LR-N03-0406, GNF-A Proprietary Report, NEDC-33107P, GEXL80 Correlation for SVEA96+ Fuel. (Non-Proprietary Version)

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
GNF-A Proprietary Report, NEDC-33107P, GEXL80 Correlation for SVEA96+ Fuel. (Non-Proprietary Version)
ML032730591
Person / Time
Site: Hope Creek PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 09/17/2003
From: Salamon G
Public Service Enterprise Group
To:
Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
LR-N03-0406 NEDC-33107P
Download: ML032730591 (32)
v • d • e


Text

PSEG Nuclear LLC P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038-0236 SEP 1 7 2003 o PSEG NuclearLLC LR-N03-0406 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 GE14 AND SVEA-96+ THERMAL-HYDRAULIC COMPATIBILITY REPORT -

NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-57 DOCKET NO. 50-354

Reference:

GNF-A Proprietary Report, NEDC-33107P, 'GEXL80 Correlation for SVEA96+ Fuel," dated September 2003 By letter dated September 8, 2003, PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG) provided the proprietary "GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal-Hydraulic Compatibility Report" in support of the NRC's review of the referenced submittal. to this letter contains a non-proprietary version of the report for inclusion in the Public Document Room.

Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Paul Duke at 856-339-1466.

Sincerely, Manager - Nuclear Safety and Licensing Attachment Aoc) 95-2168 REV. 7/99

Document Control Desk SEP 1 7 2003 LR-N03-0406 C Mr. H. J. Miller, Administrator - Region I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Mr. J. Boska, Licensing Project Manager - Hope Creek Mail Stop 08B1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 USNRC Senior Resident Inspector - Hope Creek (X24)

Mr. K. Tosch, Manager IV Bureau of Nuclear Engineering PO Box 415 Trenton, NJ 08625 H. A. Sepp, Manager of Regulatory Compliance and Plant Licensing Westinghouse Electric Company, P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0355 Margaret Harding, Manager Fuel Engineering Services Global Nuclear Fuel PO Box 780 Wilmington, NC 28402-0780

Document Control Desk LR-N03-0406 Attachment I GE14 AND SVEA-96+ THERMAL-HYDRAULIC COMPATIBILITY REPORT (non-proprietary version)

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page I of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS-0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 PSEG Nuclear LLC Nuclear Fuel Section Report NFS-0233 GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Prepared By: I d6 A Date: I/14O03 Steven Bier, Nuclear Fuels Lead Engineer Reviewed By: - = I , Date:__ _ _/__Q hie-Jeng eg, clear Fuels enior Engineer Concurrence By:. Date: q)II 3 Donald Notigan, uervisor Hope Creek Nuclear Fuels Approved B y:, Date: 9 (°3 Michael Mannion, Manager Nuclear Fuels/Reactor Engineering

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 2 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS-0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 Table of Contents Section Page #

I Introduction ... 5...........................

2 FIBWR2 Computer Code and Model ................................ 6 3 Full Core Evaluations .... 7...........................7 3.1 Fuel Design Input ... 7............................7 3.2 Axial Power Shape Input ............................... 10 3.3 Reactor Conditions ............................... 11 3.4 Results ............................... 12 4 Mixed Core Evaluations ............................... 17 5 Conclusions ............................... 26 6 References ............................... 27 Appendix A - Axial Power Shape Sensitivity ............ .. ................. 28

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 3 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS-0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 List of Tables Table Page #

Table 3.1 - Loss Coefficients for SVEA-96+ Fuel .......................................................... 7 Table 3.2 - FIBWR2 Comparison to CONDOR Results .................................................... 8 Table 3.3 - Loss Coefficients for GE14 Fuel ........................................................... 9 Table 3.4 - FIBVWR2 Comparison to ISCOR Results .......................................................... 9 Table 3.5 - Axial Power Shape Input for FEBVWR2...........................................................10 Table 3.6 - Evaluated Reactor Conditions .......................................................... 11 Table 3.7 - 100% Power, 105% Core Flow Full Core Results .......................................... 13 Table 3.8 - 100% Power, 99% Core Flow Full Core Results ........................................... 14 Table 3.9 - 30% Power, 105% Core Flow Full Core Results............................................ 14 Table 3.10 - 30% Power, 39.2% Core Flow Full Core Results ......................................... 15 Table 3.11 - 55.8% Power, 39.2% Core Flow Full Core Results ..................................... 15 Table 3.12 - 70% Power, 70% Core Flow Full Core Results ........................................... 16 Table 4.1 - Core Loadings for Mixed Core Evaluations ................................................... 17 Table 4.2 - 100% Power, 105% Core Flow Mixed Core Results ...................................... 23 Table 4.3 - 100% Power, 99% Core Flow Mixed Core Results ........................................ 23 Table 4.4 - 30% Power, 105% Core Flow Mixed Core Results ........................................ 24 Table 4.5 - 30% Power, 39.2% Core Flow Mixed Core Results ....................................... 24 Table 4.6 - 55.8% Power, 39.2% Core Flow Mixed Core Results .................................... 25 Table 4.7 - 70% Power, 70% Core Flow Mixed Core Results .......................................... 25 Table A. 1 - Top Peaked Axial Power Shape ......................................................... 28 Table A.2 - Top Peaked Axial Power Shape Performance for All Core Loadings .......... 29

