ML030100074

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Responses to (Request for Additional Information) RAI Questions on MAAP5 Topical Report
ML030100074
Person / Time
Site: Beaver Valley
Issue date: 12/11/2002
From: Hammersley R, Henry C, Henry R, Paik C
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC MB5303, TAC MB5304
Download: ML030100074 (88)
v • d • e


Text

RESPONSES TO THE RAI QUESTIONS ON THE MAAP5 TOPICAL REPORT R. E. Henry R. J. Hammersley C. E. Henry C. Y. Paik Presented To The NRC Staff December 11, 2002 Rockville, MID

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

"* MAAP5 Evaluation of Momentum Driven Velocities (Velocities Induced by a B lowdown or Spray Actuation)

"* MAAP5 Enhanced Condensation Correlation

"* Entrainment of Water Films in the Containment

"* Nodalization

"* Uncertainties Treated in Integral Analyses

"* Integral Plant Analyses

"* MAAP5 Methodology Review Schedule

MOMENTUM DRIVEN VELOCITIES

"* These are calculated on a nodal basis and treated as a property which is transferred to adjacent nodes by the continuity (mass centered) velocity (Streeter and Wylie).

"* This velocity is used as the free stream velocity to characterize the rates of heat, mass and momentum transfer. In addition, this velocity determines whether water entrainment occurs in a node.

"* The effective heat transfer coefficient is directly related to the effective frictional coefficient, i.e. a modified Reynolds analogy.

Therefore, an increased frictional coefficient to reduce the momentum driven velocity also increases the heat transfer coefficient.

"* The most effective way of evaluating this concept is through comparisons with measured values for the rates of transfer such as the measured heat transfer coefficients.

DEMONSTRATION OF MOMENTUM DRIVEN VELOCITIES

"* Lane and Rice Experiments

"* Enclosure Experiments of Kuhn, Kang and Peterson

"* Spray Calculations of Marx

"* CVTR Heat Transfer Measurements

LANE AND RICE EXPERIMENTS (Recirculating Flows)

T Incoming Jet Vessel Diameter = 0.31 m Assuming an aspect ratio of 1.5, length A-B is 0.45 m, and, the measured velocities at C and D are:

Vc = 0.05 m/sec VD = 0.032 m/sec Continuity Velocity = 0.0012 m/sec

==

Conclusion:==

The continuity velocity is an order of magnitude less than the measured free stream velocities near the vessel wall.

ENCLOSURE EXPERIMENTS BY KUHN ET AL.

EXAMPLE OF THE CONTINUITY VELOCITY NRej =2.8 x 105 Dv = 2.29 m NRej =u Ujd.

V dj =15mm Hv =0.8 m U

NRej V di Ai = 1.77 x 10-4 m2 v = 1.6 x 10-5 m2E/S A.

Uc = Aiuj AV Ui = 299 mr/sec AV =Dv Hv UC = 1.77x10(299) = 0.03 mr/sec (2.29) 0.8 Measured velocities are two orders of magnitude greater.

Result for Combined Natural and Forced-Convection Heat Transfer (Taken from Kuhn et al., 2002) 53mm Radial (A) 26mm Radial (A) 15mm Radial (A) 26mm Azimuthal (B) 15mm Azimuthal (B) 26mm Vertical/lDown (C) 15mm Vertical/Down (C) 26mm Vertical/Down (D)

C2=5.06 for C2=3.86 for

.C2=8.24 for C2=5.95 for (A)

(B)

(C)

(D)

U (D

(0 (A2J.zz

(B.)

I .

/

I;,

/

./

U, U..

-O

/

/

U.

I, 0-o U.

  • O H/D= 0.35 K

Ar=Re j /GrD A

A A

0 B

0 x

16 14 12 10 8

K t/

/

0

./I

/

/

/-

6 4

2 0

0.01 0.1 I

10 L-

.. I I.

I I

I

,C'.

Comparison of the MAAP5 Calculated Free and Forced Convection Heat Transfer and the Experimental Data Reported by Kuhn et al.

(Two Vertically Stacked Nodes)

I I

I IT I I I

]

0 01 U

0z oz I

I I

I I

III K

F x

x 16 14 12 10 8

6 4

2

,I I II, I I

I I

I I I III I

I 0=

S I

I I II-10-1 10 0 Archimedes

Number, Ar 10 18 KUHN ET AL TEST RESULTS 0

26 mm Vertical/Down (C) o 15 mm Vertical/Down (C) x 26 mm Vertical/Down (D) 2 NODE MAAP5 MODEL P

Pessimistic R

Realistic 0

Optimistic E00 x

X Kl l

10' 0

0

Horizontal Velocities at Positions Near the Heated Bottom Surface (Taken from Kuhn et al., 2002) 8 o 1L-;D=O.35, VerticalDown (C), 2cm from bottom 7

xH/D=0.35, Azimuthal (A), 7.6 cm from bottom 6

H/D--0. 18, Azimuthal (A). 7.6 cm from bottom 25

-'S V/ 4 Rem 2.8xO'.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Distance from Center (cm)

ISOTHERMAL CONTAINMENT SPRAY FLOW CALCULATION BY MARX (Marx, K. D., 1988, "Analysis and Computer Simulation of Confined Ring Vorticies Driven by Falling Sprays," Phys. Fluids, 31, pp. 263-277)

"* Analytically investigated the influence of containment sprays on circulation in the containment gas space.

"* Concluded substantial circulation would exist.

"* The gas circulation velocity can be approximated by U = ý2-gh g = gravitational acceleration h = average spray fall height

==

Conclusion:==

The gas velocity induced by the spray flow has a strong influence on the rate processes at the containment wall.

