-Springer) for seven flow rates (1 to 7 lit/s). The observations
from the analytical results are as follows;

Figure 14 Critical height for spherical bottom tanks

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 23


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

a. Spherical bottom increases critical height Hc*. As bottom radius Rd increases, critical
height reduces towards the Lubin-Springer value.
b. For the same bottom radius, increase in Hc* from Lubin-Springer value is more with for
higher flow rate Q.
c. Lubin-Springer critical height is asymptotic minimum for spherical bottom tanks, for
increasing radius or reducing flow rate. As Rd increases to ∞, Hc* reduces Hc*(L-S)
4.4 Analysis for Siphon Drain from Spherical bottom tanks
Siphon drain from spherical bottom tanks are widely used in liquid rockets. Design of
bell-mouth intake size and height from tank bottom play a role in minimizing critical height for
air core vortex. It is essential to optimize these design parameters. Influence of siphon drain
and spherical bottom on critical height especially with reference to Lubin-Springer data for
downward drain in a flat bottom tank was studied in previous sections; both the effects
(siphon+ spherical bottom) are combined in this section to derive governing equations..
Analytical Model and Governing Equation
The model used to derive the governing equation for critical height, along similar lines
as done earlier for the siphon system, is shown in fig 15.

Figure 15. Analytical model for siphon drain in spherical bottom tank
The tank cylinder diameter is assumed very large compared with drain size. The tank is
provided with a spherical bottom of Radius Rd. The siphon has a bell-mouth of radius ‘a’ and is
mounted at a height of ‘h’ above the tank bottom. As per the solution methodology, a torroidal
control volume (CV) of radius Hd, is assumed over the bottom whose centre is located along
the bell mouth. The CV surface area CSA is computed combining the expressions earlier used

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 24


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

for siphon and spherical bottom cases, in the earlier sections.Governing expression for free
surface height and dip in surface was derived using the same principles as in earlier sections.
The liquid free-surface is at Hc and dimples are formed above the entry to siphon, at a height
Hd. The model is developed based on a relation for free surface dip based on the velocity head
assuming uniform velocity over a torri-spherical volume. Control surface area and Hc vs Hd
expression are obtained as.

A = 2*π [Hd2+ π∗Hd.a/2 + (Hd+a).h1] ………..…..(21)


Where, h1= h - Rd + SQRT (Rd2-(a+Hd)2)
Hc = Hd + h + (Q/A)2/(2. g. (1-ρg/ρl)) ………....…(22)

Solution methodology and results

The above governing equation is not purely algebraic, since square root needs to be
computed. The earlier method used to get Hd* by differentiating (22) is complex and so
obtaining Hc* from this model is challenging. However, for any specific physical system, the
same can be solved by evaluating as a continuous function Hc vs Hd relation (22) and from the
variation obtain the minima point as Hd* and Hc*.

Mohammadi et al [11] obtained the critical height by trial and error method using an
analytical model which is an extension of Lubin Springer model. They evaluated critical height
for siphon in spherical bottom tank, through experiments. They observed that the experimental
results matched with analytical data, when there was no fluid rotation, as prevented by anti-
vortex plates provided at the siphon inlet. Since the validated test results for siphon in spherical
bottom tanks is available, it is proposed to use the same geometry data of test system [11] and
apply it in the newly derived analytical model, as per this thesis, to get the solution for critical
height, from the variation of Hc vs Hd. The model details and results are presented below:

Model inputs:
Tank diameter = 1000 m; Bottom radius Rd = 1000mm
Bell mouth radius ‘a’ = 155 mm;
h’ at bell mouth OD = 26 mm;
Tank surface raise at ‘a’ = 12 mm
Siphon height (derived) = 26 + 12 = 38 mm
Q : 8, 10, 14, 18, 21 and 26 lit/s 6 points (approximately noted from the graphs)

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 25


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

The above data are used in eq (22) and variation of Hc vs Hd is given in Fig 16 for 6
flow rates. The minimum points give Hd* and Hc*. These results were obtained for ‘h’ =38 mm
as per Ref 11. It can be seen that for lower flow rates of 8 and 10 lit/s, the function does not
show a reversing upward trend and so there is no ‘minima point’, till Hd=0.0.. This indicates
that for the present design, there is no solution as per this model. Critical height is obtained for
Hd*=0, to get Hc* under such conditions. These values are given in table 4.
The critical height obtained is compared with results published in ref 11. Fig 17 gives
‘critical height’ for ‘siphon in spherical bottom tank’ in comparison with critical height for
same flow parameters for Lubin-Springer model, downward drain in spherical bottom tank
with Rd=1m and in flat bottom tank for h=0.038 m. The values are compared in table 4. The
following are the observations from this comparison.
- Critical height shown in Ref 11 for 8 lit/s flow rate is 35 mm and is not realistic sinceat
this critical height, liquid surface will be exposed below siphon. It has to be higher than
siphon level of 38mm. The experimental data of ~40 mm is close to the result from the
model proposed in this thesis. `
- The model used in Ref 11 does not account axial gap ‘h’ and so the results are close to
‘siphon in flat bottom tank’ data of table 4. This could be the reason for the difference
from this thesis model, in which the gap is included appropriately in eq(21).
- The critical height results match with ‘siphon in flat bottom tank’, with ‘h’= 38 mm, for
higher flow rates of 21 and 26 lit/s. Siphon in flat tank method for the lower flow rate
inputs, did not give a solution for Hd*, which means Hd* = 0 and so Hc* is marginally
above the siphon.

Table 4. Hc* for different flow rates

Flow Ref 11 Eq 22 Lubin Springer Sphere Rd1m Siphon h 38mm


8 lit/s 35mm 42.2mm 63.2 mm 63.9 mm 40.6 mm
10 lit/s 38mm 45.5mm 69.1 mm 69.9 mm 41.7 mm
14 lit/s 43mm 52.1mm 79.1 mm 80.1 mm 45.3 mm
18 lit/s 49mm 57.5mm 87.4 mm 88.7 mm 50.0 mm
21 lit/s 54mm 61.7mm 93.0 mm 94.5 mm 53.3 mm
26 lit/s 59mm 67.2mm 101.3 mm 103.0 mm 59.3 mm

- The critical height for reduced siphon height of 25 mm and 10 mm are shown in fig 17,
which are lower but above ‘h’ substantiating inclusion of ‘h’ in analytical model.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 26


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

- This report suggests that it is essential to include axial gap between siphon bell-mouth
and tank bottom, since it influences critical height significantly.

Figure 16 Critical height for siphon in spherical bottom tank

Figure 17 Critical height for different configurations

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 27


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

4.5 Assessment for Flight condition:

Liquid propulsion systems drain flow vortex formation in flight happens at higher acceleration
field of 3-4 g or (30-40 m/s2). Since the pressure difference under higher acceleration field
reduces the head, in terms of m, critical height is expected to reduce. Critical height assessment
under higher ‘g’ conditions is done for one of the above cases (26lit/s), as follows;

Table 5 Comparison of critical height for higher acceleration


Acceleration Lubin-Springer Spherical Bottom Siphon-Flat tank Actual Stage
1g 101. 3mm 103.0 mm 59.3 mm 67.2 mm
4g 81.3 mm 82.4 mm 46.4 mm 53.5 mm

- At higher ‘g’ condition, critical height of ‘air-core vortex’ reduces for all cases, which is
understandable since it is inversely proportions to ‘g’ in Lubin-Springer model; but in
other models such as siphon and spherical bottom tanks, it is not so explicit.
- The critical height reduction by a factor (1/g)0.2 is seen in almost all cases.
- This method can be used to design siphon systems and optimize bell-mouth size ‘a’ and
height ‘h’, for any new propulsion system.

4.6 Summary of analytical model results

Critical height model by Lubin-Springer for a liquid draining from a flat bottom tank
has stood the test of time and is verified experimentally by many researchers. Since siphon
systems and spherical bottom tanks are commonly used in liquid propulsion stages of launch
vehicles, critical height assessment for spherical bottom tank and upward flowing siphon drain
or a combination of both is carried out.

Applying the basic physics and solution method adopted in [4], governing expressions
are derived after suitable modifications. Critical height of siphon drain problem is obtained as
root of a 6th order polynomial from the governing equation and for spherical bottom as root of
8th order polynomial. These are solved for specific cases, to assess the relative performance
with reference [4] to Lubin-Springer model.

Critical height for ‘siphon in spherical bottom tank’ is also modeled but the solution is
compounded by the presence of square root function in governing equation. Hence an alternate
method was developed by evaluating the functional variation of Hc vs Hd and obtain the critical
height as the minim point. This method was earlier validated for flat bottom tank with results
matching with Lubin-Springer model. This approach had earlier confirmed the analytically

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 28


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

derived polynomial of 6th order for siphon and 8th order for spherical bottom tank also. The
method was applied to obtain the critical height in ‘siphon in spherical bottom tank’, for the
parameters indicated in Ref [11] as reference..
The design aspect to minimize the critical height was studied for the four configurations
by evaluating under identical flow parameters. Siphon in flat bottom tank gave the lowest
critical height. Presence of spherical surface in tank bottom increases critical height depending
on bottom radius and discharge flow rate. Siphon intake bell mouth size and its height from
tank bottom are the design parameters to optimize critical height, to either reduce or increase
the critical height from Lubin-Springer value.
For ‘siphon in spherical bottom tank’, higher sphere radius reduces critical height. In
practice, this can be achieved by shaping the bottom torri-spherical with large radius in the
bottom and a smaller radius (knuckle) to join with the cylinder as shown below in fig18.
Sphere radius is large in the tank bottom and is small (knuckle radius) close to the cylinder.

Fig 18 Torri-spherical tank bottom design

Concept of critical flow area at entry to bell mouth and bell mouth overall size act as
constraints. Since lower ‘h’ and higher ‘a’ can reduce the critical height, (2.π.a.h) should be
selected much higher than the feedline flow area so that starvation at entry is avoided.
Draining in liquid propulsion systems, generally occurs in flight, where inertial
acceleration will be higher at 30 to 40 m/s2 or (3g to 4 g). The critical height is also a function
of acceleration. Hence the model is applied for 3 g conditions, and the results indicate that for
higher acceleration, the critical height is lower and is proportional to (g)-0.2 for Lubin Springer
model and also for the other three models.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 29


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

CHAPTER 5
EXPERIMENTS FOR SIPHON DRAIN ON A MODEL TANK

In this chapter, the details of experiments carried out for the critical height of
bathtub vortex in siphon systems are presented. The design of a 1/5th model tank made of
transparent Perspex material, the siphon arrangement with provision to mount different bell
mouth configurations is described. The photographs, functional parameters arrived at through
dynamic similarity and the variations planned in the experiments are outlined.
Drain flow tests are done using siphon drain created in a model tank, with
measurements of liquid level to verify the critical height, at the instant of air-core vortex
entry into drain pipe. Video and photography are done for every test, to assess the critical
height and actual flow rate during each experiment in offline data analysis mode as well as
for a permanent record of the tests. The details of the experiments done are described below.
5.1 Operational Liquid Stage and scaled model
A currently operational liquid strap-on stage is considered for model experiments, to
get useful technical assessment that will be of practical purpose. The geometric and flow
specifications of this functional liquid stage such as spherical bottom details, siphon drain
bell-mouth size, height from tank bottom and operational data relevant to drain vortex such
as flow rate, acceleration are given. Based on this data, a model tank was realized. The major
parameters of strap-on liquid stage including the critical flow area near the bell-mouth and
flow velocity at the entry to bell-mouth are listed in table 6. The siphon configuration inside
a liquid propellant tank and the overall tank configuration are given in fig 19 and 20.
Table 6 Operation Parameters of Liquid Strap-on Stage
1 Tank Diameter 2100mm
2 Tank Length (cylinder) 4740 mm
3 Bottom sphere radius, Rd 1150 mm
4 Feed line size φ160 mm
5 Bell Mouth radius, a 127 mm
6 Siphon height from bottom, h 46 mm
7 Flow rate, Q 120 lit/s ±6lit/s
8 Feedline size 160 mm
9 Flow velocity in feedline 7.96 m/s
10 Acceleration at burn out 3g or ~30m/s2

