GNRO-2008/00053, GMFS-0000-0086-4470, Revision 1, GE14 Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility with Grand Gulf Legacy Fuel
| ML082070089 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  (NPF-029) |
| Issue date: | 07/31/2008 |
| From: | Global Nuclear Fuel |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| GNRO-2008/00053 GNFS-0000-0086-4470, Rev 1 | |
| Download: ML082070089 (16) | |
Text
GNF Global Nuclear Fuel A Joint Venture of GE, Toshiba, & Hitachi P. 0. Box 780, Wilmington, NC 28402-0780, USA GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I July 2008 GNF S-0000-0086-4470 Rev 1 GE14 Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility With Grand Gulf Legacy Fuel Verification Status:
Verified
GNF S-0000-0086-4470 Rev I GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I Disclaimer The only undertakings of Global Nuclear Fuel (GNF) respecting information in this document are contained in the Contract for Fuel Bundle Fabrication and Related Services for Grand Gulf Operating Station between Entergy Operations, Inc. and Global Nuclear Fuel - Americas LLC and nothing contained in this document shall be construed as changing the contract. The use of this information by anyone other than Entergy Operations, Inc., or for any purpose other than that for which it is intended, is not authorized; and with respect to any unauthorized use, GNF makes no representation or warranty, expressed or implied, and assumes no liability as to the completeness, accuracy, or usefulness of the information contained in this document, or that is use may not infringe privately owned rights.
Proprietary Information Notice This document is the GNF non-proprietary version of the GNF proprietary report. From the GNF proprietary version, the information denoted as GNF proprietary (enclosed in double brackets) was deleted to generate this version.
Verified Information Page 2 of 16
GNF S-0000-0086-4470 Rev 1 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTIO N.....................................................................................................................................
5 2.0 CALCULATION PRO CESS....................................................................................................................
5 2.1.
M ETHODS AND CORRELATIONS......................................................................................................... 5 2.2.
ASSUMPTIONS.........................................................................................................................................
5 2.3.
IN P U T S....................................................................................................................................................
6 3.0 CRITERIA................................................................................................................................................
7 4.0 RESULTS.................................................................................................................................................
7 5.0 RE FERE NCES.........................................................................................................................................
9 Verified Information Page 3 of 16
GNF S-0000-0086-4470 Rev 1 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I List of Figures FIGURE 1. AXIAL POWER SHAPE PROFILES.......................................................................................
10 List of Tables TABLE 1. CORE PERFORMANCE (100%P/105%F)................................................................................
11 TABLE 2. CORE PERFORMANCE (100%P/77.1%F)..............................................................................
11 TABLE 3. CORE PERFORMANCE (66%P/34%F)...................................................................................
11 TM TABLE 4. PRESSURE DROP COMPARISON ATRIUM
- 10 VS. GE14 (100%P/105%F)................. 12 TM TABLE 5. PRESSURE DROP COMPARISON ATRIUM
- 10 VS. GE14 (600%P37.1%F).....................
12 TM TABLE 6. PRESSURE DROP COMPARISON ATRIUM
- 10 VS. GE14 (66%P/34%F)...................
13 TABLE 7. HOT BUNDLE M CPR....................................................................................................................
13 TABLE 8. GE14 HOT BUNDLE WATER ROD FLOW (KLB/HR)..........................................................
13 TABLE 9. GE14 WATER ROD EXIT QUALITY.......................................................................................
14 TABLE 10. TOP LPRM BYPASS FLOW QUALITY AND VOID FRACTION FOR HOT BUNDLE AND CO RE AVERAGE.............................................................................................................................................
15 TABLE 11. CORE PERFORMANCE (100% P & 105.0% F) (OUTLET PEAKED AXIAL POWER SHAPE) 16 TABLE 12. TOP LPRM BYPASS FLOW QUALITY AND VOID FRACTION FOR HOT BUNDLE AND CORE AVERAGE (OUTLET PEAKED AXIAL POWER SHAPE)............................................................
16 Verified Information Page 4 of 16
GNF S-0000-0086-4470 Rev 1 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I 1.0 Introduction The thermal hydraulic compatibility report provides a summary of the thermal hydraulic evaluations performed to demonstrate acceptable thermal hydraulic compatibility of the GE14 fuel assembly with the Grand Gulf legacy fuel assemblies. The specific acceptance criterion associated with the thermal hydraulic compatibility of GE14 fuel with legacy fuel is that the new fuel is not to significantly degrade the performance of the legacy fuel in the core from a thermal hydraulic perspective. Specifically, during a transition to GNF GEl4 fuel the legacy fuel should not experience unacceptable changes to MCPR, plenum-to-plenum pressure drop, or bundle flow. In addition, the introduction of GE14 fuel should not cause significant voiding in the bypass region or water rods. These characteristics will be addressed in the thermal hydraulic compatibility report.
