ML091170150
| ML091170150 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/2009 |
| From: | Fauske & Associates |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 09-186, FOIA/PA-2011-0115 FAI/09-22 | |
| Download: ML091170150 (76) | |
Text
Serial No.09-186 Docket No. 50-423 ENCLOSURE I (Non-Proprietary)
ONE COPY OF THE NON-PROPRIETARY REPORT FAI/09-22, "TEST RESULTS FOR THE MILLSTONE-3 GAS-WATER TRANSPORT TESTS" ONE COPY OF THE NON-PROPRIETARY REPORT FAI/09-44R "POST-TEST ANALYSIS OF THE FAI MILLSTONE 3 RWST 1/4 SCALE GAS ENTRAINMENT TEST" MILLSTONE POWER STATION UNIT 3 DOMINION NUCLEAR CONNECTICUT, INC.
\1
FAU S KE ASSOCIATES, LLC W=IL WORLID LEADER4 IN NUCLEAR AND CHEIMICAL PROCESS SAFErT'Y FAI/09-22 TEST RESULTS FOR THE MILLSTONE-3 GAS- WATER TRANSPORT TESTS Submitted to:
Dominion March, 2009 16WO70 83.. STREET
- BURR RIDGE, ILLINOIS 60527 (877) FAUSKE] oR (630) 323-8750
- FAX: (630) 986-5481
- E-MAIL: INFO@FAUSKE.CoM
-1i-TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 TEST OBJECTIVES........................................................................... I 1.1 Background ............................................................................
1.2 Scaling.................................................................................. 5
2.0 DESCRIPTION
OF EXPER[IMENTAL APPARATUS.................................... 7
- 2. 1 Hydraulic Test Facility ................................................................ 7 2.2 Instrumentation ........................................................................ 23 2.3 Development of-'the Initial Gas Volume............................................. 24 3.0 TEST MATRIX AND RESULTS............................................................ 25
4.0 CONCLUSION
S............................................................................... 30
5.0 REFERENCES
................................................................................. 31 APPENDIX A: Bubble Volume and Height Calculation........................................... 32 APPENDIX B:.. ................................................................................... 37 FAI/O9-22, Rev. 0
- ii -
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure I Scaled test configuration .................................................................................. 8 Figure 2 Plan view (schematic) of the test facility ........................................................ 9 Figure 3 6 inch by 4 inch concentric reducer fabricated for this experimental model .................................................... I Figure 4 O verall view of the test facility ...................................................................... 13 Figure 5 View of the simulated RWST with the 6 inch suction pipe ........................... 14.
Figure 6 View of the SIR vertically downward takeoff ................................................ 15 Figure 7 View of the horizontal 6 inch pipe with the transition to a 4 inch followed by 4-x 4.x 4. tee at 4.50 downward from the horizontal takeoff to supply the RH S pump .................................................................................. 16 Figure 8 View of the 4 inch to 2 inch concentric reducer for the supply pipe to the charging pump. The gas-water separator for the charging system is also sh o w n .................................................................................................... . . 17 Figure 9 Gas injection location ............................................ [8 Figure 10 Gas-water separators for the SIH and RHS suction piping ............................ 19 Figure I I View of the three pumps used with the RHS pump on the right, the SIH pump in the middle and the charging pump on the left ........................... 20 Figure 12 View of the gas injection location and the suction piping for all three pum p s ................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 13 Illustration of the gas-water separators used in this experiment ..................... 22 FAL/09-22, Rev. 0
- iii -
LIST OF TABLES Pane Table I Instrumentation for Millstone 3 Gas-Water Transport Studies ..................... 23 Table 2 Test M atrix (Experimental Planning) ............................................................. 26 FAI/09-22, Rev. 0
1.0 TEST OBJECTIVES The objective for the Millstone 3 gas-water transport experimental study is to observe the response of the stratified air-water flow patterns as the water flow in the piping accelerates to a full flow condition in a scaled, transparent piping system. This transparent test apparatus is a one-quarter scaled system with 6 inch transparent PVC piping used to simulate the 24 inch suction piping in the plant.