Finite Difference Grid Used by Marx zi 34.7 '

Calculated Spray Induced Circulation Calculated Air Flow Circulation zI

-17.4 m radk 11.0 MIT a

j I

V1 w

14.mh, I

o Calculated Circulation Patterns (Taken from Marx, 1988)

CONTINUITY VELOCITY FOR THE CVTR EXPERIMENTS W, =400,000Lbm/hr=-111Lbm/sec =-50.5 kg/sec D.. =58 ft = 17.7 m

=246m 2 w

ps Av PS

-0.6 kg/mr3 50.5

= 0.34 mr/sec = 1.1 ft/sec 0.6 (246)

Measured velocities - 15 ft/sec and 30 ft/sec are an order of magnitude greater than the continuity velocity.

AV uc

Comparison of the MAAP5 and Measured Heat Transfer Coefficients Above the Operating Deck When the Steam is Discharged Only into Node 2 (12 Node Model)

I I

l I

t Ii i

ii

, I 1

I I

I I

-Teat

  • 3 Operating Ration

-Data 3 *a~t Plug 1

S Heat Plug ainment Bnd Line 0

9 ft Above Operating Floor 19 ft Abowe Operatiag Floor MAAF5 HTTOTI(I) 0 HTTOTI(Z)

ETTOTI(I6)

HTTOTI(I1)

O A

0 CO A

+

I I ?

50 100 Time (sec) 150 200 5-,

-S SI I

-a

-a U

U SI S4

U 0

a.a U

II S..

400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

0

Comparison of the MAAP5 and Measured Heat Transfer Coefficients Above the Operating Deck When the Steam is Discharged Simultaneously into Nodes 2 and 6 (12 Node Model)

I I I I I.i t I I

I a

0 0

A 0

Ar 0

400 350 300 250 200 150 100 0

A I

I I

I I

I 100 Time (sec) etc

  1. 3 Oporatisj igReion

($PLITB)

Data Heat Plug 1 Hoat Plug s

9 it Above Operating Ploor A

Containment Bond Line 0

19 ft Above Operating Floor MAAP3 HTTOTI(M)

HTTOTI(2)

HTTOTI(16)

S........

HTTOTI(17) l A

/'

A..........

ft

(.

0

',mI

£2 U..

'4.

On I..

0 0

50 150 200 lilt FT, I

I I

Comparison of the MAAP5 and Measured Heat Transfer Coefficients for CVTR Test 3 in the Region Immediately Below the Operating Floor (12 Node Model) 200 I

'Toot 3 Istermedilse Zo llon Data a-2 ft Below Operatlas Floor 0

9 ft Below Opsrating Floor

  • AAPS HTTOTI{3)

HTTOTI(4) 150 HTTOTIIIS)

HTTOTI(19)

  • -100 4-4 4.4 0

0" Io o

S

'43 0

0..

So flsn 100 150 200 Time (sec)

OOZ 051 001 09 0

s...

(o...

Mp tH I.AIJ Q P INv0 i a'&0

-1 III (lapow apom pT uoi~ll uatusief aq ulC Ial HLA3-IOJSIMUPO jajuujL jaH apialu pu SVVIl qj o uspumo

CONCLUSION The MAAP5 models provide a good representation for the rates of energy transfer to the containment walls at all elevations in the CVTR experiments, i.e.

above the operating floor, in the intermediate region, in the basement region.

MAAP5 ENHANCED CONDENSATION MODEL

"* Basis is the MAAP4 model which is formulated as a heat mass transfer analogy (HMT).

"* MAAP5 modifies the MAAP4 model with a correction factor that was developed to account for deviations from the HMT approach.

I

"* Corrections to the HMT approach have been used by others, e.g.

- suction in the boundary layer due to condensation

"* Huhtiniemi and Corradini,

"* Kuhn, Schrock and Peterson,

- or a multiplication of a HMT approach

  • Vernier and Solignac.

-A&,,

Boundary layer

,- Laminar

,.,Turbulent L-Liquid film I

Uao (a)

(b)

F#

I, (a)

ECOTRA Experiments Simple Situations Relevant to ECOTRA II:

(a) Natural Convection and (b) Forced Convection (Taken from Vernier and Solignac, 1987)

Comparison of the MAAP5 Condensation Model with the Forced Convection Data from the ECOTRA Experiment

(

is for a pressure of 1.5 atm and n is for 3.0 atm)

(Taken from Vernier and Solignac, 1987).

Cý 50%

E

-1:o.15-

//=o

°

/

+

+ HMVT analogy o 0.05V14 0

0.05 0.10 0.15 Calculated condensation coefficient, hL (W/cm2 K)

Schematic of Facility Used by Huhtiniemi and Corradini (Taken from Huhtiniemi and Corradini, 1993)

AIR IN

Local Heat Transfer Coefficient (CEB), 70C, Low Velocity (Taken from Huhtiniemi and Corradini, 1993)

Local Heat Transfer Coefficient (CEB), 70C, High Velocity (Taken from Huhtiniemi and Corradini, 1993) 0 desgee 6 degrees 12 degmaesc 45 degrees 90 doeg a I-D simubation.Odeeru s.-..

0 '.

0-D simulaim.90 degee....

[" * ""

2-D simulaon. 90 dgW

& p=

S........................

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Diaumn DownsurAm Im]

I C4 S00 700 600 5w0 400 300 Odegrees 6 degr*

12*dcgrmee 45 degrmee 1-0 90 dee*e

.Dimulaz.o, o, degr I.-D sinulfacm.90 degaes.