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 4 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS -0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-964- Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 List of Figures Figure Page #

Figure 4.1 - Core Pressure Drop Performance ............................................................... 18 Figure 4.2 - Core Active Flow Performance ............................................................... 19 Figure 4.3 - Bypass Flow Performance .............................................................. 20 Figure 4.4 - Hot Channel Active Flow Performance - 573 SVEA-96+, 191 GE14 Core Loading .............................................................. 21 Figure 4.5 - Hot Channel Active Flow Performance - 382 SVEA-96+, 382 GE14 Core Loading............................................................... 21 Figure 4.6 - Hot Channel Active Flow Performance - 191 SVEA-96+, 573 GE14 Core Loading .............................................................. 22

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 5 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS - 0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 1 Introduction The purpose of this report is to provide independent verification to the conclusion made by the fuel vendor (GNF) that the GE14 and SVEA-96+ fuels are thermal- hydraulically compatible.

Westinghouse provided the thermal-hydraulic modeling data for legacy fuel SVEA-96+

(ref. 1) and GNF for the GE14 fuel (ref. 2). As part of the new fuel introduction work scope, GNF provided a report containing several mixed core evaluations to support the conclusion that the two distinct fuel designs are thermal hydraulically compatible (ref. 3).

PSEG has taken the data from each fuel vendor and modeled each fuel type using the industry computer code FBWR2 (ref. 7) as an independent means of verifying the conclusions of GNF.

This report first summarizes FIBWR2 benchmark results of full cores of each fuel type at various power and flow conditions. The FIBWR2 model for each fuel type was benchmarked with the thermal-hydraulic analysis results provided by the respective fuel vendor. Then, the report summarizes the core performances for a number of transition, or mixed, cores at the same power and flow conditions to verify the fuel vendor's conclusionsregarding the thermal hydraulic compatibility of the SVEA-96+ and GE14 fuel designs.

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 6 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS-0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 2 FIBWR2 Computer Code and Model The FIBWR2 computer code was developed in 1992 by Scientech, Inc. for a group of utilities called the FIBWR2 Owners Group. The FIBWR2 code is a newer version of the FIBWR code developed in 1981 with added functionality, e.g. transient simulation capability. However, for the evaluations performed in this report, only the steady state thermal hydraulic calculation capability was required. PSEG has used the FIB WR2 computer code historically as an independent tool for confirming or validating fuel vendor analyses.

To perform a steady state thermal hydraulic evaluation, FIBWR2 requires core-wide parameters such as core power, core flow, core exit pressure, and core inlet subcooling.

Using the core-wide parameters and fuel design specific data such as upper and lower tie plate loss coefficients, spacer loss coefficients, and bundle leakage flow, FIBWR2 calculates a pressure and bundle flow distribution for the steady state core.

In the last three Hope Creek cycles, the FIBWR2 computer code, with SVEA-96+ and GE9 models, has been compared to the core thermal-hydraulic performance during startup after each refueling outage. FIBWR2 has always calculated results that compared well to the core monitoring system in these mixed core applications.

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 7 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS - 0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 3 Full Core Evaluations 3.1 Fuel Design Input The SVEA-96+ fuel design is a l0x10 fuel array consisting of four mini-bundles, which reside in a channel box. The channel structure has a central water cross that displaces 4 fuel rod positions, I from each mini-bundle, and 4 water wing structures that extend from the central water cross to the channel wall. The channel structure is firmly attached to the lower tie plate. The composition of the mini-bundles includes upper and lower tie plates, 7 spacers, and 24 full length fuel rods. A handle attaches to the top of the channel box for lifting and transporting the fuel assembly.

As part of the previous Hope Creek fuel vendor transition, Westinghouse (then ABB-CE) supplied SVEA-96+ thermal hydraulic performance data, as well as local loss coefficients, in reference 1 at several power and flow conditions for a rated reactor power of 3293 MWt, using the proprietary computer code CONDOR. The FIBVWR2 model of reference 4 was benchmarked against this data. Table 3.1 displays the pressure loss coefficients that were provided for the upper and lower tie plate and the spacers. The inlet loss coefficients are values traditionally used at Hope Creek to model the central and peripheral bundle orifices, relative to the reference flow area. Table 3.2 displays a sample comparison of the SVEA-96+ information from the CONDOR simulations and the FIBVWR2 results using a 1.4 chopped cosine axial power shape. The table demonstrates that FIBWR2 SVEA-96+ model has been adequately established.