1.1 Background The Millstone 3 nuclear plant has a 24" diameter pipe connecting the Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) and the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) pumps. A gas bubble has been detected in the highpoint of this pipe in the Emergency Safeguards Building (ESB) and the. gas void fraction has been measured as 8% in the end of the piping that is available. Because this pipe runs horizontally underground over essentially its entire length (approximately 95 feet),
this void fraction is conservatively assumed to be constant over the full length of the pipe. An evaluation of the system response (DeConto, 2008) concluded that, following a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) signal, the Froude number in this pipe would be as high as unity, and this would be sufficient to transport the gas volume to the suction locations of the individual ECCS pumps (Wallis, et al, 1977).
Given the receipt of a LOCA signal, the starting of the safety injection pumps, the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) (low head safety injection) pumps and the charging pumps would cause this gas volume to be transported along the 24 inch pump suction header. There are three 900 elbows and in the horizontal piping before it reaches the first suction location, which is a 16" to 8" tee directed vertically downward to the Intermediate High Head Safety Injection (SIH) pumps. At the fully developed maximum flow rates for all of the pumps, the total volumetric flow rate would be 10452 gpm (23.3 ft3/sec). With the specified pipe dimensions and the expected flow rate, the calculated one-dimensional velocity through the 24" pipe is 7.9 ft/sec, which results in a Froude number close to unity. The dimensionless Froude number defined as:
N, = U/[g D] 0.5 (I)
FAI/09-22, Rev. 0
In this definition, D is the pipe internal diameter, g is the acceleration of gravity and U is the one-dimensional fluid velocity assuming that the fluid fills the entire cross-sectional area. Since the transport of gas through the suction piping is determined by the ratio of the inertial and buoyancy effects, this dimensionless parameter is the primary scaling value to be represented.
For fully turbulent flow conditions, the transverse turbulent velocity fluctuations are typically about 7% of the one-dimensional transport velocity, which corresponds to a value of approximately 0.6 ft/sec. Consulting Wallis (1969) shows that the rise velocity of individual bubbles is approximately I ft/sec over a large range of bubble sizes. Since the bubble rise velocity is greater than the turbulent fluctuation velocity, gas bubbles, that tend to be mixed into the main stream by the swirl flows in the elbows, would tend to rise toward the top of the pipe.
Consequently, this two-phase flow would be anticipated to have a significant void fraction profile across the vertical height of the pipe with the largest void fraction being at the top.
This void fraction profile in the flowing mixture, combined with the strength of the suction flow rate, determines the extent of gas that would be pulled downward through the first suction port which is vertically downward oriented tee (24 inch by 8 inch) that supplies the Intermediate High Head Safety Injection (SIH) pumps. For the maximum ESF operation, a single SIH pump operating alone has a nominal suction flow rate of 675 gpm with the suction flow rate for two trains being 834 gpm (1.86 ft 3 /sec). A Schedule 40, 8 inch pipe has and internal of 7.981 inches (0.6651 feet) and a cross-sectional flow area of 0.3474 ft 2 (Crane, 1.976),
which results in a one-dimensional fluid velocity of 5.3 ft/sec with both pumps running and a Froude number of 1.1. Note that this downward velocity is much greater than the bubble rise velocity such that any entrained gas bubbles would be expected to be transported toward the SIH pumps.
Similarly, the nominal charging pump flow rate under maximum ESF conditions is 560 gpm for a single pump operating alone and 763 gpm (1.7 ft3 /sec) when both pumps are operating. This suction piping is also Schedule 40 8 inch and the one-dimensional fluid velocity in this pipe would be 4.9 ft/sec giving a Froude number of 1. 1. This velocity is also sufficient to prevent gas bubbles from rising against the flow.
FAI/09-22, Rev. 0
Between these two suction locations the RHR suction take-off removes water at a rate of 8856 gpm (19.7 ft 3 /sec) through a 16 inch pipe. The internal diameter of a 16 inch, Schedule 30 pipe is 15.250 inches (1.271 feet) with the cross-sectional flow area being 1.2684 ft2 so this volumetric flow rate would have a velocity of 15.5 ftlsec and a Froude number of 2.4. With this velocity, any entrained gas would be carried along with the water flow.