S,.,

2-smuulahm, 90dcgrees...

5 s.+u~

U 200[

l00f 0

0.4 0.6 0.8$

ivzu= Downsu.am Im]

EI I-.

400 350 300 250 200 150 50 0

0 0.2 I

Comparison of the MAAP5 Model With the Forced Convection Data of Huhtiniemi and Corradini Steam-Air Mixture MAAP5 Condensation Correlation Experimental Mixture Temp.

Velocity (W/m2/ 0C)

Data (0C)

(m/s)

Optimistic Realistic Pessimistic (W/m 2/IC) 70 1

346 261 174 200-250 70 3

604 524 361 390-460 95 1

843 727 605 980-1100

EVIDENCE OF WATER ENTRAINMENT All CVTR tests show evidence of entrainment above the operating floor.

The measured velocities above the operating floor are comparable to entrainment velocities, e.g. Kutateladze U34 ga (p~

g ent

  • g - gravitational acceleration Y-steam/gas surface tension Pw-water density pg - gas mixture density Uend - 14.7 m/sec (48 ft/sec)

Actual velocity is dependent on the physical configuration and the water film thickness.

All CVTR tests show evidence of no entrainment below the operating floor.

The measured velocities below the operating floor are less than entrainment velocities.

Schematic of the Wall Condensate Collection Segments

CVTR Condensate Catch Can Results (Taken From Schmitt et al., 1970)

Condensate Liner Test 3 Test 4 Test 5 Catch Elevation*

Area (No Spray)

(290 gpm Spray)

(500 gpm Spray)

Cans (ft)

(ft2)

(mI)

(ml)

(ml) 1 359 1

7,330 6,000 8,640 2

351 9

640 670 720 3 (Rate Gauge 3) 343 17 6,850 3,960 4,760 4

335 25 5,990 5,800 5,360 5

327 33 5,050 4,000 2,130 Operating Floor 325 ft.

6 (Rate Gauge 2) 319 41 15,520 18,000[a) 14,100 7

311 49 3,550 2,530 1,830 8 (Rate Gauge 5) 303 57 3,420 3,100 2,330 9

295 65 4,350 1[b]

2,730

  • Elevation of the operating floor is 325 ft.

[a] Full catch can.

[b] Catch can detached from mounting.

EVIDENCE OF ENTRAINMENT IN CVTR

"* Wall segments were isolated to enable the condensate from that segment to be collected and measured.

"* The expected trend of increasing condensate for an order of magnitude change in the vertical condensing surface area was not observed above the operating floor (325 ft).

Conclusion:

Film drainage is not the dominant mechanism for water entering the collection canister.

"* There is a small trend in the condensate catch can data indicating more mass accumulated near the springline than near the operating floor.

==

Conclusion:==

This is where the local velocities would be expected to be greater and the airborne water mass is deposited in the catch can devices by entrainment and circulation.

"* Below the operating floor the collected condensate masses increase with increasing condensing area as expected. The measured and calculated velocities below the operating floor are below those required for entrainment.

Conclusion:

The velocities above the operating floor are sufficient for entrainment.

ENTRAINMENT BELOW THE OPERATING FLOOR IN CVTR

"* For laminar condensation and a constant temperature difference the condensate film increases as the condensing length to the 1/4 power (Kreith and Bohn, Principles of Heat Transfer).

"* The condensate mass flow varies as the film thickness cubed riux6 3

"* Therefore the collected condensate mass varies with the condensing, length as AmCX3/4

Condensate Collection Profile for the CVTR Experiments 0 -

OperatingFloor

__.OAm

=cx,,

0) lo 210 00 S20 3100 (D------

0 CVrTR3 ---------.............................

3420 a1 A

CVTR 4 U

CVTR 5 C

0O 30200 01000.2000.3000.5.....0-0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Measure Condensate Mass (mi)

NODALIZATION The CVTR Experiments provides a good test case for nodalization studies. This provides test results for

"* containment pressurization,

"* stratification,

"* wall heat transfer measurements a a function of elevation in the containment,

  • velocities during the blowdown,
  • water entrainment.

Nodalization studies have been performed with 1, 6, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 18 nodes.

CVTR 6 Node:

"Window Pane" CVTR 6 Node:

4 Vertically Stacked Nodes

TC 28 I5'

{

{ '

Bend Lines I

e--------

Operating2 I

6 Operating 2

Region iRegion 3'

13 i

11413 Adlos"sAddition H

iti LevelLevelI EL 324' 4

e

-j EL 324' Operating FloowL, Operating Floor

,kgEL3-EL 32T-,

-25 7

7 Int-e-- m-Intermediaten3-Region 1-

/Region 1

8-I4-884 EL 293 EL 293T

__...L-m"-t 12 Basement 11 12 RBasement

~RegionJ Basement Floor Basement Floor 4;4 4EL 275'L

7.

RM2n0O COR M 2-2M02 Rf02n0M.CMR12-2-M 12V 14H 14V R.02OW7 CD R12.2-*2

5 'I 7.

on ELe.

Bend Line EL 367' EL360'17

[40 2 13 ! l 14 Regilon tn 2 i I

1 6

Operating ii* i i

Steam 13 I 114Region Addtion Steam

-Steam Steam

-K 1*

Addition Addition 1

Addn Ground veGround 1

Level

-etn-loLeL

.2..