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 30


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Table 7 Design parameters of model tank for experiments


Tank Bottom Flat / Spherical bottom Flat bottom tank realized
Tank diameter φ420 mm (φ2100/5) φ420 mm

Feed line diameter φ32 mm (φ160 / 5) φ33 mm

Siphon bell-mouth a=25.4mm (R127/5) a=13 to 34mm variation


Siphon height 9.2 mm (46/5) h= 5 to 30 mm
Bottom radius R230mm (R 1150/5) Flat bottom

In order to compare the results expected from the planned experiments, the same model
parameters for h, a, and Q were used in the analytical model to predict the critical height of
bath tub vortex, before tests. The same parameters were maintained in experiments on the
model tank made of Perspex (transparent). The tank and siphon drain geometry were arrived
at for 1/5 scaled down model of the flight stage, details of which are shown in fig 19 and
fig20. The model tank and siphon photographs are shown in fig 21.

Fig 19 Details of Siphon in liquid propellant tank

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 31


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Fig 20 Details of Liquid Strap-on stage Configuration

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 32


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Fig 21 Photograph of Perspex Model tank and Siphon arrangement

5.2 Estimation of equivalent flow rates for test

The model tank corresponds to 1/5 scale of proto liquid stage. Flow rate and velocity can be
derived only after applying necessary similarity parameters, considering the physics of vortex
behavior. The most widely used non-dimensional parameter for air-core vortex entry into drain
port is Froude Number and shall be maintained same between the proto and the model;

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 33


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Froude Number of model similarity (non-dimensional) F = Q/√ (D5 g) Where,


- ‘Q’ is volume flow rate (m3/s)
- ‘D’ is tank/ feed-line diameter (m)
- ‘g’ acceleration field (m/s2)
The detail calculation is as follows;
Qp = Proto stage Flow rate = 0.120 m3/s ± 5%
Qm = Model Flow rate/√(55.3) = 1.24 E-03 m3/s (variation plan 1.1 to 2.1 lit/s)
Bell Mouth= φ 254/5= φ50.8 = φ56mm selected(variation planned φ26- φ68)
Siphon height = 46/5 = 9.2 mm (variation planned 5 - 30mm)
(a.h) >11684/25 or >467.4 mm2 = 65mm2 to 1020 mm2 is planned

Experiments were done with siphon height variation: ‘h’ from 5 mm to 30 mm and bell mouth
size variation: ‘2a’ from Ø 26 mm to Ø 68 mm. This meets model similarity requirement for
the fluid flow parameters, except for spherical bottom effect.

5.3 Model tank and siphon details


Siphon in Flat bottom tanks: Tests were done
on a flat bottom tank, with different types of
siphon arrangement varying in bell-mouth size
and height from tank bottom. The model tank
is made in two segments, (identical cylindrical
vessels) of Perspex material (transparent) as
shown in fig 22. They are fitted together with
bolts and leak arrested by ‘O’ rings.
In this tank, the siphon line is taken out at a
height of 120mm from tank cylinder bottom to
enable fitting different bell-mouth sections at
any height ranging from 5 to 35 mm. After
realizing the siphon segments only, the hole on
model tank was made, as shown.

Fig 22. 1/5 Scaled model tank

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 34


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Test with spherical bottom, with different siphon arrangement can be planned on the same
model tank for which spherical bottom of radius R230 can be used. For this, the bottom point
will move down and so siphon line is made with 45o bent elbows as shown in fig 23; this
siphon pipe shall interface with the same opening provided at 120mm in the cylinder and will
enable fitting different siphon sections at height ranging from 5 to 35 mm. The assembly of
siphon is made such a way that some of the segments are permanently joined and others are left
temporary joined, to enable the change of bell-mouth.
Other elements: The feed-line is realized
using PVC pipe segments of 1.1/4” (33mm
bore) with about 4 elbows taking the line
through a height of 1.5m down. The total
line length is 1.5 m at the end, an orifice can
be assembled. The two orifices realized for
the purpose are shown together with the two
bell mouths in the fig 24.

At the end of 1.5 m, a manual ball valve as


shown in fig 25 is assembled permanently.
The valve will be kept closed during non-
operation as well as during filling of water

inside the tank.

Fig 23 Siphon scheme for spherical bottom

Leak test: The tank has one joint between the


cylinders, which was assembled with packing
‘O’ring and leak checked by filling water after full
level. Based on that the tank joint is cleared. The
bottom flat plate for phase I tests was assembled
using M6 screws and packing ‘O’ring.

Fig 24 Orifices and bell mouths used

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 35


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

The plate had a provision for downward drain pipe attachment which
was closed flush with a rubber gasket. Both the joints were leak
checked and cleared. The photograph in fig 26, shows bottom flat
plate assembly to the cylinder, the central hole for downward drain is
closed with a black rubber gasket. The red color ‘O’ ring is visible.
The entire setup is mounted on a major cup-board, so that 1.5 m long
feed-line can remain in position. The mounted setup, with siphon pipe
bell-mouth used and ball valve mounted configuration of feedline is
shown in the next photograph shown in fig 27.

Fig 25 Ball valve in feedline

Fig 26 Assembly of closure plate

Fig 27 Tank and feedline with ball valve

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 36


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

CHAPTER-6

TEST SETUP DESIGN AND SEQUENCE

In this chapter the design aspects of experiment setup, estimation of test parameters,
measurements planned, sequence of execution are explained. Pressurization of the tank was
not envisaged, since Perspex tank was given priority for enabling flow visualization at the time
of vortex entry, which is the main objective the experiment. This led to the condition that the
required flow rate from the water tank has to be powered by gravity. Hence the design was
started with ‘no active pressurization’ of tank. Another aspect was variation of liquid height
from the flow control orifice, due to water level falling. To minimize the effect of free surface
height variation, on the variation in flow rate, a long feed line is planned with a flow control
orifice provided at the end. This static head (ρ.g.h) available for flow rate change is less than
15% and so flow is less than 8%. A long pipe-line of 1.5m length fitted with manual valve is
used.

6.1 Orifice Sizing:


Pressure head available = 1.75 m (initial) and 1.55 m (later near vortex entry)
∆P = 1000 x 1.55 x 9.81 N/m2
= 0.152 bar or 15.2 KPa
Velocity = sqrt(2.∆P/ρ) =5.515 m/s
Orifice sizing to get nominal flow rate of 1.24 lit/s, assuming a Cd=0.6
Orifice size = Ø21.8 mm for 1.24 lit/s
= Ø24.0 mm for 1.5 lit/s
= Ø26.3 mm for 1.8 Lit/s

Based on this theoretical estimation, two orifices were realized, inspected and kept ready. Flow
rate being a function of pressure head, orifice CdA, siphon bell-mouth flow area, the pressure
drop in the ball valve etc. Based on available joint sizes, the final configuration was built;
- The realized feed-line length = 1.5m, control valve at outlet
- Orifice sizes realised = 22mm, 25mm and No Orifice
Flow calibration was done for the first trial and the results are
a) With Ø22mm Orifice flow rate = 1.38 Lit/s
b) With Ø25mm Orifice, flow rate = 1.66 Lit/s
c) Without Orifice, flow rate = 2.02 Lit/s

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 37


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

The above data are nominal flow rates and can vary from test to test. The actual flow rate in
each trial was measured from the rate of free surface fall and was done in every test.

6.2 Varying parameters for test


The governing equation for critical height of bath-tub vortex, for a siphon drain from a flat
bottom tank, considers, the following parameters that influence the critical height.

a) Flow rate, Q (m3/s)


b) Radius of bell-mouth ‘a’ (m),
c) Height of siphon intake ‘h’,(m)
d) Acceleration field ‘g’ (m/s2)

Out of this four parameters acceleration parameter cannot be varied in the tests done at ground
condition and shall remain constant at 9.81 m/s2. The other three parameters can be varied. The
following variation in the three parameters were achieved.

a) Flow rate ‘Q’ Variation 3 Cases are planned.


1) Q1= 1.2 - 1.3 lit/s (with Ø22 mm orifice)
2) Q2= 1.5 - 1.6 lit/s (with Ø25 mm Orifice)
3) Q3= 1.9 -2.1 lit/s (without any orifice)
b) Bell mouth radius, ‘a’ (5cases, correspond to outer diameter)
1) Nominal straight pipe: a1= 18mm
2) Expansion -1 bell mouth: a2= 28mm
3) Reduction -1: a3 = 15 mm
4) Reduction -2: a4 = 13mm
5) Expansion -2 bell mouth: a5 = 34mm
The geometry details and how they are assembled to siphon pipe line are shown in fig 28.

c) Siphon in-take height ‘h’


The height of siphon in-take from tank bottom, is a major influencing parameter for critical
height in siphon drain flow. ‘h’ is varied from 5 to 30 mm in the tests, exact value for different
bell mouth configurations was measured after assembly to the tank, before test.

‘h’ – variation 5mm to 30mm

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 38


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Fig 28 Bell-mouth variations attempted in the experiment

6.3 Test setup and data recording

All the joints at the cylinder wall were permanently fixed, so that there is no leakage.
But the line segment to elbow was kept as temporary joint, deliberately so that it can be
removed to facilitate changing the bell-mouth (for size or height). The external feed line is a
straight pipe of 1500mm long and is fitted with a ball valve. This facilitated filling process,
stabilization before draining. The segment down-stream of ball valve is provided with either
orifice or no-orifice, as per the test plan.