Table 3.1 - Loss Coefficients for SVEA-96+ Fuel Reference area (in') 1 Lower Tie Plate loss coefficient [ 1 Upper Tie Plate loss coefficient [ ]

Spacer loss coefficient [ 1 Central bundle orifice loss coefficient [ ]

Peripheral bundle orifice loss coefficient [ ]

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 8 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS - 0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 Table 3.2 - FIBWR2 Comparison to CONDOR Results CONDOR, F. ,IBWR2 j Divrenct

Difference i* B
.-(absolu )

Core Power (MWt) I[ 3293.04 1 ] [ ]

Core Flow (Mlbm/hr) [ 100.00 1 ] 1 Inlet Enthalpy (BTU/lbm) [ ] 525.90 [ ] [ ]

Core Exit Pressure (psia) [ 1029.00 ] ][ [

Total Active Flow (Mlbmlhr) [ ] 84.694 [ ] [ ]

Bypass Flow (Mbm/hr) [ ] 10.460 [ ] I ]

Water Tube(s)+ Flow (Mlbm/hr) [ ] 4.846 [ 1 Total Pressure Drop (psid) ] 20.281 ] 1[ [

CSP+ Pressure Drop (psid)[ ] 15.411 ] ][ [

+ Water Tube(s) = Water Cross + Water Wings

CSP = Core Support Plate The GE14 fuel design consists of 92 fuel rods arranged in a 10xlO array, with 2 water tubes displacing 8 fuel rod positions. Fourteen of the 92 fuel rods are part length.

Additional components in a GE14 assembly include: upper and lower tie plates, 8 spacers, a handle that attaches to the upper tie plate for lifting, and a channel box that slides over the fuel rods and has a spring loaded fit against the lower tie plate.

As part of the current fuel vendor transition, GNF supplied GE14 thermal hydraulic performance data in reference 2 at several power and flow conditions for a rated power of 3952 MWt, the extended power uprate (EPU) power level, using the proprietary computer code ISCOR. The FIBWR2 model of reference 5 was benchmarked against this data. Table 3.3 displays the pressure loss coefficients that were provided for the upper and lower tie plate and the spacers. The inlet loss coefficients are values traditionally used at Hope Creek to model the central and peripheral bundle orifices, relative to the reference flow area. Table 3.4 displays a sample comparison of the GE14 information and the FIBWR2 results using a 1.4 chopped cosine axial power shape. Again, the FIBVWR2 GE14 model is adequately established.

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 9 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS - 0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 Table 3.3 - Loss Coefficients for GE14 Fuel Reference area (in') (( ]

Lower Tie Plate loss coefficient (( ]

Upper Tie Plate loss coefficient (( ))

Spacer loss coefficient - fully rodded region (( ))

Spacer loss coefficient - above part length fuel rods (( ]

Central bundle orifice loss coefficient (( ))

Peripheral bundle orifice loss coefficient (( ))

Table 3.4 - FIBWR2 Comparison to ISCOR Results Core Power (MWt) ((_))_3952.00 1 (( ))0.001 Core Flow (MNlbm/hr) ((_))_99.000 l [ ))0.004 Inlet Enthalpy (BTU/lbm) 524.9 (( )) 0.0 Core Exit Pressure (psia) 1034.8 [)) [ 0.001 Total Active Flow (Mlbm/hr) (( 1] 83.114 (( )) 0.005 Bypass Flow (Mlbm/hr) (( )) 11.882 (( 1] 0.235 Water Tube(s) Flow (Mlbm/hr) (( )) 4.004 (( 1] 0.350 Total Pressure Drop (psid) [ [ 1] 22.106 [f )) 1.567 CSP Pressure Drop (psid) (( 1] 17.229 ff ] 0.586

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 10 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS - 0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 3.2 Axial Power Shape Input Table 3.5 lists the 25-node axial power shape that was used for the FIB WR2 evaluations in the remainder of this report. This inlet peaked axial power shape was chosen to relatively maximize the two-phase pressure drop in the core, compared to the chopped cosine axial power shape. However, to assure that the conclusion drawn from this evaluation will not be axial power dependent, an analysis with inverted power shape (i.e.

top peaked) at rated power and increased core flow condition is also performed for evaluation. Results of the power shape sensitivity are contained in Appendix A Table 3.5 - Axial Power Shape Input for FIBWR2 N

1 0.501068 2 0.703130 3 0.874083 4 1.016474 5 1.132547 6 1.224284 7 1.293446 8 1.341615 9 1.370236 10 1.380653 11 1.374157 12 1.352023 13 1.315552 14 1.266111 15 1.205177 16 1.134375 17 1.055521 18 0.970661 19 0.882116 20 0.792518 21 0.704855 22 0.622512 23 0.549308 24 0.489543 25 0.448034

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page II of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS-0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 3.3 Reactor Conditions Hope Creek intends to operate in the EPU/MELLLA operating domain with a rated reactor power of 3952 MWt. Several power and flow points within the EPUIMELLLA domain are also evaluated in this report to verify the conclusion that the SVEA-96+ and GE14 fuel types are thermal hydraulically compatible. The evaluation points were chosen near the boundaries of the EPU/IMELIELA operating domain, as well as power/flow conditions relevant during startup or control rod sequence exchanges. Table 3.6 lists the reactor conditions evaluated.