_EL 324' S

EL 32 oo Operea' Floor Lo F2-.6 EL-32EL.3U IIntermediate

-7r" T

n 1,

1 Intermediate

-RegionI

_i II 8

e-t-------F EL297 Ba mI Bae 1112 Region 11 I

L anement Floor EL 275 RIM02, I CDR II.Ze-2D200 I

RH02r008CDR 12 2 0I 14V 16V 18H 1H02nO*3COR 11

Nodalization Studies Test Case: CVTR 3 Measured Peak Pressure = 17.6 psig Calculated Peak Pressure (psig)

Steam Added Top Nodes Top Nodes Nodalization to Node(s)

Are Vertical Are Horizontal 1

1 19.28 6

1 23.72 25.77 (1) 22.46 (2) 1 & 3 22.72 12 2

22.46 22.72 2 & 6 20.30 22.27 14 13 23.75 23.64 13 & 14 22.42 22.66 16 13 22.74 13 & 14 22.27 18 13 22.62 22.77 (most representative of 13 & 14 22.18 22.44 CVTR injection) 18 15 23.85 23.85 15 & 16 23.77 23.82

Influence of Increasing the Effective Friction Factor for CVTR5 (Measured Peak Pressure ~ 17.75 psig)

Containment FFMULT Peak Pressure Model (Dimensionless)

(psig) 12 1.0 21.9 1.5 21.2 6.0 19.1 15.0 18.3 14H 1.0 23.1 1.5 22.3 6.0 10.0 15.0 19.0 16 1.0 22.6 1.5 21.9 6.0 19.9 15.0 19.0

==

Conclusion:==

Increasing the effective friction factor increases transfer coefficient and reduces the calculated peak pressure.

the heat

CONCLUSION FROM THE NODALIZATION STUDIES The MAAP5 model is not strongly influenced by the nodalization with respect to peak pressure.

However, the stratification and related heat transfer in various containment regions requires nodalization in the vertical direction.

Calculated Velocities in Node 6 for Steam Discharge Into Node 2 and Also for Equal Discharges Into Nodes 2 and 6 Calculated Velocities in Node 1 for Steam Discharge Into Node 2 and Also for Equal Discharges Into Nodes 2 and 6 CVTI TEST 03 SOURCE INTO NODE 2

6 SOUX3CE INTO NODES 2

AND 6 I L

-=

100 200

Time, scc 300 400 200
Time, sec 150 1 100 S50 0

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 to c

2-400 0

Calculated Velocities in Node 5 for Steam Discharge Into Node 2 and Also for Equal Discharges Into Nodes 2 and 6 Calculated Velocities in Node 3 for Steam Discharge Into Node 2 and Also for Equal Discharges Into Nodes 2 and 6 SORC ITO NODE 2

-~ SURCEINTONODES-2 AND 6 I

I

! 

100 200

Time, sec 300 400 60 50 40 30 200 30 25 20 15 10 I0 0

0 0

0 5

0 0

100 200

Time, see 300 400

Calculated Velocities in Node 7 for Steam Discharge Into Node 2 and Also for Equal Discharges Into Nodes 2 and 6 15I I

1I CVTR TEST 3_

t N'"

SOURCE INTO NODE 2 F SOURCE INTONNODES 2 AND 6 S]

I I

I I

t I * *, v I t 10 0

0 0020130 0

Time, sec

Comparison of CVTR Response for the M&E Released Into a Single Node or Into Adjacent Nodes Along with the Experimentally Measured Pressures Comparison of CVTR Response for the M&E Released Into a Single Node or Into Adjacent Nodes Along with the Experimentally Measured Temperatures in the Upper Dome 250 200 S

S.

U-IS0 100 50 400 Time.

sec 400 200 Time.

sec 20 Is 10 5

0 i

MAAP5 UNCERTAINTY PARAMETERS The major enhancements in the MAAP5 PWR large dry containment model are:

Nodal velocities consistent with the momentum added during blowdown and/or containment spray actuation.

An enhanced steam condensation correlation.

Entrainment of water films when the momentum driven velocity exceeds the entrainment criteria.

The principle uncertainty parameters are the effective friction factor, the enhanced steam condensation correlation.

The pessimistic boundaries are used to evaluate the design basis response.

The pessimistic uncertainty parameters used in the small scale, intermediate scale and large scale benchmarks are the same parameters used to analyze the Beaver Valley containments.

INTEGRAL PLANT ANALYSES ADDRESSED IN RAI RESPONSES

12 tnf (0In)

0.

to V)

¢-0n o

vr)

C 03 L~j I7 0

Li)

L Lnl n3 I (LN

-V 0

z r

L_

0 N 0 LO 03 L

0.

E0 0n 0,

0 5

10 15 TIME SECONDS 20 5

25 I

I.

.iJ =

In (a0 o

5 10 15 202E TIME SECONDS

.,.,I...,.-----

S BASE CAS E_

NO HATER ENTRAINMENTD.....

NO WATER ENTRAIN1ENT NO OENTUM DRVEN FLOW I I I I III I l t II I T I I I I,,

,, Ii,

0 20 LOCA-CASE8L-5_PP BASE CASE NO WATER ENTRAINMENT NO 4ATER ENTRAINMENT + NO MOMENTUM DRIVEN FLOW

[ I,

t 7

l I I I I I I III I I T T T ' I I

TI I I I I I IT T

TTl l i o

5 10 15 20 2

TIME SECONDS 5

10 15 TIME SECONDS 20 5

25 0

Lo)

In LL

-o m

z01 zo tn CN CD L

3 C

E I-0 In3 01 0.

0 0

0 0

LL

-o In

~0 tr 0 z s

0 0

In 01 E

01 I-01 4

  • LOCA CASESL'5_PP SBASE CASE NO WATER ENTRAINMENT NOHWATER ENTRAINMENT + NO MOMENTUM DRIVEN FLOW AI

.T T

T T T

T T F '

I I I I LL go

. I..