Fig 29 Offset of 7mm in the left scale


For measuring the liquid level, transparent rulers were pasted along the wall. The first ruler
was facing inside, so second ruler was pasted at a different location. But it had an offset of
(7mm) since pasting was not done with zero coinciding with tank bottom. This scale reading is

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 39


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

to be corrected by adding 7 mm to the measured data as can be seen from the figure 29 above,
where the right side scale shows a level of 200 mm while the right scale shows only 193mm.
6.4 Test Procedure and Sequence
 Water Filling: The filling of the tank with tap water was done by a flexible hose,
continuously. When the liquid level crossed the siphon, the ball valve is opened to vent the
trapped air for a few seconds and then closed. Filling is completed when the level reached
a height of 230-250mm, from the tank bottom and the flexible hose is removed.
 Stabilization: After completing the filling, the liquid is left free to get stabilized, all the
ripples from the filling process, fluid rotation or oscillation in free surface are allowed to
settle. This process could take 5 to 15 minutes. The stable condition of liquid is visually
confirmed before starting the draining process.
 Liquid Draining: After liquid level stabilization is confirmed, the ball valve is manually
full-opened and video recording is started. The video was focusing on the liquid level
falling, with clear view of the scale. When the liquid level reaches < 40mm, the focus
shifts to around the bell-mouth siphon area, with a clear view of the ruler. The camera was
positioned at a suitable angle so as to capture the liquid free surface dip and vortex entry
into the bell mouth. The audio was also recorded so that the entry of vortex is clearly
corroborated with the loud roaring sound of vortex entry.
 Post draining record: After the test is over, video recording is stopped and ball valve is
closed, for next filling, The liquid level of the left out unused liquid inside the tank, is
photographed and recorded as an indication of the left out unusable quantity.
 Repeat test and change of orifice: Every test is mostly repeated, under identical siphon,
starting liquid level condition. This was felt essential, since the data analysis is offline,
after the video recording is transferred to a computer for detail viewing and analysis. If test
data was not clear or air core vortex entry could not be captured in the video or scale
reading was not clear, the redundant test could help in deducing the result.
 Log book: For every test, siphon height and diameter as well as orifice number and size
are recorded in test log book. The data are registered in the audio recording, by stating the
bell mouth size, orifice size, test number before vortex is formed.

6.5 Test Parameter Variations


Every test started with recording of bell mouth size, height and the orifice used. The sequence
of test was filling from a ground source, venting the siphon, stabilization of the surface ripples
and finally draining process, which was captured in the video and photography.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 40


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

- Change of orifice: After the test, orifice is changed by removing the old one and
replacing with the required one. This was completed either before filling for test or
during stabilization process after completing the filling. For every siphon, there could
be as many as 6 tests, two in full flow, two with 25mm orifice and two with 22 mm
orifice. After all planned tests are completed, the bell mouth is changed either for
change of radius or change of siphon height.
- Change of siphon: Systematically six tests are completed for any siphon and video
recorded; then the next siphon is fitted back. For this change of siphon, the tank is taken
down, liquid is completely drained from the tank and the existing bell mouth is
removed manually. The new bell mouth is assembled into the siphon tube. Using the
steel rule, the height from the tank bottom is measured and recoded. Then the tank is
repositioned back onto the test bench again. The set up is firmly tied, before starting the
next test, to avoid accidents.
6.6 Summary of Test setup and test sequence

a. The test setup details for siphon in flat bottom tank using the Perspex model tank were
estimated based on similarity parameters, which covered the pipeline sizes, siphon
sizing, equivalent flow rates, siphon height etc.
b. The setup and procedure to vary parameters such as siphon bell mouth size from R13 to
R34mm, siphon height from 5 to 35mm as well as discharge from 1.2 to 2.0 lit/s were
explained in this chapter.
c. Design and realization of two orifices based on available liquid head, water calibration
data are presented. Assembly of siphon, measurement of siphon height, filling and
draining procedure, change of siphon, observation plan of vortex, evaluating the liquid
height for both flow rate as well as for critical height are explained.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 41


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Chapter-7

TEST DATA ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON WITH ANALYTICAL RESULTS


In this chapter, all the tests are summarized. In total, about 52 tests were completed
with siphon mounted at the centre of tank and 8 tests with siphon mounted at eccentric
locations, close to cylinder wall. This included a few confirmation tests repeated for maximum
Q and higher ‘h’. This test condition results in critical height of 20-35 mm, which is easy to
verify since the liquid level is above the reinforcement ring at the tank bottom kept at ~20mm.
Tests were carried out, with the test setup consisting of ‘flat bottom tank and siphon
drain flow’. Variations in parameters are siphon radius 13 mm to 34 mm, siphon height 5 mm
to 30 mm and water flow rates 1.2 to 2.0 lit/s. Almost all tests recorded vortex entry. The
observations are summarized and results compared with theoretical data, in this chapter.

7.1 Test Data Analysis


Test data record
Every test was captured in video from the start of draining to the end. The video was
transferred to a personal computer and every test file is renamed identifying with bell-mouth
size and siphon height, the two major parameters for critical height. After the data analysis,
flow rate and critical height were added to the name. The test data record, in the form of video,
was analyzed in detail, by playing back several times, at different speeds, to evaluate the
following information, from each test;
a) Evaluate the actual test flow rate.
b) Verify the formation of air core vortex
c) Assess the critical height.
The process of analysis for these requirements is explained below;
Flow rate in test
As per the configuration used, test flow rate could be one of the three options, 1.2 to 1.3
lit/s (if I orifice of 22mm was used) or 1.5 to 1.6 lit/s (if II orifice of 25mm was used) or the
maximum flow possible is 1.8-2.1 lit/s ( if no orifice was used). The actual flow rate, in test is
not only a function of flow control orifice size, but also minor variations in flow area at the
inlet of the siphon (2. π a. h) which can vary test to test as per the siphon bell mouth size and
height. The sensitivity of the flow rate on critical height is high and so exact flow rate is
required for the comparison with analytical results. Hence every test is analysed for exact flow
rate.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 42


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

There was no flow meter in the line, so it was initially proposed to assess the flow rate
by measuring the time taken for liquid level to fall by a certain height of 60 mm (120mm to
60mm) as shown in fig 30. The cylinder volume works out as 8.3126 lit, (for inner diameter of
420 mm and height 60mm); flow rate can be estimated from the measured time for liquid level
to fall by 60mm. Initially, it was planned to record the time, in real time, using a stop-watch.
Markings were made with a spacing of 10 mm, so that if there was a miss, at 120mm, it can
start at 110mm. These lines made of permanent marker can be seen in the photographs. This
method failed, since it was not possible to simultaneously record the video and note the time
for level fall. Any miss in starting the stop-watch, the flow rate data for that test was lost.
Flow rate data from video reply.
Subsequently, when the video of initial tests was transferred and played back for clarity,
the scale readings for liquid level was very clear that the video itself can be made use of to
extract the time for liquid level to fall by 60mm. There was also an added facility to payback
the video at different speeds in the video player. This helped in getting multiple time difference
data for the same test, playing back at different speeds, such as 0.5x, 0.25x and in some cases
0.125x. About five or six playbacks were made for each test and the average of the same is
obtained. The test flow rate is obtained as 8.3126 / ∆T (average).
Vortex formation from video.
Every test video was played back, to see whether vortex was formed or not. This was done
through two methods.
a) Careful viewing of the free surface around the siphon
b) Sound of vortex entry into the drain, which was really loud.
Normally it was seen that the sound is recorded about 1 sec later than visual observation of
vortex in the video. This could be due to the delay between air entry into the siphon and
coming out through the feedline.
Critical height data from video.
Critical height, as defined in the analytical model, corresponds to the liquid level at which
the dip or depression in free surface suddenly starts expanding and prepare to enter the siphon
drain. This is just a moment previous to the actual entry of air-core vortex. Hence this needs to
be carefully obtained from the experiment. This also posed a challenge, since the water used as
the experiment liquid, is transparent. The identification has to be based on the observation of a
curved surface formation that expands in the next frame. It is also required to measure the
liquid level that corresponds to this process, usually done by frame by frame study.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 43


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Every test was played back, frame by frame to assess the critical height. A few tests were
carried out with color water, either by spraying fountain pen ink blue or light black or by the
addition of coloring powder. This was not much useful, since the transparency of the medium
was lost; locating the vortex became difficult, since the siphon was mounted at the centre of the
tank, about 200mm inside. Subsequently, clear water only was used for tests. In some initial
tests, two issues affected the critical height assessment;
- The video recording stops before vortex formation was recorded. This was due to the
error in judgment during video recording ie command to actual start or stop,
- In some cases the scale to measure the critical height was not visible in the frame.
These issues were resolved, by recording the video for more duration as well as pasting a 2nd
scale. The record of critical height was very good in the later videos, esp., confirmatory tests.
Zero Error in one scale: As mentioned in last chapter, two scales were pasted on the cylindrical
wall of test tank. In the initial tests there was only one. Since it was not visible at certain
viewing angles, the second scale was pasted which needed a zero correction by 7mm. In most
of the tests critical height was noted from this scale and so needs to be corrected by 7mm. (If
reading is 26mm, then actual critical height is 33mm).

Fig 30 Liquid Level crossing 120 and 60 mm

.Fig 31 Liquid Level without and with vortex in the same test

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 44


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

7.2 Tests results comparison with analytical model

All test videos were played back to verify the vortex and evaluate the critical height. The
photographs of liquid free surface at critical height are shown in fig 32 to 35. Analytical results
are given in Table 8 for the test domain (siphon size, height and flow rate). The critical height
from tests compared well with analytic results as shown in Fig 36. There are 15 data points
matching closely with analytical results, covering different siphon radius, height flow etc.
Some tests wherein the dip formation and entry into siphon was captured with good clarity and
the critical height matched with analytical solution are summarized below in table 9.
Table 9 Tests data analysis for siphon drain in model tank
Sl. Test no Configuration Q lit/s Hc* mm Hcr mm
No. ‘h’, mm ‘a’, mm model test
1 49 17 13 1.2 30.5 31
2 53, 54 17 18 1.2 27.9 28
3 41 27 18 1.2 34.2 34
4 6, 29 5 18 1.3 22.4 21
5 12 15 28 1.3 23.8 24
6 17 15 34 1.3 22.1 21
7 9, 10 15 28 1.5 25.3 24
8 15, 16 15 34 1.5 23.5 23
9 8 15 28 1.9 28.0 28
10 13, 14 15 34 1.9 26.1 25
11 3, 4 17 18 1.9 33.3 33
12 19 27 18 1.9 39.4 38
13 8 15 28 2.0 28.6 28
14 37 27 18 2.0 40.0 41
15 34 17 28 2.11 30.4 31

7.3 Summary of observations


a. Analysis of the tests on ‘siphon drain in flat tank bottom’ is completed and found to be a
useful data bank. Test results showed a good match with analytical results generated for test
parameters. The matching covered different parametric variations and so can be considered
as substantial proof for the correctness of the analytical model, approach used to derive the
governing equations and solution methods. This confirmed that analytical model is correct
and can be confidently used for predicting the critical height for any new system.
b. The test results on siphon drain are a useful data bank, to verify the analytical results for
‘Siphon in flat bottom’. Other models for ‘Siphon in spherical bottom tank’ and ‘downward
drain from spherical bottom tank’ are also derived based on same fundamental concepts and
so they shall also be correct to predict the critical height of bath tub vortex.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 45


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Test No 1 ‘a’ 18 ‘h’ 17 Q 1.3 lit/s and Hc28mm

Test no 6 ‘h’ 5 ‘a’ 18 Q1.2 Hc 22mm

Fig 32 Video snaps of vortex formation –I

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 46


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Test No 3 ‘a’ 18 ‘h’ 17 Q 1.9 lit/s H33

Test no 11 ‘a’ 15 ‘h’ 28 Q 1.3 lit.s and Hc 24mm

Fig 33 Video snaps of vortex formation - II

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 47


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Test 19 ‘’a17 ’h’ 27 Q1.9 H38

Test 44 ‘a’ 18 ‘h’25 Q1.9 Hc 38

Fig 34 Video snaps of vortex formation - III

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 48


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Test 53 Eccentric drain a=18, h=27 and Q=1.9 lits/s Vortex 38 mm