Table 3.6 - Evaluated Reactor Conditions Core Thermal 3952 3952 2205.2 1185.6 1185.6 2766.4 Power MWt

% of rated 100 100 55.8 30 30 70 Core Flow 105.0 99.0 39.2 105.0 39.2 70.0 (Mlbmlhr)

% of rated 105 99 39.2 105 39.2 70 Inlet Enthalpy, 526.3 524.9 493.7 522.9 504.8 512.5 BTU/Ibm Core Mid-plane 1036.0 1034.8 953.3 934.1 926.8 976.6 Pressure, psia I I The reactor condition of 100% power and 105% core flow represents the extent of the Hope Creek Increased Core Flow evaluation boundary. The two conditions, 100%

power/99% core flow and 55.8% power/39.2% core flow represent the upper and lower points respectively along the EPU/MELLLA upper boundary. The reactor condition of 70% power and 70% core flow is evaluated to represent conditions encountered during a control rod sequence exchange. The condition of 30% power and 39.2% core flow represents a point in the normal startup path of the reactor. The point of 30% power and 105% flow is chosen to represent the most mismatch between power and flow.

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 12 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS - 0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 3.4 Results Tables 3.7-3.12 list a portion of the FIBWR2 simulation results for full cores of SVEA-96+ and GE14 fuel. Each FLBWR2 simulation consists of 661 average power bundles, 92 peripheral - low power bundles and one hot bundle with a 1.56 radial peaking factor. The following trends were observed when comparing a full core of SVEA-96+ fuel to a full core of GE14 fuel:

  • The core pressure drop for a full core of GE14 fuel is higher than the core pressure drop for a full core of SVEA-96+ fuel at all reactor conditions. The maximum difference in core pressure drop was (19.96-18.41) 1.55 psid (-8.5%) for the 30%

power 105% core flow reactor condition. Near rated conditions, the difference is reduced to 1.15 psid (-5.4%). A similar trend was also observed by GNF (Reference 3).

  • The core active flow (water through the active fuel zone) for each fuel type is essentially the same for all reactor conditions (all conditions within 1.5% of core flow).
  • The core bypass flow (excluding water tube flow) for a full core of GE14 fuel is higher than the core bypass flow for a full core of SVEA-96+ fuel, while the water tube flow for GE14 is lower than for SVEA-96+ fuel, at all reactor conditions. These two parameters are complimentary due to differences in the construction of each fuel type. The GE14 fuel channel slides over the assembly with a spring loaded fit against the lower tie plate. The spring loaded fit allows for water to enter the bypass region after it is above the lower tie plate. The water tube entrances for the GE14 fuel are above the lower tie plate, so water that exits between the channel and the lower tie plate cannot enter the water tubes. [

] When the differences of core bypass flow and water tube flow are considered concurrently, the differences are of the same magnitude as the differences seen in core active flow (all conditions with 1.5% difference for bypass and water tube flow).

  • The hot bundle active flow for a full core of the GE14 fuel type is essentially the same as the hot bundle active flow for a full core of the SVEA-96+ fuel type. The magnitude of the difference is a maximum of 2% for the 70% power 70% flow case.

Given the performance of the other parameters evaluated in this report, this 2%

difference in hot bundle active flow is insignificant. A similar trend was also observed by GNF in reference 3.

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier - Page 13 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS - 0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0

  • An evaluation of the bulk bypass exit void fraction was also performed to ensure that introduction of the GE14 fuel design will not result in significant boiling in the bulk bypass region. For all reactor conditions evaluated, the bypass voiding results are consistent with those predicted by GNF in reference 3.

Table 3.7 -100% Power, 105% Core Flow Full Core Results i;*,,

'}OX '

w, m y '~ lPuI1CoreS~EA~ (>-UCb E14,l

'q.PG Core Power (MWt) 3951.99 3951.99 Core Flow (Mlbmlhr) 105 105 Inlet Enthalpy (BTU/lbm) 526.3 526.3 System Pressure (psia) 1036 1036 Total Active Flow 87.94 87.89 (Mlbm/hr)

Bypass Flow (Mlbm/hr) 11.6 12.79 Water Tube(s) Flow 5.46 4.31 (Mlbm/hr)

Total Pressure Drop (psid) 22.96 24.28 CSP Pressure Drop (psid) 18.09 19.39 Hot Channel Active Flow 101.9 102.9 (klbmlhr)

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 14 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS - 0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report . Revision 0 Table 3.8 - 100% Power, 99 % Core Flow Full Core Results Property ,,Fulre~y A '- ulCr

____ ~ ~4G E 14 Core Power (MWt) 3951.99 3951.99 Core Flow (Mlbm/hr) 99 99 Inlet Enthalpy (BTU/Ibm) 524.9 524.9 System Pressure (psia) 1034.81 1034.81 Total Active Flow 82.71 82.74 (Mlbm/hr)

Bypass Flow (Mlbnlhr) 11.07 12.13 Water Tube(s) Flow 5.23 4.13 (Mlbm/hr)

Total Pressure Drop (psid) 21.21 22.37 CSP Pressure Drop (psid) 16.34 17.49 Hot Channel Active Flow 94.7 95.8 (klbm/hr)

Table 3.9 - 30% Power, 105% Core Flow Full Core Results Core Power (MWt) 1185.6 1185.6 Core Flow (Mlbni/hr) 104.99 105 Inlet Enthalpy (BTU/Ibm) 522.9 522.9 System Pressure (psia) 934.1 934.1 Total Active Flow 91.82 91.8 (Olfbm/hr)

Bypass Flow (Mlbm/hr) 9.16 9.97 Water Tube(s) Flow 4.02 3.23 (Mbm/hr)