I.......

I.........

o' LOCA-CASEBL-5-PP BASE CASE NO WATER ENTRAINMENT NO WATER ENTRAINMENT

  • NO MOMENTUM DRIVEN FLOW S.....

I..

I S

I.

zoE 100 200 300 TIME SECONDS 400 0

-0 0 o

LO C(D L

L E

0) 0 a

!Q)

BAECS LOCA, CASE8L-5_PP S NO WATER ENTRAINMENT SNO 14MTER ENTRAINMENT÷4 NO MOMENTUM DRIVEN FLOW

0.

Li

("

0 "z C

0r)

L0 LID (L C4 5

500 MSLB, CASEI5MN13-PP BASE CASE NO WATER ENTRAINMENT NO WATER ENTRAINMENT + NO MOMENTUM DRIVEN FLOW.

!,t ll,,II,

,II,,

III,,

lii I..

Lo-L 05-0 5

10 15 20 2,

TIME SECONDS

LL 04

..N 0

CD zoo

-u 00 04 Ln CD E

I--0 In3 (D9 0

0 a-c 100 200 300 TIME SECONDS 1 II I

4 £ I 4 4 4 I I I I 4 4 4 4 I I I 4 4 4 4 4 4 0

In) ml MSLB CASEISMNI3_PP BASE CASE NO WATER ENTRAINMENT NO WATER ENTRAINMENT 4 NO MOMENTUM DRIVEN FLOW 100 200 300 TIME SECONDS 0 In LIL "0

I 0

(D ~0 zo a

0 C.

LC (I-0 tn 0

0 20 5 '0 400 400 IdSLB, CASE15MNI3-PP BASE CASE NO WATER ENTRAINMENT NO HATER ENTRAINMENT + NO MOMENTUM DRIVEN FLOW I I 9 I 9 I I I I i

I I I I I I I 500 A41.1 I

I I I I I I f I t I I I I I I I I I KOLL

4. 100 200 300 TIME SECONDS 400 S00 0

Ifn 0 o0 0

zo Z

0 tn c

(4

4.

L L

0 C

E 0

0 a

20 0

0 "0

0 L C 0 L 0 o

0 CL CD0 0

100 200 300 400 5C TIME SECONDS 1 1 1

1 g I I I I I

I I I

.......I.,...

0) 0

(.

00 MSLB, CASEI15MN13-PP BASE CASE NO WATER ENTRAINMENT NO WATER ENTRAINMENT + NO MOMENTUM DRIVEN FLOW S...

. I..

.I,,,,,,,,,9 MSLB, CASE15MNI3-PP BASE CASE NO WATER ENTRAINMENT NO WATER ENTRAINMENT + NO MOMENTUM DRIVEN FLOW

,o.

0O O0W

Gas Temperature CF) 150 200 250 300 Containment Pressure Cpslo) 10 20 30 40 50 0

.~-'ZZZ r-l Sn a~o 0 m 0, (b oooo liCL l i l l l l l l l l I ~ t l l i l l ll(

Dl l(

Al E1

-4 m

0 z 0

ri o SI

-n

..... I..

.... I...... I...... I-....

100 60 Ul ri 0 z U) c n..................................................

Ul

0

(.

, 0 C.

0 E

C 0 N4 f

0 0

0 "

0 0

L 00 L

C) 0.) C E

I 0

0 0

100 200 300 TIME SECONDS

1 4

0 (0 TIME SECONDS 0

20 o

~~Node 15 Node 15 ------

Node 5 I node model-E3 400 500

.. I. ý I I I.. I. I i i a I I I i I I i i i I 6.6

0 Co

-7

£ C

CL c

z 0

"0 5

10 15 TIME SECONDS IL c

LOCA CSE8L-5_PP TIME SECONDS S

c U~

20 25 t0 15 TIME SECONDS

0 o 0

C..

.5 C.

00 C.

0 C,

0.

C I

C.,

0 CC 0 o -a 0 o 0

U, I.

S C.

C.

0 C,

C S

C 0

0'0 C,

L.

C.

C.

C S

0 C.,

TIME SECONDS C.

C C

C.,

LOCH C:SE8L-5_PP TIME SECONDS TIME SECONDS

0*

40 0

0.

0 0 C.

a En U

C c-,

0 0

a 0

0 Id'

0.

'0 C.

Co In U

C C

0 Un 0 L L

U C

C U

TIME SECONOS TIME SECONDS I

MSLB: CAiSE15M-N13..PP I.

ci

MSLB: CASE15MNI3_PP TIME SECONDS Node

/INods 12_ -.-..

I NI od:o13 I

Node 1 4 Nod° s 15 I

0 100 200 300 TIME SECONDS a

C C

C F

C 0

C C-)

C Co Fo a3 F,

0*

I0 I0II I 0

m00 500 0

TIME 5ECOND5 100 200 300 TIME SECONDS 400 500 0

w a

4.

C 4

C C

p C C

0

'-'I nods 16 "nOde..

2.., I I I I I I I I I I I I I c

-34&,

11

"r*

LOCA CASEBL-5_PP TIME SECONDS Co o V 0

TIME SECONOS S

I.

E C

C I']

a in 0

0

'NO Co a

L in C

C C

LI C

TIME SECONDS 10 15 TIME SECONOS I/'1 "Pb

-T I

n ode 16 node 17

Z,

I LOCA CASE8L-5_PP L

0 I

E a

V)

L.