Test 60 Eccentric drain a=17, h=27 and Q=1.9 lits/s Vortex 37 mm

Fig 35 Video snaps of vortex formation – IV- Eccentric tests

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 49


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Table 9 Siphon in Flat tank Bottom – Model Results covering Test domain

Q m3/s h ,m a ,m Hd, m Hc, m Q m3/s h ,m a ,m Hd, m Hc, m


1.20E-03 0.005 0.013 1.33E-02 0.023836 1.50E-03 0.017 0.015 8.95E-03 0.03192
1.20E-03 0.005 0.015 1.24E-02 0.02288 1.50E-03 0.017 0.018 7.56E-03 0.030407
1.20E-03 0.005 0.018 1.13E-02 0.021583 1.50E-03 0.017 0.028 4.03E-03 0.026372
1.20E-03 0.005 0.028 8.46E-03 0.018212 1.50E-03 0.017 0.034 2.49E-03 0.024534
1.20E-03 0.005 0.034 7.27E-03 0.016712 1.50E-03 0.027 0.013 6.58E-03 0.039412
1.20E-03 0.015 0.013 8.76E-03 0.029257 1.50E-03 0.027 0.015 5.44E-03 0.038217
1.20E-03 0.015 0.015 7.80E-03 0.028211 1.50E-03 0.027 0.018 3.89E-03 0.036563
1.20E-03 0.015 0.018 6.51E-03 0.026786 1.60E-03 0.005 0.013 1.59E-02 0.02725
1.20E-03 0.015 0.028 3.29E-03 0.023059 1.60E-03 0.005 0.015 1.50E-02 0.026239
1.20E-03 0.015 0.034 1.93E-03 0.021395 1.60E-03 0.005 0.018 1.38E-02 0.024851
1.20E-03 0.017 0.013 7.99E-03 0.030453 1.60E-03 0.005 0.028 1.06E-02 0.02116
1.20E-03 0.017 0.015 7.00E-03 0.029387 1.60E-03 0.005 0.034 9.29E-03 0.019477
1.20E-03 0.017 0.018 5.68E-03 0.027932 1.60E-03 0.015 0.013 1.14E-02 0.032633
1.20E-03 0.017 0.028 2.36E-03 0.024119 1.60E-03 0.015 0.015 1.04E-02 0.031541
1.20E-03 0.017 0.034 9.50E-04 0.022415 1.60E-03 0.015 0.018 9.00E-03 0.030038
1.20E-03 0.027 0.013 4.70E-03 0.036943 1.60E-03 0.015 0.028 5.49E-03 0.026016
1.20E-03 0.027 0.015 3.58E-03 0.035773 1.60E-03 0.015 0.034 3.96E-03 0.024177
1.20E-03 0.027 0.018 2.07E-03 0.034162 1.60E-03 0.017 0.013 1.06E-02 0.033812
1.30E-03 0.005 0.013 1.40E-02 0.024743 1.60E-03 0.017 0.015 9.55E-03 0.032702
1.30E-03 0.005 0.015 1.31E-02 0.023771 1.60E-03 0.017 0.018 8.15E-03 0.031172
1.30E-03 0.005 0.018 1.19E-02 0.022448 1.60E-03 0.017 0.028 4.55E-03 0.027073
1.30E-03 0.005 0.028 9.04E-03 0.018989 1.60E-03 0.017 0.034 2.98E-03 0.025195
1.30E-03 0.005 0.034 7.80E-03 0.017438 1.60E-03 0.027 0.013 7.17E-03 0.040176
1.30E-03 0.015 0.013 9.45E-03 0.030153 1.60E-03 0.027 0.015 6.02E-03 0.038974
1.30E-03 0.015 0.015 8.48E-03 0.029094 1.60E-03 0.027 0.018 4.45E-03 0.037307
1.30E-03 0.015 0.018 7.17E-03 0.027647 1.60E-03 0.027 0.028 3.35E-04 0.032778
1.30E-03 0.015 0.028 3.87E-03 0.023838 1.90E-03 0.005 0.013 1.77E-02 0.029505
1.30E-03 0.015 0.034 2.46E-03 0.022126 1.90E-03 0.005 0.015 1.67E-02 0.028462
1.30E-03 0.017 0.013 8.68E-03 0.031344 1.90E-03 0.005 0.018 1.55E-02 0.027022
1.30E-03 0.017 0.015 7.67E-03 0.030266 1.90E-03 0.005 0.028 1.21E-02 0.02314
1.30E-03 0.017 0.018 6.33E-03 0.02879 1.90E-03 0.005 0.034 1.07E-02 0.021344
1.30E-03 0.017 0.028 2.93E-03 0.024898 1.90E-03 0.015 0.013 1.31E-02 0.034866
1.30E-03 0.017 0.034 1.48E-03 0.023146 1.90E-03 0.015 0.015 1.21E-02 0.033747
1.30E-03 0.027 0.013 5.35E-03 0.037798 1.90E-03 0.015 0.018 1.07E-02 0.032199
1.30E-03 0.027 0.015 4.23E-03 0.03662 1.90E-03 0.015 0.028 6.97E-03 0.028002
1.30E-03 0.027 0.018 2.70E-03 0.034993 1.90E-03 0.015 0.034 5.34E-03 0.026055
1.50E-03 0.005 0.013 1.53E-02 0.026446 1.90E-03 0.017 0.013 1.23E-02 0.036035
1.50E-03 0.005 0.015 1.44E-02 0.025447 1.90E-03 0.017 0.015 1.13E-02 0.034899
1.50E-03 0.005 0.018 1.32E-02 0.024079 1.90E-03 0.017 0.018 9.81E-03 0.033326
1.50E-03 0.005 0.028 1.01E-02 0.02046 1.90E-03 0.017 0.028 6.03E-03 0.029057
1.50E-03 0.005 0.034 8.81E-03 0.018818 1.90E-03 0.017 0.034 4.36E-03 0.027072
1.50E-03 0.015 0.013 1.08E-02 0.031838 1.90E-03 0.027 0.013 8.82E-03 0.042326

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 50


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Q m3/s h ,m a ,m Hd, m Hc, m Q m3/s h ,m a ,m Hd, m Hc, m


1.50E-03 0.015 0.015 9.76E-03 0.030755 2.11E-03 0.027 0.028 2.75E-03 0.036013
1.50E-03 0.015 0.018 8.41E-03 0.029269 2.11E-03 0.027 0.034 7.74E-04 0.033758
1.50E-03 0.015 0.028 4.96E-03 0.025314 1.90E-03 0.027 0.015 7.65E-03 0.041106
1.50E-03 0.015 0.034 3.47E-03 0.023515 1.90E-03 0.027 0.018 6.05E-03 0.039406
1.50E-03 0.017 0.013 9.97E-03 0.033020 1.90E-03 0.027 0.028 1.79E-03 0.034733
2.00E-03 0.005 0.018 1.60E-02 0.027704 2.00E-03 0.005 0.013 1.83E-02 0.030211
2.00E-03 0.005 0.028 1.26E-02 0.023765 2.00E-03 0.005 0.015 1.73E-02 0.029159
2.00E-03 0.005 0.034 1.11E-02 0.021935 2.11E-03 0.027 0.028 2.75E-03 0.036013
2.00E-03 0.015 0.013 1.37E-02 0.035566 2.11E-03 0.027 0.034 7.74E-04 0.033758
2.00E-03 0.015 0.015 1.26E-02 0.034439
2.00E-03 0.015 0.018 1.12E-02 0.032878
2.00E-03 0.015 0.028 7.44E-03 0.028629
2.00E-03 0.015 0.034 5.78E-03 0.026649
2.00E-03 0.017 0.013 1.29E-02 0.036731
2.00E-03 0.017 0.015 1.18E-02 0.035589
2.00E-03 0.017 0.018 1.03E-02 0.034003
2.00E-03 0.017 0.028 6.50E-03 0.029683
2.00E-03 0.017 0.034 4.80E-03 0.027666
2.00E-03 0.027 0.013 9.34E-03 0.043002
2.00E-03 0.027 0.015 8.16E-03 0.041776
2.00E-03 0.027 0.018 6.55E-03 0.040066
2.00E-03 0.027 0.028 2.25E-03 0.035351
2.00E-03 0.027 0.034 3.08E-04 0.033126
2.11E-03 0.005 0.013 1.88E-02 0.030965
2.11E-03 0.005 0.015 1.79E-02 0.029903
2.11E-03 0.005 0.018 1.65E-02 0.028432
2.11E-03 0.005 0.028 1.31E-02 0.024435
2.11E-03 0.005 0.034 1.16E-02 0.022569
2.11E-03 0.015 0.013 1.43E-02 0.036313
2.11E-03 0.015 0.015 1.32E-02 0.035179
2.11E-03 0.015 0.018 1.17E-02 0.033603
2.11E-03 0.015 0.028 7.94E-03 0.029301
2.11E-03 0.015 0.034 6.25E-03 0.027286
2.11E-03 0.017 0.013 1.34E-02 0.037476
2.11E-03 0.017 0.015 1.24E-02 0.036326
2.11E-03 0.017 0.018 1.09E-02 0.034727
2.11E-03 0.017 0.028 7.00E-03 0.030354
2.11E-03 0.017 0.034 5.27E-03 0.028304
2.11E-03 0.027 0.013 9.89E-03 0.043724
2.11E-03 0.027 0.015 8.72E-03 0.042493
2.11E-03 0.027 0.018 7.09E-03 0.040773

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 51


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Q-lit/s H-mm TEST VALUES vs ANALYTICAL DATA - CRITICAL HEIGHT


2.2 60
15 Test data points Hc-Test
along w ith model data Hc-Model
Flow rate
show ing good match
2.0 50

1.8 40

1.6 30

1.4 20
V ariations in param eters for m odel
Q : 1.2,1.3,1.5,1.6,1.9,2.0,2.11 lit/s
'h': 5, 15, 17, 27 m m
'a': 13, 15, 18, 28, 34 m m
1.2 10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Analysis Case num ber

Fig 36 Critical height analysis results comparison with test data

c. Tests with siphon located eccentrically, (8 tests 2 different positions) for different ‘a’ and
‘h’ values also give critical height matching with the analytical model. It has been
experimentally proved that eccentric drain ports dissipate vortex motion and so, the critical
height obtained from such eccentric position of drain ports, can be taken as critical height
of bath tub vortex without any augmentation from liquid rotation, which is an assumption
for all analytical models.
d. In some cases with low siphon height and bell mouth radius, the flow was much less and
stopped early. The critical flow area (2.π.a.h) is reduced much that it controlled the flow
and did not sustain the flow after this liquid level, much above the critical height.
e. The analytical model can be employed for any study or design of siphon based on the
confidence derived from these tests. Tests on ‘siphon drain flow from spherical bottom
tanks’ can be planned as further work to verify the analytical models of the same.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 52