Total Pressure Drop (psid) 18.41 19.96 CSP Pressure Drop (psid) 13.51 15.06 Hot Channel Active Flow 120.1 120.6 (klbm/hr)

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 15 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS-0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 Table 3.10 - 30% Power, 39.2% Core Flow Full Core Results Property .u1C Cre SVEf? Fl Core Core Power (MWt) 1185.6 1185.6 Core Flow (Mlbn/hr) 39.21 39.21 Inlet Enthalpy (BTU/lbm) 504.8 504.8 System Pressure (psia) 926.8 926.8 Total Active Flow 36.01 36.35 (Mlbm/hr)

Bypass Flow (Mlbm/hr) 2.22 2.1 Water Tube(s) Flow 0.97 0.75 (Mlbm/hr)

Total Pressure Drop (psid) 6.26 6.41 CSP Pressure Drop (psid) 1.42 1.56 Hot Channel Active Flow 44.9 45.8 (klbbm/hr) I Table 3.11- 55.8% Power, 39.2% Core Flow Full Core Results Core Power (MWt) 2205.22 2205.22 Core Flow (Mlbm/hr) 39.2 39.2 Inlet Enthalpy (BTU/Ibm) 493.7 493.7 System Pressure (psia) 953.34 953.34 Total Active Flow 34.65 35.16 (Mlbm/hr)

Bypass Flow (Mgbm/hr) 3.06 2.89 Water Tube(s) Flow 1.48 1.15 (MNbm/hr)

Total Pressure Drop (psid) 6.75 6.87 CSP Pressure Drop (psid) 1.89 1.98 Hot Channel Active Flow 39.2 40.2 I(klbbnlr) I

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 16 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng . NFS - 0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 Table 3.12 - 70% Power, 70% Core now Full Core Results

'Prperty Fz1Core SVEA --F-ll Core Le X .-- > f-.t.4. -a .,. sows< iGE14 ;

Core Power (MWt) 2766.4 2766.4 Core Flow (Mlbmlhr) 70 69.99 Inlet Enthalpy (BTU/lbm) 512.5 512.5 System Pressure (psia) 976.6 976.6 Total Active Flow 59.13 59.52 (Mlbm/hr)

Bypass Flow (Mlbnlhr) 7.39 7.73 Water Tube(s) Flow 3.48 2.75 (Mlbm/hr)

Total Pressure Drop (psid) 12.58 13.12 CSP Pressure Drop (psid) 7.7 8.23 Hot Channel Active Flow 67.1 68.4 (klbmthr)

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 17 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS - 0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 4 Mixed Core Evaluations The results of the full core evaluations in section 3.4 described a series of expectations regarding the similarity in thermal-hydraulic performance of the GE14 and SVEA-96+

fuel designs. This section of the report will investigate the compatibility between GE14 and SVEA-96+ through a series of mixed cores, progressing from the full core of SVEA-96+ fuel to a full core of GE14 fuel. The core loadings evaluated in this section are shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 - Core Loadings for Mixed Core Evaluations SVEA-96+ GE14 573 191 382 382 191 573 Tables 4.2-4.7 display the FMB 2 simulation results for each of the core loadings in Table 4.1 at each of the reactor conditions listed on Table 3.6. The mixed core simulations project the performance of both fuel types during transition cores going from a full core of SVEA-96+ fuel to a full core of GE14 fuel. During the core transition, only SVEA-96+ assemblies are placed in positions on the core periphery. Each of the core loadings contains these 92 SVEA-96+ peripheral assemblies, one hot SVEA-96+ bundle with a 1.56 peaking factor, one hot GE14 bundle with a 1.56 peaking factor, and the remainder of each fuel type to reach the respective bundle quantities in Table 4.1. The following trends were observed to occur in the mixed core evaluations:

  • As discussed in section 3.4, the core pressure drop for a full core of GE14 fuel is higher than the core pressure drop for a full core of SVEA-96+ fuel at all reactor conditions. The mixed core results show that as the fraction of GE14 assemblies increases, the core pressure drop increases to approach the GE14 full core value. The linearity of core pressure drop as a function of GE14 assembly fraction as shown in Figure 4.1 indicates that the introduction of GE14 fuel assemblies into the SVEA-96+

full core does not significantly affect the original SVEA-96+ performance while GE14 fuels maintain their own performance as if they are in the full GE14 cores. This result is expected since the thermal-hydraulic performance of these two fuel types is similar, as demonstrated in the previous section. The same relative results were obtained by GNF in reference 3.

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 18 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng., NFS-0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 Figure 4.1 - Core Pressure Drop Performance 24 2D 18

,16 c

L14 E

012 810 8

6 4

2 0

10W06 loom 3tY10 30'3 7M70

%O=.Poweid%COreFlow

  • The core active flow (water through the active fuel zone) for the mixed core is essentially the same for all reactor conditions (all conditions within 1.5% of core flow). Figure 4.2 displays the core active flow change as a function of core loading for each of the reactor conditions evaluated. Reference 3 shows similar trends with respect to core active flow predicted by GNF.