0 S

0 OL TIME SECONDS 20 25 TIME SECONDS 5t 15 TIME SECONDS TIME SECONDS I n, o d. 1 6.

nod"*

MSLB:

CASE15MNI3_PP NODE I

NODE 2

NODE 3

NODE 4 NODE

-5 B 0

100 200 300 400 SC TIME SECONDS L

00 L

cS Q0c 200 300 TIME SECONDS i

~nods 16 nods 17" 0i I

I

,,,, iI TIME SECONDS 200 300 TIME SECONDS U,

a

-M 0

C a

I.

C Li 0

a

'A S

S..

C Li 0

1 00 lo0 500

- I-I MSLB: CfýSE15MN 3_PP TIME 5ECONDS nod: 16 ioo 1o200 300 400 5C TIME SECONDS 0

0 i0 i-n a Lo

  • 00 21 0

In a-0 0

0 C a U

S I-.

a 2

TIME SECONDS a

ci U

ci a

2 U.

ci a

ci a.

U ci U

a 2

10 TIME SECONDS

-tr 0

C C, 0

0 0

oV*I

'n

~0 Lo LOCfi CfýSEBL-S..PP N

4..

C C

E E

TIESCNSTIME SECONDS N

C

5.

C C

TIME SECONOS

L MSLB: CrSE15MN13_PP

0.

0o U

N E

Uo

o.

C i'0 100 200 300 TIME SECONDS 400 500 TIME SECOND5 N

C L

a C

U TIME 5ECONDS Node 11 Node-12 Node 13 Node 14 Node 15 I.

6 TIME SECONDS



e MAAP5 Topical Report Review Schedule Meeting/Information Exchange Date Meeting with the NRC staff to present the MAAP5 methodology.

6/20/01 Meeting with NRC staff to discuss MAAP5 applications to Beaver Valley and 11/27/01 Point Beach.

Meeting with ACRS TH Subcommittee to discuss MAAP5 methodology.

11/28/01 MAAP5 PWR Large Dry Containment Topical Report submitted.

3/02 MAAP5 Topical Report overview.

4/24/02 RAIs received on the MAAP5 methodology.

11/02 Responses to RAIs on the MAAP5 methodology submitted.

12/02 Meeting with the NRC staff to discuss the RAI responses for MAAP5.

12/11/02 Future meeting(s) with the ACRS

- TH Subcommittee 1/03 (?)

- Full Committee

?

Future meetings with the NRC staff.

Anticipated MAAP5 methodology approval to support Beaver Valley 6/1/03 implementation schedule.

REVIEW OF CONTAINMENT RAI RESPONSES FROM FENOC/W/FAI Jack Tills, JTA.

NRC/RES Contractor December 11, 2002 NRC Headquarters Rockville, Maryland

Outline of Review for RAIs Reponses

"* FENCO usage of MAAP5 Containment Analysis Results

"* W/FAI Responses to RAIs on MAAP5 Heat and Mass Transfer Modeling

"* W/FAI Responses to RAts on MAAP5 "Momentum-driven" velocity

  • General Comments on the Status of the BVPS Containment Analysis and W/FAI MAAP5 Topical Report Review 1

FENOC Usage of MAAP5

"* Departure from LOCTIC Containment Analysis Single to Multi-cell Analysis LOCTIC condensation models unavailable to multi-cell treatment

"* Natural convection condensation (Uchida correlation) for MSLB and long term analysis

"° Forced convection condensation (Tagami correlation) for LOCA

"* MAAP5 Forced Convective Condensation Model Required to Meet Containment Design Specification for Peak Pressure and Temperature (e.g., 45 psig design limit)

Improved condensation model (Empirical correlation applied to MAAP4)

Momentum-driven velocity used in standard forced convective correlation

"* MAAP5 Water Entrainment Model of Secondary Importance (e.g.,

LOCA) 2

BV Containment Conversion Submittal

[Baseline Analysis Requested in RAls]

Peak MSLB Containment Pressure Comparison Code/Option Break Peak Pressure, psig BVPS-1 LOCTIC/Uchida x 2 15M 44.5 MAAP5 15M*

44.9 BVPS-2 LOCTIC/Uchida x 2 17M 44.6 MAAP5 16M*

44.9

  • Break into node #13.

3

BVPS Unit 2 LOCA Analysis BVPS Calculation Code Mode Peak Pressure psig Updated FSAR LOCTIC Temperature Flash (TF) 44.7 (Rev 13)

(Single-cell)

Tagami Response to Item Temperature Flash (TF) 49.1 1.1.5 Tagami Atmospheric, Up-rated source Conversion FSAR Pressure Flash (PF) 44.7 2 X Tagami Atmospheric, Up-rated source Conversion FSAR MAAP5 Pressure Flash (PF) with 5%

43.4 (Multi-cell) to water aerosols Atmospheric, Up-rated source 4

BVPS Unit 1 LOCA Analysis BVPS Calculation Code Mode Peak Pressure psig Updated FSAR LOCTIC Temperature Flash (TF) 40.0 (Rev 13)

(Single-cell)

Tagami Response to Item Temperature Flash (TF) 47.6 1.1.5 Tagami Atmospheric, Up-rated source Conversion FSAR Pressure Flash (PF) 43.3 2 X Tagami Atmospheric, Up-rated source Conversion FSAR MAAP5 Pressure Flash (PF) with 5%

42.5 (Multi-cell) to water aerosols Atmospheric, Up-rated source Response to Item Exclude Water Entrainment 43.2 1.1.4 Response to Item Exclude Water Entrainment 48.7 1.1.4 Exclude Forced Convection Preliminary CONTAIN Pressure Flash (PF) with 0%

53.4 Review (Multi-cell) to water aerosols Natural convection Atmospheric, Up-rated source 5

Preliminary CONTAIN Review Calculations LOCA Analysis (BVPS Unit 1)

-Dropout, temperature flash 60 No dropout Water aerosols, terrperature flash

-.... Water aerosols, pressure flash 50 X:

40

.2)

D.