The potential for gas being pulled into the suction flow due to radial inflow needs to be estimated to determine if this is potentially a significant mechanism for gas intrusion for the anticipated -flows for the plant systems in the case of a LOCA. This can be estimated using the Harleman et al correlation that is given by:
S/D = 0.75 [N, ] 0.4 (2) where S is the depth of submergence in feet and the dimensionless submergence has a value of 0.78. With the suction pipe diameter of 8.329 inches this corresponds to a depth of about. 6.5 inches in a 24 inch diameter pipe. Hence, if the local gas void fraction would need to approach 75% before there is a potential for radial inflow to occur. Appendix A provides a representation of the local void fraction as a function of the dimensionless water depth (ratio of the water depth to the pipe diameter). This shows that a dimensionless water depth corresponds to a local void fraction 78%, which could result during the transport of the initial gas bubble to the suction locations. Consequently, there is little potential for radial inflow to cause gas intrusion at this suction port. The scaled test apparatus needs to also represent this potential.
There are two other mechanisms for gas intrusion: (a) the entrainment of individual gas bubbles or (b) the formation of a vortex. Of these, the formation of a vortex is the more serious since it can cause extensive gas intrusion if an air-core vortex is formed. In the text edited by Knauss (1987), these are identified as type 6 vortices. To illustrate the influence that the vortex size has on the extent of gas ingested (and its effect on the pump performance), consider the order of magnitude of the vortex that is required to transport a I% void fraction to the pump.
Since this flow is vertically downward and gas is lighter than water, it is conservative to assume homogenous flow, i.e. the Iwo phases have the same velocity. (Because of buoyancy, the gas FA1/09-22, Rev. 0
would tend to move more slowly than the water.) Therefore, a gas core that has a diameter that is at least 10% of the suction port diameter would be needed to develop a suction that has a void fraction of 1%. Hence, in an 8 inch suction port, a type 6 vortex with a diameter of almost I inch at the entrance of the port would be required. This is a sizeable vortex.
Entrainment of individual gas bubbles could also occur, and without radial inflow or a strong vortex, this would generally be the result of bubbly layer at the top of the 24 inch pipe being pulled down to the suction port. However, in the absence of a vortex, it would be difficult for the suction flow to have a void fraction greater than 1% since the suction flow rate is only about 8% of the total flow rate through the 24. inch pipe and the average void fraction in the pipe is only 8%. With the void fraction concentration at the top of the pipe, transport time of thle fluid across the 8 inch suction port is only approximately 80 msec and the downward suction velocity over this interval would only move the gas interface 0.44. feet, or less than the pipe radius.
Hence, it is not. a likely mechanism for significant gas transport.
Gas volumes that do not. enter the suction port to the SIH pumps, i.e. the residual void fraction, would be pulled further along through the 24 to 16 inch reducer and to the suction location for the RH-R pumps. This is formed by a 16 by 16 inch tee oriented at a 4.5 downward angle from the header. As noted above, for the maximum ESF conditions, this RHR suction flow rate would be 8856 gpm, and it was concluded in the Millstone 3 evaluation report: that this would likely induce most of the gas flow to be transported to the RHR pumps. Using the simple order of magnitude estimates given above for radial inflow and direct pull through into the suction port, one would conclude that all of these mechanisms would cause the. gas t~o be transported into this suction flow. This behavior is the major focus of this scaled experimental investigation.
Lastly, with the horizontal piping in the plant being about 95 feet long, at the maximum fluid velocity of 8 ft/sec, the transport to the suction location for all of the gas is about 12 seconds. Typical pump run-up times are. I to 2 seconds, and therefore, essentially all of the transport to the 3 suction locations is at a steady state flow rates. Hence, the pump run-up FAI/09-22, Rev. 0
condition is of secondary importance for the LOCA initiation flow transient, compared to the two-phase response at the suction ports.
1.2 Scaling The intent of these experiments is to investigate if, and how much of, the gas initially located in the horizontal pipe from the RWST to the pump suction take-offs could be entrained into the individual suction pipes. Since this is an investigation of the system response, the meaningful components of the horizontal pipe and the suction take-offs need to be scaled consistent with the Millstone 3 design. As discussed above and noted in the American National Standard for Pump Intake Design (Hydraulic Institute, 1998), "Models involving a free surface are operated using Froude similarity since the flow process is controlled by gravity and inertia forces". There is a free surface between the gas and water along the initial gas volume, hence, the dimensionless Froude number which defined in Eq. (I) is the appropriate scaling approach.