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 19 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS-0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-964 Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 Figure 4.2 - Core Active Flow Performance IMyic5 la 31a 3

%PaWIer% CMRn l

  • As discussed in section 3.4, the core bypass flow (excluding water tube flow) for a full core of GE14 fuel is higher than the core bypass flow for a full core of SVEA-96+ fuel. The mixed core evaluations demonstrate a clear progression towards the full core GE14 values observed in Tables 3.7-3.12. This is due to differences in the construction of each fuel type as described in section 3.4. As the fraction of GE14 fuel increases, more flow paths are available from the fuel channel to the bypass region. Figure 4.3 displays the bypass flow as a function of core loading for each of the reactor conditions evaluated. The differences in fuel design though, do not adversely affect the performance of a neighboring fuel assembly.

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 20 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS - 0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 Figure 4.3 - Bypass Flow Performance I

8 I

z 0-10O106 100a9 3MO60 3CY3 7a70

%C= UPCWeil%Couulo

  • Due to the differences in pressure drop of the two fuel designs, the hot bundle active flows in the mixed core evaluations are affected in the following ways: The GE14 hot bundle active flow in the 573 SVEA-96+, 191 GE14 core is approximately 4% less than the full core GE14 evaluations in section 3. As the number of GE14 assemblies increases, the GE14 hot bundle flow increases towards the full core value. Since the GE14 fuel design has a slightly higher pressure drop, the SVEA-96+ hot bundle active flow is more than the full core result in section 3, by about 1.5% in the 573 SVEA-96+, 191 GE14 core loading. As the number of GE14 bundles increases, the SVEA-96+ hot bundle active flow actually increases to approximately 5% higher than the full core SVEA-96+ results. Figures 4.4-4.6 display the hot channel active flow performance of each fuel type in the mixed cores, compared to the full cores. As in reference 3, essentially no change in hot bundle active flow is observed for the 30%

power, 39.2% core flow case or for the 55.8% power, 39.2% core flow case.

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 21 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS - 0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 Figure 4.4 - Hot Channel Active Flow Performance - 573 SVEA-96+, 191 GE14 Core Loading 130 120 110 SE -fu cr 70 20 100l105 100199 3V105 30139 5539 70170

%Poweri% Core Rlow Figure 4.5 - Hot Channel Active Flow Performance - 382 SVEA-96+, 382 GE14 Core Loading 110 -

iZO 4

  • SVEA - Full Core C SVEA - Mixed Core I100 E*GE -Mixed Core OGE -Full Core 1--

I 1840 4-20 .,.- I-z 0- _

l0105 L 100199 301105 30139 55/39 70/70

%Power/% Core Flow

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 22 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS - 0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 Figure 4.6 - Hot Channel Active Flow Performance -191 SVEA-96+, 573 GE14 Core Loading

  • SVEA -Full Core
  • SVEA -Mixed Core oo04-
  • GE -Mixed Core I

OEGE - Full Core so -

i!

I (I

U 6o0-404-204-0 1100/os tOW9 30/105 30/3 55/39 70/70

%Powert% Core Flow

  • As with the full core evaluations in section 3, it was confirmed that the mixed cores evaluated show results similar to GNF with respect to bypass voiding.

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 23 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS - 0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 Table 4.2 - 100% Power, 105% Core Flow Mixed Core Results Property 5 wSVEA

\ ~ : 191

?73 GE4'38 , 382GE14 91SEA 73 GE14:

Core Power (MWt) 3951.99 3951.99 3951.99 Core Flow (Mlbm/hr) 105 105 105 Inlet Enthalpy (BTU/lbm) 526.3 526.3 526.3 System Pressure (psia) 1036 1036 1036 Total Active Flow 87.92 87.9 87.86 (Mlbm/hr)

Bypass Flow (Mlbmnhr) 11.92 12.24 12.59 Water Tube(s) Flow 4.045 SV 2.604 SV 1.141 SV (Mlbrn/hr) 1.119 GE 2.254 GE 3.411 GE Total Pressure Drop (psid) 23.32 23.67 24.07 CSP Pressure Drop (psid) 18.44 18.79 19.18 Hot Channel Active Flow 103.3 SV 104.7 SV 106.2 SV (klbnv/hr) 99.4 GE 100.8 GE 102.1 GE Table 4.3 - 100% Power, 99% Core Flow Mixed Core Results If~~~~~~~~~~~ ,.,V1 Core Power (MWt) 3951.99 3951.99 3951.99 Core Flow (Mlbrn/hr) 99 99 99 Ilet Enthalpy (BTU/lbm) 524.9 524.9 524.9 System Pressure (psia) 1034.81 1034.81 1034.81 Total Active Flow 82.71 82.71 82.69 (Mlbmthr)

Bypass Flow (Mlbrn/hr) 11.35 11.65 11.96 Water Tube(s) Flow 3.868 SV 2.489 SV 1.089 SV (Mlbm/hr) 1.071 GE 2.158 GE 3.265 GE Total Pressure Drop (psid) 21.52 21.83 22.18 CSP Pressure Drop (psid) 16.65 16.96 17.29 Hot Channel Active Flow 96.0 SV 97.4 SV 98.7 SV (klbm/hr) 98.8 GE 100.1 GE 101.4 GE