330 (n) a)

a_

20 10 0

I I

I

-2 3

8 13 18 Time, sec 6

BVPS-1 MSLB Analysis 7

BVPS Calculation Code Mode Peak Pressure psig Updated FSAR LOCTIC Uchida (Single-cell)

Response to Item Uchida 47.2 1.1.5 Atmospheric, Up-rated source Conversion FSAR 2 X Uchida 44.5 Atmospheric, Up-rated source Conversion FSAR MAAP5 Atmospheric, Up-rated source 43.4 Response to Item (Multi-cell)

Exclude Water Entrainment

- 43 1.1.4 Exclude Water Entrainment 47.7 Exclude Force Condensation Preliminary CONTAIN Natural Convection 52.3 Review (Multi-cell)

Condensation

Preliminary CONTAIN Review Calculation (Multi-cell) BVPS Unit 1 MSLB (Case 15M-N13-1.4) 60 50 40

.)

0n c

30 IL-20 10 0

1130I I

I00

-100 100 300 500 700 900 1100 "lime, sec 8

MAAP5 Condensation Model Review MAAP4 Model Shortcoming Sensible vs. Compositional Grashof number Moving condensate interface Improvement based on Dehbi Natural Convection Exper.

Dehbi data points vs. Dehbi correlation Experimental uncertainty CONTAIN condensation model comparison

"* Empirical Correction Applied to Forced Convection Condensation Natural convection correction applied to force convection

"* Forced Condensation Experiment (Wisc. Flat plate test)

MAAP5 overprediction anticipated Comparison with CONTAIN 9

Dehbi Natural Convection Condensation Exper. Facility 0.038 m I

I Copper

-condensing cylinder Coolant water Boiling Water I

_5 10

-F-4.5 m 3.5 m Heaters

Dehbi Correlates Experiment Data for Average HTC Reported Uncertainty:

+/- 15%

1.0 Air fraction, X 11 3000 2500 2000

).

LL 1500 1000 500 0

Steam Mole Fraction/Air Mass Fraction/Air Steam Mass Ratio 12

Experimental Basis for MAAP5 Correction Correlation Dehbi Benchmark Data Steam Air 1.5 atrn, DELT = 30 O

Selected Dehbi data MAAP5 S....MAAP4 m Dehbi correlation Error bars (+/-15%)

I I

t 1200 1000 800 600 400 cxl E (D

0 C) ciC:

co 4.-

200 0

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Air Mass Fraction, W 13 I

I

MAAP5 Condensation Model Improvement Nus = Nu* Fm Fm - 1 + NFst 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Steam Mole Fraction, NFst 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 E

LL 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.8 14

Dehbi Experiment Comparison with CONTAIN HMTA Model 0 v Dehbi Correlation HMTA (CONTAIN Mvodel) 1.5 atm.; DELT = 30 Reported data scatter (+/- 15%)

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 6

V 0.6 0.7 0.8 Air Mass Fraction, W IO Q7 V

V

.5

'9-T 0

V 100 0

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.9 15

-- 7

Various Forms of the Grashof Number P ifL3 Multi-component gas (Condensation, HMTA)

CONTAIN MELCOR GOTHIC, etc Pg - Pwall Pwall Gr-glTg

-Twai)

Single component gas (Sensible HT)

-'Twall /3L 3 MAAP4 MAAP5 2

gPg Gr-2 PBLVBL 16 18(Tg

Effect of Grashof Number Formulation MAAP5 MAAP4 0

Dehbi correlation HMTA (CONTAIN Model)

HMTA (CONTAIN Modeliw MAAP Gr) 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Air Mass Fraction, W 0.8 0.9 1.0 C'J E 0

0) ciz CD, r

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

17

Suggested Cause for MAAP4 Shortcoming

  • MAAP4 does not account for condensate motion No analytical evidence of the degree of error CONTAIN HMTA model with film tracking indicates average film velocity of 0.25 m/s for HTC = 650 W/m2-K - well below the limit of relative velocity effects
  • Grashof Number Formulation Clear statement of applicability (Other codes, literature, etc.)

Analytical results strongly suggest that the Gr formulation is the cause of the MAAP4 shortcoming for the Dehbi test 18

Example of the Non-Conservative Aspects of the MAAP5 Condensation Model 1IIFM.I i1d.

rhcrluvtPIC%,fps EI Jmii&

1I Thcrm*roupli pewncailas Wf Figure 3.14 I

MSi Tcmrpialu A.nod I

llvmn'Jlty *.¢ejUfgtttl&?l V

4...,

V

' ~

i0lllN om bclow Condensing apparatus for the Wisconsin flat plate condensation tests.

19

MAAP5 Calculation of Wisc. Flat Plate Tests Steam-Air Mixture MAAP5 Condensation Correlation Experimental Mixture Temp.

Velocity (W/mZ/OC)

Data (OC)

(mis)

Optimistic Realistic Pessimistic (W/m 2/oC) 70 1

346 261 174 200-250 70 3

604 524 361 390-460 95 1

843 727 605 980-1100 Overprediction of tests

-- 23% high for realistic values (70 deg C, 3 m/s)

-- Steam mole fraction - 0.3 (low conc.)