As calculated in the Millstone 3 Evaluation Report (DeConto, 2008), the Froude number in the 24 inch pipe with maximum safeguards flow is 1.0. Therefore, this is the basis for scaling the volumetric flow rates through the 6 inch transparent pipe in this test apparatus. In general, the individual pump take-offs are also scaled according to the Froude number in the individual lines.
However, the ANSI Standard recommends that a conservative procedure is to also investigate the flow response if the Froude number is increased by 1.5 with the scaled submergence maintained to account for the uncertainties in vortex formation. This recommendation is also taken into account in formulating the final test matrix.
In a 6 inch pipe, a Froude number of unity is a fluid velocity of 4 ft/sec and this corresponds to a volumetric flow rate of 352 gpm. A volumetric flow rate of this magnitude is the "steady state" flow rate from the simulated RWST to the suction takeoffs for the individual pumps.
In this 114scale test apparatus, the downward suction port to SIH pumps is represented by a 2 inch pipe that, like the plant, has a Froude number of 1.1, which is produced with a suction velocity of 2.5 ft/sec and a flow rate of 24.5 gpm. As in the plant analysis, this downward velocity is also sufficient to prevent entrained gas bubbles from rising against the water flow and to be transported to the gas-water separator in the simulated SIH pump suction piping.
FAU09-22, Rev. 0
Additionally, as analyzed for the plant, the potential for gas to be pulled into the SIH suction flow due to radial inflow needs to be estimated using the Harleman et al correlation. Since the Froude number for the suction flow rate is the same as the plant, this also results in a dimensionless submergence of 0.78. For the 2 inch suction pipe, this is a submergence of 1.6 inches in the 6 inch diameter header pipe. Consequently, unless the pipe is mostly voided, radial inflow would not be expected, and this is consistent with the plant behavior.
The additional mechanisms for gas intrusion considered for the plant (the entrainment of individual gas bubbles and the formation of a vortex) are considered by providing a linearly scaled representation of the plant configuration. It is the piping configuration that controls the potential for rotational flow (possible vortex generation) as well as the vertical void fraction profile and the possibility that the downward suction flow rate in for the SIH pumps could pull a bubbly layer from the top of the pipe into the suction port.
For the charging flow, the Froude number to be modeled is 0.95, which for a 2 inch pipe this is a velocity of 2.2 ft/sec and a volumetric flow rate of 21.5 gpm. This is velocity .is sufficient to ensure that any entrained gas will be transmitted along with the water flow to the gas-water separator. Hence, this is a good representation of the plant conditions.
[n the linear scaled test apparatus, the length of the 6 inch pipe from the simulated RWST to the SIH suction port is approximately 28 feet and at a velocity of 4. ft/sec, most of the gas transport to this port will be under steady-state conditions. This is the same condition that was determined for the plant.
FAI/09-22, Rev. 0
2.0 DESCRIPTION
OF EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS 2.1 Hydraulic Test Facility Given the complexities of the piping arrangement and the specific test objective, this scoping experiment will be performed in a 1/4 linear scale representation of the Millstone 3 piping. The flow rate through the 24 inch piping is scaled to have the same Froude number as the plant and the flow through each suction port (Sill, RHR and charging) will be set to remove the same percentage of the 'main' flow as is the case for Millstone 3. Following the recommendations of the Hydraulics Institute, the smaller suction flow rates will be increased by 50% in some of the experiments to investigate the role of uncertainties in the approach flow to the suction port; specifically the potential to form a vortex.
The test configuration was constructed using 6" transparent PVC piping to represent the header pipe from the RWST to the pump suction locations. The various lengths of this and elbows of this pipe, as well as the pipe diameters for the pump suction take-offs are a 1/4th linear scale of the Millstone 3- configuration. Figure 1 shows the general features of the plant configuration and how these are modeled in the test facility. Figure 2 is a plan layout of the test facility that shows the relative lengths of 6 inch transparent PVC piping used to represent the Millstone 3 header pipe. It is seen that the scaled test configuration models the plant geometry except that one left turn in the 24 inch horizontal pipe is a right turn in the experimental model because of space limitations. The specific features that are important to model are as follows:
- the Froude number of the flow in the various suction pipes,
- the scaled configuration with the long radius 900 elbows,
- the axial lengths for the, straight piping scaled on a t/4th scaled basis,
- the specific orientations of the suction locations with the piping scaled linearly and the pumps set to demand the same fraction of the total volumetric flow rate as the plant, FAU09-22, Rev. 0
Figure 1: Scaled test configuration.