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Chapter-8

DESIGN OF A SIPHON FOR A LIQUID PROPELLANT TANK

In this chapter, the analytical models developed and validated by tests for siphon in flat
bottom tank are used to evaluate the performance of an existing siphon design under flight
conditions. The consideration in parameters such as flight acceleration, actual density of
propellant and pressurant (mostly gaseous Helium) at the pressure and temperature of operation
in flight are applied in this assessment. The strap-on liquid stage, considered for the model
tank, has a siphon in spherical bottom tank arrangement. The siphon design used in this stage is
assessed by the analytical models, developed in this thesis, to predict critical height.
The design approach, starting from assessing the sensitivity and optimizing of siphon
geometry parameters to arrive at a workable design are explained. A suitable sizing based on
critical height assessment through analytical model and final verification based on the alternate
approach is arrived at. Based on this assessment, for a booster liquid stage, working currently
with downward drain, a siphon design is recommended. This can significantly reduce the
unused propellant left out in flight and increase the launch vehicle capability.
8.1 Assessment for existing design
The operational liquid strap-on stage (fig 15) is provided with a ‘siphon in spherical
bottom tank’ and has been working satisfactorily in flight. The minimum left out liquid to be
accounted for bath tub vortex is specified, based on flight experience. This design is studied for
the formation of air core vortex in flight condition, evaluated for critical height, through that
mass left out due to air-core vortex are compared with the existing specifications. For this
stage, the parameters for flight condition are as follows;
a. Liquid propellant density :1440 kg/m3
b. Pressurant Helium gas density : 0.556 kg/m3
c. Acceleration of the vehicle : 28 m/s2 (3g taken)
Volume of liquid left out at 1g:
When the liquid stage is tested in ground at 1g acceleration, with same Helium pressurant gas,
liquid left unused and remaining in the tank is known for ground as well as flight conditions.
Hence, the analytical model is used to estimate critical height under 1g and 3g conditions. In
the strap-on stage tank, siphon is operational and flight proven for adequacy However, a
perturbation study for parametric variations in ‘a’ and ‘h’ and to assess whether the existing
siphon design gives the optimal critical height, is carried out with the following objectives

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 53


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

1. Confirm whether the present design is optimal or to search for a combination design in
‘a’ and ‘h’ parameters, which can give any further improvement to existing design.
2. Based on the success of this exercise, critical height under different configurations for
another liquid booster stage, that is presently working with downward drain flow
arrangement can be studied and a suitable siphon design can be proposed.

8.2 Siphon Design Approach

As explained in analytical model studies, direct solution of siphon drain in spherical bottom
tanks is not possible but Hc* can be obtained from the variation of Hc vs Hd. This method shall
be time consuming, if used to evaluate parametric variations to assess the effect on critical
height. The following alternate method is proposed as design approach.

a. For the given flow rate 0.12 m3/s, critical height for downward drain flow can vary with
acceleration. Hence Hc*(LS) can be estimated at 1 g and 3g, totally two values. This
shall indicate the influence of ‘g’ on critical height.
b. For the liquid stage tank sphere radius and flow rate, critical height Hc*(sphere) data at
1g and 3g conditions are generated. A comparison of the data between Hc*(LS) and
Hc*(sphere) at 1g and 3g acceleration conditions, can show the impact of spherical
bottom radius on ‘critical height’.
c. For the nominal flow rate, if bottom radius is high enough, the difference shall be much
less. In that case, ‘siphon drain from flat tank bottom’ model can be easily applicable
for assessing the parametric variation to finalise the optimal parameters of siphon in
terms of ‘a’ and ‘h’. Both ‘reduction of critical height’ by siphon as well as meeting the
‘critical flow area’ to avoid starvation are be considered, towards this optimization.
d. The finalized siphon design gives the optimal critical height and reduces the left out
mass of liquid inside the tank. This assessment of critical height is done using the
‘siphon drain in spherical bottom’ model.
e. This exercise was carried out initially for the ‘operational strap-on liquid stage’ with 2.1
m diameter tank, with a spherical bottom of radius R1150mm. The flow rate considered
is 0.12 m3/s. Pressurant gas density is estimated for the thermodynamic state of the
Helium gas inside the ullage of tank, at the time of depletion. These data are included in
the model and the critical height is assessed for the following cases.
 Lubin-Springer model: Downward drain flow from a flat bottom tank 1g and 3g
 Downward drain from spherical bottom of radius R1.15m for 1g and 3g

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 54


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

 Siphon in flat bottom tank using the siphon parameters in actual stage for 1g and 3g.

The siphon geometry for this strap-on liquid stage has ‘h’ value of 46mm ad ‘a’ value of
127mm, The analysis is done for parametric variations of ‘h’ variations [ 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 60
and 65 mm] and ‘a’ variations of [ 80, 120, 160, 200, 250 and 300 mm] and the results are
given below for cases (a) and (b) and in table 10 for 1 g and table 11 for 3g.

8.3 Effect of acceleration


Lubin-Springer for liquid stage: 1g Hc*(LS1g) = 186.8 mm
3g Hc*(LS3g) = 149.9 mm (-36.9 mm)
Spherical bottom R1150 for liquid stage: 1g Hc*(sph-1g) = 192.7 mm
3g Hc*(sph-3g) = 153.2 mm (-39.5 mm)
Siphon flat bottom tank for liquid stage: 1g Hc*(siph-1g) = 137.8 mm
(for h=46mm and a=127mm) 3g Hc*(siph-3g) = 106.0 mm (-31.8 mm)
The above assessment for nominal data indicates that
- Acceleration from 1g to 3g: Critical height reduced in all cases with the maximum
change of 39.5mm for spherical bottom to 31.8mm for siphon drain -flat bottom model.
- Spherical bottom radius Rd 1150: For the flow rate and siphon geometry, spherical
bottom radius is ‘less significant’. The change in critical height data from flat to spherical
bottom tanks 5.9 mm (+3.2% only) under 1 g and 3.3 mm (+2.2%) under 3g condition,
Hence the spherical bottom effect can be ignored for the parametric variations of ‘a’ and
‘h’ and optimizing the siphon design.
8.4 Results of parametric studies
Since the effect of spherical bottom radius is less influencing for the siphon, all parametric
variations are assessed using the ‘siphon in flat bottom tank’ model. The assessment is done for
1 g and 3 g conditions. The critical height data are given in tables 10 for 1g (ground test
condition) and table 11 for 3g (flight condition); the results are sorted out in ascending values
of left out volume. The volume of liquid is computed using the mathematical relation for
volume of partially filled spherical vessels, that depends on Rd and Hs.
- Sphere radius is Rd, in ‘m’ and Height of filling Hc , in ‘m’
- Volume = π*Hc2*(Rd-Hc/3) in ‘m3’
The first row gives the lowest critical height and so the lowest left out volume. The last row
gives the left-out volume for downward drain flow as per Hc*LS and critical flow area. The

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 55


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

detail analysis of the ‘critical height data from parametric variations’ is given below. For
optimization, the design shall have to meet ‘critical area’ criterion, which is described below.
8.5 Critical flow area:
Siphon design gives lower critical height for lower ‘h’ and larger ‘a’. The flow area at inlet to
bell mouth is 2*π*a*h. This is the critical area and should be sufficiently higher than feed line
area, for the given flow rate. For strap-on stage, feed line size is φ160 mm This shows nominal
flow area ( π*1602/4 ). This is taken as the ‘minimum flow area’ to be available at inlet to the
siphon. This can be used to obtain the critical ‘a x h’ product as 2*π*a*h > ( π*1602/4 ) 
a.h > 1602 / 8 or > 3200 mm2.
Instead of computing the critical area, the same criterion is applied to (a,h) product, as critical
area parameter and for the strap-on stage this value is > 3200 mm2.
- The top 17 ‘low critical height’ combinations appear in the initial rows have higher
critical area > 3200mm2. For 1g and 3g conditions, the top ten best combinations remain
same. Subsequently minor shuffling in the order is seen between 1g and 3g lists.
- Though the critical area parameter (a.h) shall be >3200m2, some margin needs to be
maintained for the spherical tank bottom effect. The spherical tank bottom surface raises
up more with the increase in bell mouth, reduces this actual gap ‘h’ to ‘h1’ as used in the
‘siphon in spherical tank bottom’ model. About 50% margin is recommended. This
implies for the finalized design, (a.h) > 4800. The actual value is (h=46 and a=127 gives
5842 m2, that gives a better margin of 63%
- There are only 9 combinations with a.h < 4800mm2. They also give a critical height
better than Lubin-Springer for both 1g and 3g conditions. But they can be ignored based
on critical height requirement. These cases also lie in the last rows.

8.6 Bell mouth size optimization: The next optimization criterion is the bell-mouth size. As
can be seen, lowest critical height occurs with the largest bell mouth, with lowest siphon
height. The larger the bell-mouth size, the closer it will be with the spherical tank bottom
surface. The smaller the bell mouth size, critical height reduction is not significant. Hence a
trade-off is to be taken for the bell mouth size, judiciously.

As can be seen from the parametric studies, h45mm & a120mm case (close to actual siphon)
provides a critical height reduction of 140mm over 186.8 mm (-25% only) whereas, h30mm &
a300mm can reduce it to 89mm (-53%).

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 56


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Table 10 Strap-on stage parametric variations & optimisation –1 g condition


Q m3/s h, m a, m Hd* Hc* Hc*LS Volume a*h*1e6
1.20E-01 3.00E-02 3.00E-01 3.49E-02 0.0891276 0.1867760 0.027958 9000
1.20E-01 3.50E-02 3.00E-01 3.19E-02 0.0912058 0.1867760 0.029259 10500
1.20E-01 4.00E-02 3.00E-01 2.90E-02 0.0933053 0.1867760 0.030602 12000
1.20E-01 4.50E-02 3.00E-01 2.61E-02 0.0954262 0.1867760 0.031989 13500
1.20E-01 3.00E-02 2.50E-01 4.11E-02 0.0974691 0.1867760 0.033353 7500
1.20E-01 5.00E-02 3.00E-01 2.32E-02 0.0975686 0.1867760 0.03342 15000
1.20E-01 3.50E-02 2.50E-01 3.82E-02 0.0995985 0.1867760 0.034804 8750
1.20E-01 4.00E-02 2.50E-01 3.54E-02 0.1017521 0.1867760 0.036302 10000
1.20E-01 6.00E-02 3.00E-01 1.75E-02 0.1019181 0.1867760 0.036419 18000
1.20E-01 4.50E-02 2.50E-01 3.25E-02 0.1039301 0.1867760 0.037848 11250
1.20E-01 6.50E-02 3.00E-01 1.47E-02 0.1041254 0.1867760 0.037988 19500
1.20E-01 5.00E-02 2.50E-01 2.97E-02 0.1061326 0.1867760 0.039443 12500
1.20E-01 3.00E-02 2.00E-01 4.94E-02 0.1081426 0.1867760 0.040927 6000
1.20E-01 3.50E-02 2.00E-01 4.66E-02 0.1103413 0.1867760 0.04258 7000
1.20E-01 6.00E-02 2.50E-01 2.41E-02 0.1106112 0.1867760 0.042785 15000
1.20E-01 4.00E-02 2.00E-01 4.38E-02 0.1125679 0.1867760 0.044286 8000
1.20E-01 6.50E-02 2.50E-01 2.14E-02 0.1128875 0.1867760 0.044534 16250
1.20E-01 4.50E-02 2.00E-01 4.10E-02 0.1148225 0.1867760 0.046047 9000
1.20E-01 5.00E-02 2.00E-01 3.83E-02 0.1171051 0.1867760 0.047863 10000
1.20E-01 3.00E-02 1.60E-01 5.82E-02 0.1190424 0.1867760 0.049431 4800
1.20E-01 3.50E-02 1.60E-01 5.54E-02 0.1213149 0.1867760 0.051301 5600
1.20E-01 6.00E-02 2.00E-01 3.29E-02 0.1217549 0.1867760 0.051667 12000
1.20E-01 4.00E-02 1.60E-01 5.27E-02 0.1236185 0.1867760 0.053231 6400
1.20E-01 6.50E-02 2.00E-01 3.03E-02 0.1241223 0.1867760 0.053658 13000
1.20E-01 4.50E-02 1.60E-01 5.00E-02 0.1259535 0.1867760 0.055223 7200
1.20E-01 5.00E-02 1.60E-01 4.74E-02 0.1283199 0.1867760 0.057276 8000
1.20E-01 3.00E-02 1.20E-01 6.98E-02 0.1328584 0.1867760 0.061316 3600
1.20E-01 6.00E-02 1.60E-01 4.22E-02 0.1331472 0.1867760 0.061577 9600
1.20E-01 3.50E-02 1.20E-01 6.71E-02 0.1352256 0.1867760 0.063475 4200
1.20E-01 6.50E-02 1.60E-01 3.96E-02 0.1356082 0.1867760 0.063827 10400
1.20E-01 4.00E-02 1.20E-01 6.45E-02 0.1376277 0.1867760 0.065702 4800
1.20E-01 4.50E-02 1.20E-01 6.19E-02 0.1400647 0.1867760 0.067999 5400
1.20E-01 5.00E-02 1.20E-01 5.94E-02 0.1425367 0.1867760 0.070368 6000
1.20E-01 6.00E-02 1.20E-01 5.44E-02 0.1475856 0.1867760 0.075327 7200
1.20E-01 6.50E-02 1.20E-01 5.20E-02 0.1501625 0.1867760 0.077919 7800
1.20E-01 3.00E-02 8.00E-02 8.54E-02 0.1506098 0.1867760 0.078373 2400
1.20E-01 3.50E-02 8.00E-02 8.29E-02 0.1530958 0.1867760 0.080921 2800
1.20E-01 4.00E-02 8.00E-02 8.04E-02 0.1556200 0.1867760 0.083547 3200
1.20E-01 4.50E-02 8.00E-02 7.80E-02 0.1581825 0.1867760 0.086254 3600
1.20E-01 5.00E-02 8.00E-02 7.56E-02 0.1607832 0.1867760 0.089044 4000
1.20E-01 6.00E-02 8.00E-02 7.10E-02 0.1660989 0.1867760 0.094875 4800
1.20E-01 6.50E-02 8.00E-02 6.87E-02 0.1688137 0.1867760 0.097921 5200
Lubin-Springer volume and critical flow area mm2 L-S Volume 0.119211 > 3200 ok