Analyses cover the transition from a core loaded completely with AtriumTM -
10 fuel to one loaded completely with GEl4 fuel. Steady state calculations are performed over a range of operating core flows and core thermal powers. The results of these evaluations support the conclusion that GEl4 fuel and the legacy fuel can be safely and acceptably operated together at the Grand Gulf plant.
2.0 Calculation Process 2.1.
Methods and Correlations The ISCOR engineering computer program was used for all analyses documented in this report.
ISCOR performs a steady state thermal hydraulic analysis of a nuclear reactor core. ISCOR is the code that implements the NRC approved methodology for performing steady state thermal hydraulic evaluations as described in Reference 1. Inputs required for the code include reactor core power level and distribution, inlet flow conditions, reactor core operation pressure, and a hydraulic description of the reactor fuel bundles. The code calculates the core flow distribution and core pressure drop for a given inlet core flow. The code considers the pressure drop and flow in the reactor core only. Detailed modeling of the bypass region, leakage flow paths, and water rod hydraulics is included.
Pressure drop correlations are applied to calculated contributions due to friction, local losses, elevation, and acceleration. Thermal performance calculations for GE14 fuel are carried out using the GEXL14 critical quality - boiling length correlation (Reference 2). Thermal performance calculations for AtriumTM - 10 fuel are carried out using the GEXL97 correlation (Reference 3) to determine relative thermal performance in the Grand Gulf Core.
2.2. Assumptions
((
)) characteristics were assumed for all predictions of thermal hydraulic performance.
This is consistent with the GNF design and licensing evaluation procedures.
Verified Information Page 5 of 16
GNF S-0000-0086-4470 Rev I GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I
((
)) fuel geometry with ((
)) was used for both AtriumTM - 10 and GEl4 fuel types. Flow to the bypass region via the GE14 channel-to-lower tie plate finger spring leakage path used ((
)) conditions. Both assumptions tend to reduce leakage flow to the bypass. The minimum bypass flow condition provides a conservative determination of maximum expected bypass voiding while not significantly affecting the relative sharing of flow between fuel bundle types or the relative comparison of other performance parameters.
2.3. Inputs The GE14 fuel assembly (Reference 4) has a 10 x 10 rod array with 92 fuel rods, fourteen of which are part length, and two large central water rods. The fuel and water rods are spaced and supported by the upper and lower tie plates, with intermediate spacing provided by eight Zircaloy ferrule spacers. The fuel assembly fits into a channel box consisting of a Zircaloy shell fitted to the lower tie plate. The geometrical inputs used in the thermal hydraulic design analyses were derived from the mechanical configuration of the assembly.
Pressure drop local loss coefficients and critical power correlation coefficients (Reference 2) were derived from test data.
The AtriumTM - 10 fuel assembly has a 10 x 10 rod array with 91 fuel rods and a central water channel. There are 83 full length fuel rods and 8 partial length fuel rods. The fuel rods attach to the lower tie plate and upper tie plate with intermediate spacing provided by eight Zircaloy-4 spacers. The Zircaloy channel box is attached to the lower tie plate. A handle assembly is part of the upper tie plate used for lifting the entire assembly. The geometrical inputs used in the thermal hydraulic design analyses were derived from the mechanical configuration of the assembly.
Pressure drop local loss coefficients were derived from information provided by Entergy/Areva.
Analyses were performed for three power/flow state points along the boundary of the Grand Gulf operating domain (Reference 5). The power/flow state points are: rated power at maximum flow, rated power at minimum flow, and minimum pump speed at maximum power
(-66%P/34%F).
Verified Information Page 6 of 16
GNF S-0000-0086-4470 Rev 1 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I 3.0 Criteria The thermal hydraulic design process is closely coupled with other evaluations performed to demonstrate compliance with safety and performance criteria, including core nuclear design and the thermal hydraulic critical power correlations for AtriumTM -
10 fuel. The results from the design analyses documented in this report provide confirmation of the thermal hydraulic performance characteristics applied in these other evaluations. The specific acceptance criterion associated with the thermal hydraulic compatibility of GEl4 fuel with legacy fuel is:
The new fuel is not to significantly degrade the performance of the legacy fuel in the core from a thermal hydraulic perspective.
Specifically, during a transition to GE14 fuel the legacy fuel should not experience unacceptable changes to MCPR, plenum-to-plenum pressure drop, or bundle flow. In addition, results will be provided to demonstrate that the introduction of GEl4 fuel will not cause or experience significant voiding in the bypass region, the Atrium
- 10 fuel water channel, or the GEl4 water rods, thereby maintaining compatibility with core monitoring instrumentation.