Meter (simulated with 2" PVC)
(simulated with 4" PVC) 6" PVC)
.8"(simulated 2" PVC) with Pump 20081125-1REH FAII09-22, Rev. 0
9-Figure 2 Plan viewv (schematic) of the test facility.
Millstone 3: 1/4 Scale Test Piping Plan View 15
,vJI
_If Turbine Gas - Water Flow Meters Separators FA!/09-22, Rev. 0
- the potential for radial inflow and
- the transient run-up time that is short compared to the flow development time as determined from the total gas transport interval to the pump suction locations compared to the pump run-up intervals.
This reduced scale also reduces the Reynolds number but this is of the order of 10 and well into the fully turbulent range, hence, this is a minor concession. While there may be special considerations needed to ensuring that the downward water velocity exceeds the bubble rise velocity, the scaling parameters for the maximum ESF conditions indicate that this w6uld not be an issue for those conditions, but could be an issue for flows that are about one-half of these values. It is important that the downward flow rates in the experiment are greater than the bubble rise velocity, which is not a Froude number consideration, when this is the case for the plant configuration. The scaled lengths also somewhat skew (shorten) the respective transport times for the two-phase mixture and this consideration needs to be included when applying the results to the Millstone 3 piping. For fully turbulent flow, individual gas bubbles generated by swirl flows in elbows would be expected to be of sizes that are dominated by capillary forces, i.e.
a diameter of a few millimeters. With a fluid velocity 4 ft/sec in the horizontal header pipe, the turbulent fluctuations would be approximately 0.3 ft/sec, which is much smaller than the bubble rise velocity of I ft/sec. As a result, individual gas bubbles would be expected to rise to the top of the pipe within about 2 linear feet after the elbow. This somewhat larger ratio of the bubble rise velocity to the turbulent fluctuation velocity for the experiment somewhat. offsets the faster transport time through the scaled apparatus. Again this needs to be considered when applying the results to the plant. In this application, this is accomplished by analyzing both the experiments and the plant configurations with the RELAP5 computer code that considers this transport.
In accordance with the 1/4th linear scale, the downward suction location for the SIH pumps is represented using a 2" downward facing tee in the 6" diameter horizontal line.
Furthermore, the diameter reduction from 24" to 16" in the plant piping as the flow approaches the RHR pump suction port, is represented by a 6 x 4 concentric reduction to a 4" pipe (see Figure 3). Furthermore, the simulated RHR pump suction take-off is a 4 x 4 inch tee that is FAI/09-22, Rev. 0
II Figure 3: 6 inch by 4 inch concentric reducer fabricated for this experimental model.
FAI/09-22. Rev. 0
angled downward 45' from the horizontal. Lastly, the reduction in the pipe diameter from 16" to 8" for the charging flow in the plant configuration is represented by a 4 x 2 inch reducer in this horizontal suction line. Figures 4 to 12 show the completed test facility.
A plastic insert with the top segment of a 6" inch diameter hole blocked off (a "gas dam")
was used to control the extent of gas accumulation. Appendix A describes the variation of the gas void fraction with the chord length of the gas darn. Prior to initiating the test, air was added to the top of the 6 inch transparent pipe simulating the horizontal RWST suction pipe. This addition wVas made at approximately the mid-length of this pipe and was continued until gas was observed to bubble backward up into the tank simulating the RWST. As a result of the gas dam, an 8% gas void fraction was produced along the entire length of the 6 inch horizontal pipe. With this uniform gas volume along the entire 6 inch suction header, the scaled gas volume in the experiment represents a larger gas volume than that which existed in the plant.
All of- the piping is transparent so digital video recordings can be made of the gas transport: process at: each of the pump suction locations and other locations of interest that appear during the testing.. Furthermore, each suction line is outfitted with a. gas separator to measure the extent of gas transported through each suction line, A similar design for the gas separator (see Figure 13 as it would be configured for a 2" pipe entering the separator) has been successfully used by FAI in previous experiments.