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 24 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS - 0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 Table 4.4 - 30% Power, 105% Core Flow Mixed Core Results a; r-;Ppft-

' 573 SVEA I1 14 `38-SVE-382 GE14 -. 9S1 .VEA 73GE14'-

Core Power (MWt) 1185.6 1185.6 1185.6 Core Flow (Mlbm/hr) 105 105 105 Inlet Enthalpy (BTU/lbm) 522.9 522.9 522.9 System Pressure (psia) 934.1 934.1 934.1 Total Active Flow 91.81 91.8 91.77 (Mlbm/hr)

Bypass Flow (Mlbm/hr) 9.37 9.6 9.84 Water Tube(s) Flow 2.980 SV 1.908 SV 0.797 SV (Mlbn/hr) 0.837 GE 1.697 GE 2.581 GE Total Pressure Drop (psid) 18.82 19.25 19.7 CSP Pressure Drop (psid) 13.92 14.34 14.79 Hot Channel Active Flow 122.1 SV 124.2 SV 126.3 SV (klbm/hr) 115.6 GE 117.5 GE 119.4 GE Table 4.5 - 30% Power, 39.2% Core Flow Mixed Core Results

_11

_Im _____LW___IN _Ia , ______

Core Power (MWt) 1185.6 1185.6 1185.6 Core Flow (Mlbm/hr) 39.21 39.21 39.21 Inlet Enthalpy (BTU/lbm) 504.8 504.8 504.8 System Pressure (psia) 926.8 926.8 926.8 Total Active Flow 36.1 36.18 36.27 (Mlbm/hr) .

Bypass Flow (Mlbm/hr) 2.19 2.16 2.11 Water Tube(s) Flow 0.714 SV 0.445 SV 0.163 SV (Mlbm/hr) 0.208 GE 0.427 GE 0.660 GE Total Pressure Drop (psid) 6.3 6.34 6.39 CSP Pressure Drop (psid) 1.45 1.5 1.54 Hot Channel Active Flow 45.2 SV 45.6 SV 46.0 SV (klbm/hr) 44.9 GE 45.3 GE 45.5 GE

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 25 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng - NFS-0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 Table 4.6 - 55.8% Power, 39.2% Core Flow Mixed Core Results Pp rtpi- .I -. .573SVE1 - 191-SVEAS73GE14' Core Power (MWt) 2205.2 2205.2 2205.2 Core Flow (Mlbmnlhr) 39.2 39.2 39.2 Inlet Enthalpy (BTU/lbm) 493.7 493.7 493.7 System Pressure (psia) 953.34 953.34 953.34 Total Active Flow 34.79 34.92 35.07 (INibm/hr) .

Bypass Flow (Mlbm/hr) 3.01 2.97 2.91 Water Tube(s) Flow 1.079 SV 0.665 SV 0.245 SV (Mlbm/hr) 0.317 GE 0.640 GE 0.972 GE Total Pressure Drop (psid) 6.79 6.81 6.85 CSP Pressure Drop (psid) 1.92 1.95 1.97 Hot Channel Active Flow 39.4 SV 39.6 SV 39.7 SV (klbm/hr) 39.7 GE 39.9 GE 40.1 GE Table 4.7 - 70% Power, 70% Core Flow Mixed Core Results 1m . ______________B.~~~ SK17~G I4 Core Power (MWt) 2766.4 2766.4 2766.4 Core Flow (Mbmti/hr) 70 70 70 Inlet Enthalpy (BTU/lbm) 512.5 512.5 512.5 System Pressure (psia) 976.6 976.6 976.6 Total Active Flow 59.23 59.32 59.41 (Mlbm/hr)

Bypass Flow (Mlbm/hr) 7.48 7.58 7.69 Water Tube(s) Flow 2.562 SV 1.628 SV 0.682 SV (Mlbm/hr) 0.726 GE 1.463 GE 2.214 GE Total Pressure Drop (psid) 12.72 12.87 13.03 CSP Pressure Drop (psid) 7.84 7.98 8.14 Hot Channel Active Flow 67.8 SV 68.6 SV 69.4 SV (klbm/hr) 66.5 GE 67.3 GE 67.9 GE

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 26 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS-0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 5 Conclusions The purpose of this report was to provide independent verification to the conclusions reached by GNF that introduction of the GE14 fuel type will not adversely affect the performance of the SVEA-96+ fuel also, that the GE14 and SVEA-96+ fuel types are thermal- hydraulically compatible as evaluated in the Hope Creek core.

Data provided by Westinghouse and GNF was used by PSEG to develop FIBWR2 computer code models to perform the various evaluations. Section 3 of this report contained full core evaluations of both the SVEA-96+ and GE14 fuel types, which were used to develop preliminary expectations regarding the performance of the two fuel types in mixed core applications. Section 4 of the report contained a number of mixed core evaluations meant to simulate a progression from a full core of SVEA-96+ fuel to a full core of GE14 fuel. The parameters evaluated and discussed in section 3 were re-visited in section 4 and conclusions were made consistent with the expectations established.