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 57


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Table 11 Strap-on stage parametric variations & optimisation –3 g condition


Q h a Hd Hc* Hc*LS Volume a*h*1e6
1.20E-01 3.00E-02 3.00E-01 1.89E-02 0.0663893 0.1499329 0.015617 9000
1.20E-01 3.50E-02 3.00E-01 1.59E-02 0.0684425 0.1499329 0.016588 10500
1.20E-01 4.00E-02 3.00E-01 1.30E-02 0.0705181 0.1499329 0.017599 12000
1.20E-01 4.50E-02 3.00E-01 1.01E-02 0.0726164 0.1499329 0.01865 13500
1.20E-01 3.00E-02 2.50E-01 2.35E-02 0.0726711 0.1499329 0.018678 7500
1.20E-01 5.00E-02 3.00E-01 7.19E-03 0.0747374 0.1499329 0.019743 15000
1.20E-01 3.50E-02 2.50E-01 2.06E-02 0.0747727 0.1499329 0.019761 8750
1.20E-01 4.00E-02 2.50E-01 1.77E-02 0.0769002 0.1499329 0.020889 10000
1.20E-01 6.00E-02 3.00E-01 1.47E-03 0.0790479 0.1499329 0.022058 18000
1.20E-01 4.50E-02 2.50E-01 1.48E-02 0.0790538 0.1499329 0.022061 11250
1.20E-01 3.00E-02 2.00E-01 2.97E-02 0.0808995 0.1499329 0.023091 6000
1.20E-01 5.00E-02 2.50E-01 1.20E-02 0.0812337 0.1499329 0.023279 12500
1.20E-01 3.50E-02 2.00E-01 2.69E-02 0.0830688 0.1499329 0.02433 7000
1.20E-01 4.00E-02 2.00E-01 2.40E-02 0.0852685 0.1499329 0.025619 8000
1.20E-01 6.00E-02 2.50E-01 6.40E-03 0.0856727 0.1499329 0.025859 15000
1.20E-01 4.50E-02 2.00E-01 2.12E-02 0.0874990 0.1499329 0.026959 9000
1.20E-01 6.50E-02 2.50E-01 3.65E-03 0.0879319 0.1499329 0.027223 16250
1.20E-01 3.00E-02 1.60E-01 3.64E-02 0.0895555 0.1499329 0.028223 4800
1.20E-01 5.00E-02 2.00E-01 1.85E-02 0.0897601 0.1499329 0.028351 10000
1.20E-01 3.50E-02 1.60E-01 3.37E-02 0.0918000 0.1499329 0.029636 5600
1.20E-01 4.00E-02 1.60E-01 3.09E-02 0.0940795 0.1499329 0.031105 6400
1.20E-01 6.00E-02 2.00E-01 1.31E-02 0.0943753 0.1499329 0.031298 12000
1.20E-01 4.50E-02 1.60E-01 2.82E-02 0.0963941 0.1499329 0.032632 7200
1.20E-01 6.50E-02 2.00E-01 1.04E-02 0.0967295 0.1499329 0.032856 13000
1.20E-01 5.00E-02 1.60E-01 2.55E-02 0.0987439 0.1499329 0.034218 8000
1.20E-01 3.00E-02 1.20E-01 4.57E-02 0.1009439 0.1499329 0.035736 3600
1.20E-01 3.50E-02 1.20E-01 4.30E-02 0.1032904 0.1499329 0.037391 4200
1.20E-01 6.00E-02 1.60E-01 2.03E-02 0.1035498 0.1499329 0.037576 9600
1.20E-01 4.00E-02 1.20E-01 4.04E-02 0.1056772 0.1499329 0.039111 4800
1.20E-01 6.50E-02 1.60E-01 1.78E-02 0.1060060 0.1499329 0.039351 10400
1.20E-01 4.50E-02 1.20E-01 3.78E-02 0.1081044 0.1499329 0.040899 5400
1.20E-01 5.00E-02 1.20E-01 3.52E-02 0.1105720 0.1499329 0.042755 6000
1.20E-01 6.00E-02 1.20E-01 3.03E-02 0.1156286 0.1499329 0.046685 7200
1.20E-01 3.00E-02 8.00E-02 5.88E-02 0.1163240 0.1499329 0.047238 2400
1.20E-01 6.50E-02 1.20E-01 2.79E-02 0.1182175 0.1499329 0.048761 7800
1.20E-01 3.50E-02 8.00E-02 5.63E-02 0.1188072 0.1499329 0.04924 2800
1.20E-01 4.00E-02 8.00E-02 5.39E-02 0.1213362 0.1499329 0.051319 3200
1.20E-01 4.50E-02 8.00E-02 5.14E-02 0.1239108 0.1499329 0.053479 3600
1.20E-01 5.00E-02 8.00E-02 4.91E-02 0.1265311 0.1499329 0.05572 4000
1.20E-01 6.00E-02 8.00E-02 4.45E-02 0.1319078 0.1499329 0.060459 4800
1.20E-01 6.50E-02 8.00E-02 4.23E-02 0.1346638 0.1499329 0.062959 5200
2
L-S Volume and critical flow area mm 0.077686 > 6400 ok

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 58


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

- For the nearby combinations of ‘h’40 & ‘a’120mm, as well as ‘h’50 & ‘a’120, the critical
height for siphon drain flow reduces
• from 187mm to 140mm or nearly -25% at 1g condition and
• from 150mm to 110mm or nearly -27% at 3g condition.
- There are better combinations, such as ’h’ = 30mm & 35 mm and ‘a’= 120mm, to give
lower Hc*; but area parameter has no margin and may cause flow starvation at inlet.
- Other better combinations have large bell mouth radius of 160 or 200 and not warranted.
- For the design h=46mm and a=127mm, (a.h) = 5842mm2 (+63%) of 3200mm2 and
hence can be the optimum. For this siphon geometry and spherical bottom radius of
Rd=1150mm, the critical height Hc* obtained as the minima point from the variation of
Hc vs Hd shown in fig 39. Comparison of critical height under all four configurations is
given in table 12 below;

Table 12. Comparison of critical height for strap-on stage


Accln Lubin-Springer Sphere Bottom Siphon-Flat tank Siph-dome
1g 186.8 mm 192.7 mm 137.8 mm 146.4 mm
105.6 lit 111,7 lit 60.4 lit 67.6 lit
3g 149.9 mm 153.2 mm 106.0 mm 112.75 mm
70.6 lit 73.5 lit 36.9 lit 41.4 lit

- The minimum left-out quantity of liquid inside propellant tank corresponding to critical
height is given as 41.4 lit (3g condition). It was verified from design data that left out
liquid considered is 68lit (+50%) to 118lit. This value is seen to be conservative.
- This exercise has given enough confidence to assess similar design requirements of
future liquid stages for use in flight. However, the results cannot be verified under 3g
condition, since it is not possible to simulate the acceleration level, in ground.

Overall Assessment for strap-on stage: The present design is optimal and leaves a theoretical
left out of 41 kg only under 3g condition and 68kg for 1g. The flight consideration of 68 kg is
conservative and has adequate margin.

8.7 Design of siphon for liquid propellant tank


A new liquid stage is being developed for use as booster stage of a heavy lift launch
vehicle. The stage is of 4m diameter and has a spherical bottom of radius of 2.5m. [The strap-
on liquid stage had diameter 2.1 m and spherical bottom radius of 1.15m flow rate 0.12m3/s]

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 59


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

This stage is presently designed for downward flow drain condition for a discharge of 240 lit/s
(0.24m3/s). The stage ground tests indicated that the unused quantity of liquid in the propellant
tank, before vortex entry was ~460lit. Considering this, the booster stage is operated with a
large left out propellant mass of 750kg (500lit).
Analytical model of critical height was used to have a parametric study and design a
suitable bell mouth radius and height. The effect of siphon, the expected quantum of
improvement in critical height and an optimal design value of siphon are done. The geometry
of the booster stage propellant tank is shown in fig 37. It also depletes in an acceleration of 3g.
The tank has a diameter of 4000mm and spherical bottom of radius R2500 mm. The major
change from strap-on stage is the liquid flow rate which is 240 lit/s (double the value).