4.0 Results Core performance predictions for the three core power/flow analysis conditions are provided in Tables I through 3. As the GE14 core fraction increases, the core plenum-to-plenum pressure drop ((
)). The overall core pressure drop change is ((
)) or less for the three power/flow state points analyzed. A hot bundle Hot Channel Power Peaking Factor of ((
1]
was used for this analysis. The AtriumTM - 10 bundles receive ((
)) active flow at the higher core flows, which results in a E[
)) average void fraction over fuel length. The Hot Bundle Active Flow changes by ((
)) or less between an all AtriumTM - 10 core and an all GE14 core. The pressure drop comparisons between Atrium 10 and GEl4 designs are shown in Tables 4 through 6. These results show that the change in total pressure drop acoss the core comparing an all Atrium
- 10 core to an all GEl4 core is less than ((
Table 7 provides predictions for both the AtriumTm - 10 and GEl4 for the hot bundle MCPR. It is seen that there is no degradation in CPR for the legacy fuel as GEl4 fuel is introduced into the core. The largest delta in MCPR, including off rated conditions, is less than ((
)).
Table 8 shows the GEl4 Hot Bundle Water Rod Flow for the three power/flow analysis conditions. These results show that the flow through the GEl4 Hot Bundle Water Rod is not degraded by the presence of AtriurTM - 10 fuel.
The water rod exit quality is analyzed for the GEl4 fuel. The potential for water rod voiding increases as the core flow decreases leading to reduced water rod flow and inlet subcooling.
Table 9 provides the exit quality for the GE14 water rod for the various core loadings and power/flow analysis conditions (minus the all AtriumTm 10 core).
Minimum voiding is expected for the GE14 water rod for the minimum pump speed condition.
Verified Information Page 7 of 16
GNF S-0000-0086-4470 Rev 1 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I The potential for voiding in the bypass region was evaluated for several core compositions, including all AtriumTM - 10 fuel core. The power/flow analysis conditions include rated power/
increased core flow and rated power/reduced core flow (100%P/105%F and 100%P/77.1%F).
Table 10 shows the Void Fraction and Exit Quality at the Top LPRM for the bypass region of the Hot Bundle and the Core average.
In order to minimize the uncertainty in monitoring four bundle cell axial power using the thermal Traversing In-core Probe (TIP) system in conjunction with Local Power Range Monitors (LPRMs), it is necessary to prevent peak local bypass voiding at the top LPRM axial position from exceeding a ((
)) void figure of merit. Table 10 demonstrates that none of the Top LPRM Void Fractions exceed ((
)).
The sensitivity to the power shape was studied by analyzing an outlet peaked power shape at the rated power/increased core flow analysis conditions (100%P/105%F).
Tables 1-10 are the results from a Bottom Peaked power shape. Tables 11 and 12 are from the Outlet Peaked power shape. Table 11 provides the core performance values for comparison to Table 1, which contains the core performance values for the bottom peaked power shape. The Top LPRM Void Fraction and Exit Quality of the bypass region for the top peaked power shape are given in Table 12, and can be compared to Table 10. It is seen that the Top LPRM Void fractions are ((
)) or less for all bundles and fuel type combinations.
Verified Information Page 8 of 16
GNF S-0000-0086-4470 Rev 1 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I 5.0 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
References General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel (GESTAR II), NEDE-2401 1-P-A-16, October 2007.
GEXL14 Correlation for GE14 Fuel, NEDC-32851P-A, Rev. 4, September 2007.
GEXL97 Correlation Applicable To AtriumM -
10 Fuel, NEDC-33383P, Rev. 1, June 2008.
GE14 Compliance With Amendment 22 of NEDE-24011-P-A (GESTAR II), NEDC-32868P, Rev. 2, September 2007.
Safety Analysis Report for Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Thermal Power Optimization, NEDC-33048P, Revision 2, October 2002.