The axial power shape sensitivity evaluated in Appendix A provides support to the conclusion that the thermal hydraulic compatibility of the two fuel designs is not dependent on axial power shape. The two power shapes evaluated (bottom and top peaked) are expected to be typical for operation of Hope Creek in the upcoming cycles, for beginning and end of cycle.

Although no specific evaluations were performed in this report, it is concluded that the introduction of the GE14 fuel type will not degrade the CPR performance of the SVEA-96+ fuel type in the Hope Creek core. This conclusion is reached based on the core and bundle parameters that were explicitly evaluated in the report and general knowledge of fuel critical power performance. For example, the hot channel active flow of the SVEA-96+ fuel type was observed to increase as the core fraction of GE14 fuel type increases (section 4 and Figures 4.44.6). At the same power, pressure, and inlet subcooling, an increase in channel active flow will enhance the CPR performance of that assembly.

Based upon the full core and mixed core evaluations contained in this report, PSEG has independently verified the conclusions reached by GNF in reference 3 that the introduction of the GE14 fuel will not adversely impact the performance of the SVEA-96+ fuel, and that the two distinct fuel designs are thermal hydraulically compatible.

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 27 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS - 0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 6 References

1. Nuclear Fuel Section Design Input File HCA.5-0020, "SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Characteristics" August, 2000.
2. Nuclear Fuel Section Design Input File HCG.5-0004, "GE 14 Thermal Hydraulic Characteristics" July, 2003
3. Nuclear Fuel Section Vendor Technical Document NFVD-GE-2003-002-00, "GE14 Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility with Hope Creek Legacy Fuel" September, 2003.
4. Nuclear Fuel Section Design Analysis File HCT.6-0031, "SVEA-96+ FIBWR2 Benchmarking" August 2000.
5. Nuclear Fuel Section Design Analysis File HCT.6-0042, "GE14 FIBWR2 Benchmarking" August 2003.
6. Nuclear Fuel Section Design Analysis File HCT.6-043, "Verification of the GNF Mixed Core GE14/SVEA-96+ Assembly Compatibility Report." September, 2003.
7. Nuclear Fuel Section Software Configuration Management File SCM-01 14, "FIBWR2 Version 1.08c (with GEXL and ABBD2.0) Installation Package for DS20." April, 2002.

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 28 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS - 0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 Appendix A - Axial Power Shape Sensitivity The evaluations in this report used a bottom peaked axial power shape as shown in Table 3.5. The bottom peaked shape was chosen to maximize the two-phase pressure drop within a fuel assembly relative to other power shapes. In order to confirm the conclusions made throughout the report are valid for other axial power shapes, evaluations were performed with a top peaked axial power shape and the results are discussed in this appendix. Table A. 1 displays the axial power shape used for the evaluations in this appendix. Evaluations in this appendix were performed for the 100% power, 105% core flow condition, and demonstrate that trends seen in sections 3 and 4 of this report are consistent, regardless of power shape. Table A.2 displays the results of several core parameters as a function of core loading. These results show trends consistent with those in sections 3 and 4.

Table A.1 - Top Peaked Anial Power Shape US1gmf'-MC 1 _________ 0.448034 2 0.489543 3 0.549308 4 0.622512 5 0.704855 6 0.792518 7 0.882116 8 0.970661 9 1.055521 10 1.134375 11 1.205177 12 1.266111 13 1.315552 14 1.352023 15 1.374157 16 1.380653 17 1.370236 18 1.341615 19 1.293446 20 1.224284 21 1.132547 22 1.016474 23 0.874083 24 0.703130 25 0.501068

PSEG Nuclear LLC - Nuclear Fuel Section Prepared By: Steven Bier Page 29 of 29 Reviewed By: Shie-Jeng Peng NFS-0233

Title:

GE14 and SVEA-96+ Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility Report Revision 0 Table A.2 - Top Peaked Axial Power Shape Performance for All Core Loadings

^ :Property. ' :'. M SVEA, .57SE 1GE14: ,382 SYEA, 382 GE14 -,,l;191 SVEA,573 ,GE14. .'F'U Cbre GE14l Core Power (MWt) 3951.99 3951.99 3951.99 3951.99 3951.99 Core Flow (Mlbm/hr) 105 105 105 105 105 Inlet Enthalpy 526.3 526.3 526.3 526.3 526.3 System Pressure (psia) 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 Total Active Flow 88.51 88.56 88.6 88.64 88.73 (Mlbmthr) _

Bypass Flow 11.24 11.5 11.77 12.05 12.2 (Mlbn/hr)

Water Tube(s) Flow 5.26 3.890 SV 2.497 SV 1.090 SV 4.06 (Mlbmthr) 1.057 GE 2.131 GE 3.221 GE Total Pressure Drop 22.21 22.5 22.8 23.13 23.31 (Psid)

CSP Pressure Drop 17.33 17.63 17.92 18.24 18.42 (osid)

Hot Channel Active 104.1 105.3 SV 106.5 SV 107.8 SV 112.1 Flow (klbm/hr) 102.8 GE 104.0 GE 105.3 GE

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=LR-N03-0406,_GNF-A_Proprietary_Report,_NEDC-33107P,_GEXL80_Correlation_for_SVEA96%2B_Fuel._(Non-Proprietary_Version)&oldid=2690137"