4.7 Review

Effective thermal conductivity of insulation materials for cryogenic LH2 storage tanks: A review

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 48, 期 21, 页码 7770-7793

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.11.130

关键词

Liquid hydrogen storage; Thermal properties; Cryogenics; Conduction; Radiation; Composite and porous materials

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work provides an accurate estimation of the effective thermal conductivity of insulation materials, such as powders, foams, fibrous materials, and multilayer systems. Experimental data and correlations are reviewed, and a first principles-based correlation is proposed to estimate the dependence of effective conductivity on various factors. The proposed correlation is validated using available experimental data and further improvements and testing are discussed.
An accurate estimation of the effective thermal conductivity of various insulation mate-rials is essential in the evaluation of heat leak and boil-off rate from liquid hydrogen storage tanks. In this work, we review the existing experimental data and various proposed correlations for predicting the effective conductivity of insulation systems consisting of powders, foams, fibrous materials, and multilayer systems. We also propose a first principles-based correlation that may be used to estimate the dependence of the effective conductivity as a function of temperature, interstitial gas composition, pressure, and structural properties of the material. We validate the proposed correlation using available experimental data for some common insulation materials. Further improvements and testing of the proposed correlation using laboratory scale data obtained using potential LH2 tank insulation materials are also discussed.(c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据