Initial assessment of critical height


From the data provided, the critical height was assessed for downward drain flow for flat
bottom and spherical bottom cases. These data are as follows;

Lubin-Springer for liquid booster stage: 1g Hc*(LS-1g) = 246.5 mm


3g Hc*(LS-3g) = 197.8 mm (-36.9 mm)
Spherical bottom R2500 for liquid stage: 1g Hc*(sph-1g) = 250.5 mm
3g Hc*(sph-3g) = 200.4 mm (-39.5 mm)

The impact of acceleration on critical height is -20% from 1 to 3 g. Similarly the effect of
spherical tank bottom is negligible for both 1g and 3g conditions (+1.5%). Hence the presence
of spherical tank bottom can be neglected for the initial investigations of critical height and the
model for ‘siphon in flat tank bottom’ can give the optimum configuration of siphon. For the
finalised design, ‘siphon in spherical bottom’ can be applied to get the correct critical height
Hence for the operating parameters flow rate 0.24 m3/s, acceleration 1g and 3g are used
in the model. Suitable parametric variations of ‘h’ and ‘a’ are also applied. Since the siphon
design shall is needed for higher flow rate, following initial values are chosen to optimise;
‘h’ : 40mm, 45mm, 50mm, 55mm, 60mm, 70mm (6 variations)
‘a’ : 100mm, 175mm, 250mm, 300mm, 375mm, 450mm (6 variations)

These parameter variations were applied in the analytical model for ‘siphon in flat
bottom tanks’ and critical height is obtained from MATLAB solution for each perturbation
case. For the Hc* the volume of liquid left out was estimated using the formula with spherical

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 60


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

bottom radius of 2.5m to obtain the volume of liquid left out in the propellant tank at the time
of air-core vortex entry into drain port, which needs to be minimized by this alternate design.

The results obtained are sorted out in ascending order of volume left out, to give the
preferential ‘best combination of ‘a’ and ‘h’ for siphon arrangement. Then the same is checked
for the critical flow area parameter ie (a.h) > minimum critical area, which is computed as the
feed line area corresponding to φ226mm. Thus a combination such that (a.h) >6400 mm2 is
acceptable and a margin of 75-100% is acceptable over this value, as done in strap-on stage.
The results are given in table 13 for 1 g condition and table 14 for 3 g condition. The
observations are similar to that obtained for the strap-on stage and highlighted below;

• The top 20 ‘low critical height’ combinations appear have higher ‘critical area’ > 11000
mm2 and are acceptable; but the bell size is >300mm, which is very high.
• The first case with ‘a’=250mm occurs with ‘h’=40. For this area parameter is 10000 and
not accepted. For ‘a’=250mm, area parameter crosses 12800 (2 times critical area) when
‘h’ is 55mm. For this combination, though acceptable for a flat tank bottom, the presence
of spherical bottom reduces the gap at the outer diameter ‘2a’ the real gap needs to be
assessed.
• The 55mm gap touches the bottom at R 521.5mm. At R250 mm, the increase of spherical
surface height works out as 13mm. Thus the critical flow area reduces with the spherical
bottom to 10500mm2. Margin on critical area reduces from 75% to 64%. Similar value
for the operational strap-on stage works out as 55% over 3200mm2. (Rise of bottom
surface is 7mm, effective height reduces from 46 to 39 and critical flow area is
4953mm2)
• For 1g and 3g condition, the list of top 10 best combinations remains same. Subsequently
the order is different. Similar order change is seen in earlier strap-on case also. The
finalized design of siphon is shown in fig 38.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 61


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Table 13 Booster stage parametric variations & optimisation –1 g condition


Q m3/s h, m a, m Hd, m Hc m HCLS,mm volume a*h*1e6
2.40E-01 4.00E-02 4.50E-01 4.03E-02 0.1104 0.2465 0.09431769 18000.00
2.40E-01 4.50E-02 4.50E-01 3.74E-02 0.1124 0.2465 0.09781646 20250.00
2.40E-01 5.00E-02 4.50E-01 3.44E-02 0.1145 0.2465 0.10140377 22500.00
2.40E-01 5.50E-02 4.50E-01 3.14E-02 0.1166 0.2465 0.10508076 24750.00
2.40E-01 6.00E-02 4.50E-01 2.85E-02 0.1187 0.2465 0.10884891 27000.00
2.40E-01 6.50E-02 4.50E-01 2.56E-02 0.1208 0.2465 0.11270972 29250.00
2.40E-01 4.00E-02 3.75E-01 4.82E-02 0.1210 0.2465 0.11310734 15000.00
2.40E-01 7.00E-02 4.50E-01 2.27E-02 0.1229 0.2465 0.11666453 31500.00
2.40E-01 4.50E-02 3.75E-01 4.52E-02 0.1231 0.2465 0.11701859 16875.00
2.40E-01 5.00E-02 3.75E-01 4.23E-02 0.1252 0.2465 0.12102738 18750.00
2.40E-01 5.50E-02 3.75E-01 3.94E-02 0.1273 0.2465 0.12513543 20625.00
2.40E-01 6.00E-02 3.75E-01 3.65E-02 0.1295 0.2465 0.12934409 22500.00
2.40E-01 6.50E-02 3.75E-01 3.37E-02 0.1316 0.2465 0.1336553 24375.00
2.40E-01 7.00E-02 3.75E-01 3.08E-02 0.1338 0.2465 0.13807065 26250.00
2.40E-01 4.00E-02 3.00E-01 5.86E-02 0.1347 0.2465 0.1399792 12000.00
2.40E-01 4.50E-02 3.00E-01 5.57E-02 0.1369 0.2465 0.14445465 13500.00
2.40E-01 5.00E-02 3.00E-01 5.29E-02 0.1390 0.2465 0.14904035 15000.00
2.40E-01 5.50E-02 3.00E-01 5.00E-02 0.1412 0.2465 0.15373877 16500.00
2.40E-01 6.00E-02 3.00E-01 4.72E-02 0.1435 0.2465 0.15855154 18000.00
2.40E-01 6.50E-02 3.00E-01 4.45E-02 0.1457 0.2465 0.16348098 19500.00
2.40E-01 4.00E-02 2.50E-01 6.77E-02 0.1464 0.2465 0.1649482 10000.00
2.40E-01 7.00E-02 3.00E-01 4.17E-02 0.1480 0.2465 0.16852874 21000.00
2.40E-01 4.50E-02 2.50E-01 6.49E-02 0.1486 0.2465 0.16992689 11250.00
2.40E-01 5.00E-02 2.50E-01 6.21E-02 0.1508 0.2465 0.17502813 12500.00
2.40E-01 5.50E-02 2.50E-01 5.94E-02 0.1531 0.2465 0.18025377 13750.00
2.40E-01 6.00E-02 2.50E-01 5.66E-02 0.1553 0.2465 0.18560639 15000.00
2.40E-01 6.50E-02 2.50E-01 5.39E-02 0.1576 0.2465 0.19108811 16250.00
2.40E-01 7.00E-02 2.50E-01 5.12E-02 0.1600 0.2465 0.19670133 17500.00
2.40E-01 4.00E-02 1.75E-01 8.65E-02 0.1693 0.2465 0.21991825 7000.00
2.40E-01 4.50E-02 1.75E-01 8.38E-02 0.1716 0.2465 0.22595051 7875.00
2.40E-01 5.00E-02 1.75E-01 8.11E-02 0.1739 0.2465 0.23212937 8750.00
2.40E-01 5.50E-02 1.75E-01 7.85E-02 0.1763 0.2465 0.23845818 9625.00
2.40E-01 6.00E-02 1.75E-01 7.59E-02 0.1787 0.2465 0.24493901 10500.00
2.40E-01 6.50E-02 1.75E-01 7.33E-02 0.1812 0.2465 0.25157499 11375.00
2.40E-01 7.00E-02 1.75E-01 7.08E-02 0.1836 0.2465 0.25836878 12250.00
2.40E-01 4.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.15E-01 0.2018 0.2465 0.31114403 4000.00
2.40E-01 4.50E-02 1.00E-01 1.13E-01 0.2043 0.2465 0.31878552 4500.00
2.40E-01 5.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.10E-01 0.2068 0.2465 0.32660791 5000.00
2.40E-01 5.50E-02 1.00E-01 1.08E-01 0.2094 0.2465 0.33461429 5500.00
2.40E-01 6.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.05E-01 0.2119 0.2465 0.3428081 6000.00
2.40E-01 6.50E-02 1.00E-01 1.03E-01 0.2146 0.2465 0.35119185 6500.00
2.40E-01 7.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.01E-01 0.2172 0.2465 0.35976905 7000.00
Lubin Springer left out Volume and critical flow area 0.4615726 > 6400
Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 62
Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Table 14 Booster stage parametric variations & optimization –3 g condition


Q h a Hd Hc* Hc*LS Volume a*h*1e6
2.40E-01 4.00E-02 4.50E-01 2.08E-02 0.082300 0.197838 0.052614 18000
2.40E-01 4.50E-02 4.50E-01 1.78E-02 0.084322 0.197838 0.055216 20250
2.40E-01 5.00E-02 4.50E-01 1.48E-02 0.086359 0.197838 0.057900 22500
2.40E-01 5.50E-02 4.50E-01 1.18E-02 0.088412 0.197838 0.060668 24750
2.40E-01 4.00E-02 3.75E-01 2.65E-02 0.090171 0.197838 0.063092 15000
2.40E-01 6.00E-02 4.50E-01 8.88E-03 0.090480 0.197838 0.063522 27000
2.40E-01 4.50E-02 3.75E-01 2.35E-02 0.092237 0.197838 0.065997 16875
2.40E-01 6.50E-02 4.50E-01 5.95E-03 0.092564 0.197838 0.066463 29250
2.40E-01 5.00E-02 3.75E-01 2.06E-02 0.094320 0.197838 0.068992 18750
2.40E-01 7.00E-02 4.50E-01 3.03E-03 0.094663 0.197838 0.069491 31500
2.40E-01 5.50E-02 3.75E-01 1.76E-02 0.096421 0.197838 0.072080 20625
2.40E-01 6.00E-02 3.75E-01 1.47E-02 0.098540 0.197838 0.075261 22500
2.40E-01 4.00E-02 3.00E-01 3.42E-02 0.100599 0.197838 0.078417 12000
2.40E-01 6.50E-02 3.75E-01 1.19E-02 0.100677 0.197838 0.078539 24375
2.40E-01 4.50E-02 3.00E-01 3.13E-02 0.102727 0.197838 0.081746 13500
2.40E-01 7.00E-02 3.75E-01 9.00E-03 0.102832 0.197838 0.081913 26250
2.40E-01 5.00E-02 3.00E-01 2.84E-02 0.104875 0.197838 0.085177 15000
2.40E-01 5.50E-02 3.00E-01 2.55E-02 0.107045 0.197838 0.088712 16500
2.40E-01 6.00E-02 3.00E-01 2.27E-02 0.109237 0.197838 0.092354 18000
2.40E-01 4.00E-02 2.50E-01 4.11E-02 0.109657 0.197838 0.093060 10000
2.40E-01 6.50E-02 3.00E-01 1.99E-02 0.111449 0.197838 0.096104 19500
2.40E-01 4.50E-02 2.50E-01 3.82E-02 0.111842 0.197838 0.096777 11250
2.40E-01 7.00E-02 3.00E-01 1.71E-02 0.113683 0.197838 0.099965 21000
2.40E-01 5.00E-02 2.50E-01 3.54E-02 0.114051 0.197838 0.100608 12500
2.40E-01 5.50E-02 2.50E-01 3.26E-02 0.116284 0.197838 0.104555 13750
2.40E-01 6.00E-02 2.50E-01 2.98E-02 0.118541 0.197838 0.108620 15000
2.40E-01 6.50E-02 2.50E-01 2.71E-02 0.120822 0.197838 0.112806 16250
2.40E-01 7.00E-02 2.50E-01 2.44E-02 0.123128 0.197838 0.117115 17500
2.40E-01 4.00E-02 1.75E-01 5.57E-02 0.128166 0.197838 0.126809 7000
2.40E-01 4.50E-02 1.75E-01 5.30E-02 0.130475 0.197838 0.131377 7875
2.40E-01 5.00E-02 1.75E-01 5.03E-02 0.132813 0.197838 0.136084 8750
2.40E-01 5.50E-02 1.75E-01 4.77E-02 0.135180 0.197838 0.140933 9625
2.40E-01 6.00E-02 1.75E-01 4.51E-02 0.137576 0.197838 0.145927 10500
2.40E-01 6.50E-02 1.75E-01 4.25E-02 0.140002 0.197838 0.151068 11375
2.40E-01 7.00E-02 1.75E-01 3.99E-02 0.142457 0.197838 0.156361 12250
2.40E-01 4.00E-02 1.00E-01 7.97E-02 0.156229 0.197838 0.187702 4000
2.40E-01 4.50E-02 1.00E-01 7.72E-02 0.158726 0.197838 0.193685 4500
2.40E-01 5.00E-02 1.00E-01 7.47E-02 0.161258 0.197838 0.199845 5000
2.40E-01 5.50E-02 1.00E-01 7.23E-02 0.163825 0.197838 0.206186 5500
2.40E-01 6.00E-02 1.00E-01 6.99E-02 0.166427 0.197838 0.212712 6000
2.40E-01 6.50E-02 1.00E-01 6.76E-02 0.169064 0.197838 0.219428 6500
2.40E-01 7.00E-02 1.00E-01 6.53E-02 0.171736 0.197838 0.226336 7000
Lubin-Springer Volume and critical flow area 0.299278 > 6400