-- FM-1.3

-- At high steam mole fraction expect larger overprediction

  • CONTAIN HMTA comparisons for Wisc. Tests

-- Calculations within +/- 10% expr. Uncertainty band 1 m/s calculated with natural convective condensation

-- 3 m/s calculated with forced convective condensation 20

CONTAIN Calculations of Forced Convective Condensation Table 3.8 Comparison of CONTAIN and Experimental average heat transfer coefficients for the Wisconsin flat plate condensation experiments.

Case #

T~j., C T., C rrt/rni,.

V, m/s h,.k(ref) h=1*

hxp*,

min) 1 70 30 3.5 1

103.8 111.1 122.2 99.99 2

70 30 3.5 3

210.7 213.9 235.3 192.5 3

80 30 1.78 1

165.4 163.9 180.3 147.5 4

80 30 1.78 3

296.9 305.6 336.2 275.0 5

90 30 0.68 1

292.1 255.5 281.1 229.95 6

95 45 0.29 1

501.5 546.

600.6 491.4 21

Summary of MAAP5 Condensation Model Review

"* Optimistic and Pessimistic bounds are arbitrary Empirical correction for natural convective condensation corrects for a single component Gr not motion of interface Natural convective model tends to be somewhat non-conservative (FCOND = 1)

"* Empirical correction should not be applied to forced convective condensation model

"* Forced convective model in MAAP5 is non-conservative 22

Confusion over Forced Convective Correlation Item 2.2.4 We note that the Colbum equation that is used in MAAP5 for forced convection is an equation developed such that the friction factor feff = 0.046/N" 2 (see description to INDFLO, Momentum Drive Induced Flows). If this friction factor is applied to the equation

,v.= (f.. /2)NReN1 3.

then it would appear at least that the resulting equation form would be NN. = 0.023Np'N13 which is defined on page 4-6 of the Topical as the Dittus-Boelter equation.

The confusion continues - the above effective friction coefficient is referenced to Krieth, (1960) where as far as I can ascertain the Reynolds analogy is demonstrated for turbulent flow over a flat plate where

= 0.036NON"'

and for duct flow, NNM= 0.023NO'Np.

Presumably, the flat plate correlations is being used, but the documentation is absolutely unclear on this.

23

Momentum-drive Velocity Modeling

"* Momentum balance equation is a vector equation not a scalar equation (see page 76, Bird, Stewart, and Lightfoot)

"* Velocity in a 3-D volume can not be calculated without use of the continuity and energy equation

"* Momentum-driven velocity (as a scalar or property) is a non-physical quantity (velocity must have magnitude and direction)

Absolutely no evidence that the momentum-driven velocity is a circulation velocity Absolutely no evidence that one-dimension, standard heat transfer, friction or drag correlations can be used with momentum-driven velocity

"* Wall energy transfers in integral tests may be inadequate measures for confirming wall velocities (high velocity show no sensitivity)

"* CVTR test is not a confirmation of the momentum-driven velocity model (significant overprediction of measured velocities regardless of source nodalization)

No other usage found in open literature 24

Bird, Stewart and Lightfoot

§3.2 THE EQUATION OF MOTION For a volume element Ax Ay Az, such as that used in the previous section, we write a momentum balance in this form:

(

rate of f rate of rate of 0 '

sum of forces) momentum momentum momentum +

acting on (3.2-1) accumulation)

\\

in out j

i, system Note that Eq. 3.2-1 is just an extension of Eq. 2.1-1 to unsteady-state systems. We may proceed then in much the same way as in Chapter 2.

x Fig. 3.2-1.

Volume element Ax Ay Ax with arrows Indicating the direction In which the x.component of momentum is transported through the surfaces.

However, in addition to considering unsteady-state behavior, we will allow the fluid to move through all six faces of our volume element in any arbitrary direction, as in §3.1. It should be emphasized that Eq. 3.2-1 is a vector equation with components in each of the three coordinate directions x, y, and

z. For simplicity, we begin by considering the x-component of each term in Eq. 3.2-1; the yj-and z-components may be handled analogously.

First let us consider the rates of flow of the x-component of momentum Warns that this is a vector equ.

25

Fluid Mechanics Frank M. White d(mV)y,,

F = d ( fff V dV) + 55 Vp(V," n) dA (3.35) cv cs The following points concerning this relation should be strongly emphasized:

1. The term V is the fluid velocity relative to an inertial (nonaccelerating) coordi nate system; otherwise Newton's law must be modified to include noninertial relative-acceleration terms (see the end of this section).
2. The term E F is the vector sum of all forces acting on the control-volume mater ial considered as a free body; i.e., it includes surface forces on all fluids and solids cut by the control surface plus all body forces (gravity and electromagnetic) acting on the masses within the control volume.
3. The entire equation is a vector relation; both the integrals are vectors due to the term V in the integrands. The equation thus has three components. If we want only, say, the x component, the equation reduces to 2F=+(fffup dly)+ 55 up(Vfn)dA cv cs Warning (3.36) and similarly, E Fy and Y F. would involve v and w, respectively. Failure to account for the vector nature of the linear-momentum relation (3.35) is prob ably the greatest source of student error in control-volume analyses.

26 Ar-ýý

Reaction to Response to RAIs and Status of Review Process

"* Comments are not favorable to licensee's submittal

"* Continuing with addition confirmatory calculations for BVPS-1 and 2 Preliminary results indicate peak pressure (LOCA & MSLB) is significantly beyond design limits

  • Full text of comment on response being prepared (item by item)--TBD

-Additional RAIs may be requested 27

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML030100074&oldid=5428297"