Verified Information Page 9 of 16
GNF S-0000-0086-4470 Rev 1 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I Figure 1. Axial Power Shape Profiles Verified Information Page 10 of 16
GNF S-0000-0086-4470 Rev 1 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I Table 1. Core Performance (100%P/105 %F)
Core Composition Core Quantities Hot Bundle Active Flow (kLb/hr)
Pressure Drop Bypass Flow Atrium
-10 GE14 (psi)
(% of Total)
Atrium
- 10 GE14 800 0
[
600 200 400 400 200 600 0
800 Table 2. Core Performance (100%P/77.1 %F)
Core Composition Core Quantities Hot Bundle Active Flow (kLb/hr)
Pressure Drop Bypass Flow Atrium
-10 GE14 (psi)
(% of Total)
Atrium
-10 GE14 800 0
600 200 400 400 200 600 0
800 Table 3. Core Performance (66 % P/34 % F)
Core Composition Core Quantities Hot Bundle Active Flow (kLb/hr)
Pressure Drop Bypass Flow Atrium
- 10 GE14 (psi)
(% of Total)
Atrium
- 10 GE14 800 0
R 600 200 400 400 200 600 0
800 Verified Information Page 11 of 16
GNF S-0000-0086-4470 Rev 1 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I Table 4. Pressure Drop Comparison Atrium
- 10 vs. GE14 (100%P/105%F) 100% Power & 105% Flow Heterogeneous Core Homogeneous Core 50% AtriumTM - 10 50% GE14 AtriumTM - 10 GE14 AtriumTM - 10 GEl4 Total Bundle Flow (kLb/hr)
((
Pressure Drop (psi) total friction total elevation total acceleration local losses Total Table 5. Pressure Drop Comparison Atrium TM - 10 vs. GE14 (100%P/77.1%F) 100% Power & 77.1% Flow Heterogeneous Core Homogeneous Core 50% AtriumTM - 10 50% GE14 AtriumTM - 10 GE14 Atrium TM - 10 GE14 Total Bundle Flow (kLb/hr)
Pressure Drop (psi) total friction total elevation total acceleration local losses Total Verified Information Page 12 of 16
GNF S-0000-0086-4470 Rev 1 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I Table 6. Pressure Drop Comparison Atrium
- 10 vs. GE14 (66%P/34%F) 66% Power & 34% Flow Heterogeneous Core Homogeneous Core 50% AtriumTM - 10 50% GEl4 AtriumTM - 10 GEl4 AtriumTM -10 GEl4 Total Bundle Flow (kLb/hr) ((
Pressure Drop (psi) total friction total elevation total acceleration local losses Total
))
Table 7. Hot Bundle MCPR Core Composition 100% Power 100% Power 66% Power 105% Flow 77.1% Flow 34% Flow Atrium TM - 10 GE14 AtriumTM - 10 GE14 AtriumTM - 10 GE14 AtriumTM - 10 GE14 800 0
I[
600 200 400 400 200 600 0
800 Table 8. GE14 Hot Bundle Water Rod Flow (kLb/hr)
Core Composition 100% Power 100% Power 66% Power 105% Flow 77.1% Flow 34% Flow AtriumTM - 10 GE14 GE14 GE14 GE14 800 0
((
600 200 400 400 200 600 0
800 Verified Information Page 13 of 16
GNF S-0000-0086-4470 Rev 1 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I Table 9. GE14 Water Rod Exit Quality Core Composition Core Inlet Enthalpy GE14 Hot Bundle Water GE14 Avg Bundle Water Atrium TM -10 GE14 Core Power (%)
Core Flow (%)
(BTU/Lb)
Rod Exit Quality Rod Exit Quality 800 0
N/A 100 105 600 200 100 77.1 66 34 100 105 400 400 100 77.1 66 34 100 105 200 600 100 77.1 66 34 100 105 0
800 100 77.1 66 34
]
Verified Information Page 14 of 16
GNF S-0000-0086-4470 Rev 1 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I Table 10. Top LPRM Bypass Flow Quality and Void Fraction for Hot Bundle and Core Average Core Composition 100% Power & 105% Flow 100% Power & 77.1% Flow Hot Bundle Core Average Hot Bundle Core Average TM Top LPRM Top LPRM Top LPRM Top LPRM AtriumT-10 GE14 Exit Quality Void Fraction Exit Quality Void Fraction Exit Quality Void Fraction Exit Quality Void Fraction 800 0
((
600 200 400 400 200 600 0
800
))
Verified Information Page 15 of 16
GNF S-0000-0086-4470 Rev 1 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I Table 11. Core Performance (100% P & 105.0% F)
(Outlet Peaked Axial Power Shape)
Core Composition Core Quantities Hot Bundle Active Flow (kLb/hr)
Pressure Drop Bypass Flow AtriumTM - 10 GE14 (psi)
(MLb/hr)
Atrium
- 10 GE14 800 0
600 200 400 400 200 600 0
800 Table 12. Top LPRM Bypass Flow Quality and Void Fraction for Hot Bundle and Core Average (Outlet Peaked Axial Power Shape)
Core Composition 100% Power & 105% Flow 100% Power & 77.1% Flow Hot Bundle Core Average Hot Bundle Core Average Top LPRM Top LPRM Top LPRM Top LPRM Atrium TM - 10 GE14 Exit Quality Void Fraction Exit Quality Void Fraction Exit Quality Void Fraction Exit Quality Void Fraction 800 0
600 200 400 400 200 600 0
800 Page 16 of 16 Verified Information