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 63


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Generally, when a.h parameter is high the effectiveness to reduce the critical height is higher.
There are nine combinations with (a.h) < 8000mm2. They also give a critical height better than
Lubin-Springer for both 1g and 3g conditions. The other observations are;

- It is recommended that downward drain flow can be changed to siphon based drain flow
for the liquid booster stage, for a flow rate of 0.24m3/s. The recommended design
parameters are ‘h’= 55mm and ‘a’=250mm, (46mm and 127 mm for strap-on stage,
already flight operational) to reduce the critical height and hence the left out volume of
liquid propellant in the tank, remaining unused.
- Critical height data under all four combinations are worked out for 1g and 3g conditions
is worked out based on the models derived in this thesis. Except for ‘siphon in spherical
bottom’ configuration, others are obtained as direct solution from analytical model.
- For the ‘actual stage’ condition of ‘h’=55mm, ‘a’=250mm and bottom radius of
Rd=2500mm, the alternate method of evaluating the Hc vs Hd and obtain critical height
Hc* as the minima point is adopted. Hc vs Hd variation for liquid booster stage is shown
in fig 40 .
- Comparison of critical height under all four configurations is given in table 15 below;

Table 15 Comparison of critical height for Booster stage


Accleration Lubin-Springer Spherical Bottom Siphon-Flat tank Actual Stage
1g 246.5 mm 250.5 mm 153.1 mm 164.5 mm
Volume lit 461.6 lit 476.4 lit 180.3 lit 207.9 lit
3g 197.8 mm 200.4 mm 116.3 mm 125.8 mm
Volume lit 299.3 lit 307.0 lit 104.6 lit 122.2 lit

- The minimum left-out quantity of liquid propellant inside the propellant tank at the time
of vortex entry is given the second column of table 15, for the present drain flow; critical
height as 476 lit for ((1g)) and 307 lit for (1g).
- It was seen during ground tests that actual left out is from ~< 500 lit at the instant of
vortex entry, which is closely matching with the data for present downward drain
configuration of 476 lit (1g ground condition).
- With the density of propellant 1440 kg/m3, this critical height results in 720 kg loss in
useful propellant, which is very high for the launch vehicle, siphon can reduce the value.
- Critical volume of left out is 122 lit for ((3g)) and 208 lit for (1g), with the siphon design
proposed by this thesis report.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 64
Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

- This exercise of estimating the left out quantity for operational liquid propulsion systems
and the benefit which will accrue, in case siphon system is adopted for the liquid booster
stage has given enough confidence and importance to the theoretical model developed
and validated as part of this thesis report.

8.8 Overall Assessment for liquid booster stage:


a. A practical design tool to design a siphon drain arrangement considering the critical
height aspect is developed. The assessment by Lubin-Springer model forms the starting
point. This is followed by assessment of spherical bottom effect significance,
parametric variations on critical height to finalise the siphon arrangement and sizing.
For the finalized siphon design, critical height is estimated using the ‘siphon in
spherical bottom’ model.
b. Using the methodology, the design of siphon drain system employed in an operational
liquid strap-on stage was evaluated. The results confirm that the present design is nearly
optimal and the design values considered for unusable propellant quantity is matching
with this assessment.
c. Based on similar assessment for liquid booster stage, it was verified that the present
design is sub-optimal, in terms of downward flow with spherical bottom that gives the
highest critical height among the four drain flow configurations possible.
d. Having confirmed that siphon arrangement can give lo wer critical height and so reduce
the unusable propellant quantity, a design of siphon is arrived at after assessing the
effect of variations in the siphon geometry parameters.
e. Siphon drain of ‘h’=55mm and ‘a’=250mm is recommended as optimal. The critical
flow area is also verified for this configuration to have 65% margin after accounting for
the bottom effect.
f. The left out liquid in ground tests of ~500lit is observed close to that predicted (using
the spherical bottom effect model of this report) 476 lit and accounted for flight data.
This adds confidence to the analysis method and so siphon arrangement is strongly
recommended.
g. The theoretical left out, by changing to siphon as per the design suggested by this thesis
report, improves from 476 to 208 lit (-56% or less than half) for 3g in-flight condition.
The benefit for 1g ground condition will be from 307 to 122 lit (-60%).

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 65


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Fig 37 Liquid Booster Stage with downward drain

Fig 38 Siphon Design for Liquid Booster Stage

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 66


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Fig 39 Critical height for strap-on stage 1g and 3g conditions

Fig 40 Critical height for booster stage 1g and 3g conditions


((New Proposal of ‘h’ 55mm and ‘a’ 250 mm)

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 67


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

Chapter 9

CONCLUSIONS
a) In this thesis, the effect of spherical tank bottom and siphon drain flow on bath tub vortex is
investigated for the influence on critical height. The analytical model is a modification of
Lubin-Springer approach after including the additional parameters for the three variants. For
analysis in liquid rocket systems, the effect of increased flight acceleration field is assessed.

b) For siphon drain system, siphon radius ‘a’ and height ‘h’ are additional parameters and
critical height is obtained as root of 6th order polynomial. Siphon design can be optimized to
reduce the critical height less than Lubin-Springer value, which is desired.

c) For tanks with spherical bottom, sphere radius Rd is the additional input and critical height
is obtained as root of 8th order polynomial. Spherical bottom increases the critical height
from the corresponding flat tank bottom value, under both downward and siphon drain
systems. The increase is not significant for low flow rates and high spherical radius.

d) The model for ‘siphon in spherical bottom’ has combined effects of both siphon and
spherical tank bottom. Critical height is obtained from the characteristic function and is
higher than siphon in flat bottom tank. In rockets, usage of siphon in spherical liquid
propellant tank bottom is common; for this configuration, siphon design can be optimized
within flow area and siphon size constraints. Since higher spherical radius reduces the
critical height, tank bottoms are optimally shaped as torri-spherical, with large radius in the
bottom and a small knuckle radius near the cylinder.

e) Experiments were done using a 1/5 scaled, transparent model ‘siphon in flat bottom tank’.
The model represented an operational liquid stage with a scaled siphon. About 60 tests were
done and video photography was used to capture the vortex formation, offline data analysis
and to assess the critical height. Variations of flow rate, siphon radius ‘a’ and height ‘h’ were
done. These experiments confirmed that the results match well with analytical solutions and
so the correctness of the approach used.

f) The investigations indicate that siphon helps in reducing critical height and thus increasing
the useful liquid availability. Design of a siphon for a booster liquid stage is presented, after
optimizing the siphon parameters, using the analytical models. This optimized siphon design
is recommended for use in the booster liquid stage tanks, in flight.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 68


Investigations of the effect of siphon drain and tank bottom shape on bathtub vortex and critical height

REFERENCES

1. Olli Kiviniemi, Gregory Makusa “A Scale Model Investigation of Free Surface Vortex
With Particle Tracking Velocimetry”, Masters Thesis, 2009:112 CIV • ISSN: 1653 - 0187
• ISRN: LTU - PB - EX - 09/112 - SE
2. Singh, Pavan Kumar, “Scale model experiments and numerical study on a steel teeming
process” (2004) University of Kentucky Master’s Thesis Paper 317
3. Anders Andersen, “Vortex flows with a free surface and random matrix theory and
acoustic resonances”, (august 2002) PhD Thesis in Physics, The Technical University of
Denmark and Riso National Laboratory
4. Barry T Lubin and George S Springer, “The formation of a dip on the surface of a liquid
draining from a tank”, J . Fluid Mechanics, vol. 29, part 2, pp. 385-390, 1967
5. K Ramamurthi, T John Tharakan, “A study of vortex formation during discharge of liquids
from cylindrical containers”, Journal of Aeronautical Society of India, Vol 44 No 1. Pages
59-66, 1992.
6. BHL Gowda, S Akhuli, BR Anudeep, KR Ipe, K Kishore, “Influence of base inclination on
vortex formation during draining from cylindrical tanks”, Indian Journal of Engineering
and Material Sciences Vol20 October 2013, 361-366
7. CH Sohn, BHL Gowda, MG Ju,“Eccentric drain port to prevent vortexing during draining
from cylindrical tanks”, Journal of Spacecrafts and Rockets, Vol45, No3 May-June 2008
638-640.
8. CH Sohn, MG Ju and BHL Gowda, “PIV study of vortexing during draining from square
tanks”, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 24(4)(2010) 951-960
9. Dheeraj Agarwal, Prateep Basu, John Tharakan, Salih, “Prediction of gas core vortices
during draining of liquid propellants”, Aerospace Science and Technology 32(2014) 60-65
10. Prateep Basu, Dheeraj Agarwal, John Tharakan, A Salih, “Numerical studies on air-core
vortex formation during draining of liquids from tanks”, International Journal of Fluid
Mechanics Research, Vol-40, No-1, 2013, 27-41.
11. J.Mohammadi, H. Karimi, M. Islami, andM. H. Hamedi, “The Critical Height of a Liquid
Being Drained from the Tank with Bell-Mouth Drain Port”, Advances in Mechanical
Engineering Volume 2012, Article ID 347389, 5 pages, July 2012
12. Annie Claude Bayeul-Laine, S Simonet, A Issa, G Bois, “The importance of the
knowledge of flow stream in water sump pump”, 31st Congres Francais de Mecanique,
Bordeaux, 26-30 August 2013
13. V Noderi, D Farsadzadeh, AH Zadeh Dalir, H Arvanaghi, ”Discharge coefficient in
vertical intakes with additional plates”, NOII Journal of Hydraulics and Structures, Vol 1,
Spring 2013.
14. Hiroshi Niino, Shinji Yukimoto, Takashi Noguchi, Ryuji Kimura, “Structure of bath tub
vortex: Importance of the bottom boundary layer.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum Page 69

You might also like