Of particular interest in the evaluations is the influence of the geometric configuration for the individual suction ports and the influence this has on the extent of air removed by the individual suction lines. Each suction line will have a digital video camera, a gas-water separator and a turbine flow meter downstream of the gas-water separator to record the individual suction flow transients. Hence, the measurements include all of the two-phase information related to the extent of gas transmitted to the pump and the duration over which it is transported.
FAIIO9-22, Rev. 0
Figure 4: Overall view of the test facility.
FAI109-22. Rev. 0
14 Figure 5: View of the simulated RWST with the 6 inch suction pipe.
FAI/09-22. Rev. 0
15 Figure 6: View of the SIH vertically downward takeoff.
FAII09-22, Rev. 0
i6 Figure 7: View of the horizontal 6 inch pipe with the transition to a 4 inch followed by 4 x 4 x 4 tee at 450 downward from the horizontal takeoff to supply the RHS pump.
FA1/09-22. Rev. 0
17 Figure 8: View of the 4 inch to 2 inch concentric reducer for the supply pipe to the charging pump. The gas-water separator for the charging system is also shown.
FAI/09-22, Rev. 0
18-Figure 9: Gas injection location.
FAI109-22. Rev. 0
19 Figure 10: Gas-water separators for the SIH and RHS suction piping.
FA1IO9-22 Rev.O0
2()
Figure I1: View of the three pumps used with the RHS pump on the right, the SIH pump in the middle and the charging pump on the left.
FA1/09-22, Rev. 0
21 Figure 12: View of the gas injection location and the suction piping for all three pumps.
FAI/09-22. Rev. 0
Figure 13: Illustration of the gas-water separators used in this experiment.
8" Dia meter Pipe Level cded num Network Differential Pressure Transducer Water Flow n; to the Pum p ater Air-Water Mixture Entering REH112204 FAU09-22, Rev. 0
- 23 -
2.2 Instrumentation Table I identifies the location and type of the key instruments used in this experimental model. As shown in Figures ) and 2, the volumetric flow rates are measured downstream of the gas separators and upstream of the pumps with turbine flow meters. The gas separators use differential pressure transducers to monitor the rate and magnitude of gas accumulation in the upper region of the separators. As exhibited during the tests, the separator on SIH suction line received a trivial amount of gas at the most, the separator on the charging pump suction line received a small amount of gas and essentially all of the gas was transpoited down the RI-suction pipe. These large water and air flow rates overwhelmed the RH separator and air was carried over to the pump. Therefore, the best means of recording the gas transferred into the various suction pipes was through the manual measurements of the initial and final water levels in the SIH and charging separators with the remaining initial gas inventory in the horizontal suction pipe being transferred to the RH pump. As a result, the differential pressure. transducers were not used in the data interpretation.
Table l Instrumentation For Millstone 3 Gas-Water Transport Studies Instrument Instrument Type Serial Range Accuracy Parameter Measured Numbers Flow Meter 229702 8-130 gpm 2%2 Water volumetric flow (Sponsler) (229705)' (0.47%)2 rate.
Flow Meter 261873 75-1250 2%2 .Water volumetric flow (Sponsler) (262043) gpm (0.47%)2 rate.
Flow Meter 239228 25-400 2%P- Water volumetric flow (Sponsler) (239304) gpm (0.47%)2 rate.
Differential Pressure 2 psi 3%- Water head in the gas-Transducer (3) water separators Electronics, 2) -Average Value, 3) the lowest flow rate is essentially the flow rate used in these tests, this is the lower end ofthe 2% accuracy but is still within the band specified by Sponsler, 3) Manuftacturer lhftlrnation.
The volumetric flow rates, pressure transducer output, and water temperature will be recorded on an electronic data acquisition system.
FAI/09-22, Rev. 0
2.3 Development of the Initial Gas Volume As measured in the plant, a gas bubble was detected in the segment of the RWST suction piping that enters the Safeguards Building and the height of this bubble is approximately 15% of the pipe diameter. This gas bubble could not exist over this height over the complete length since this would cause a large gas flow rate to bubble backward into the RWST as was observed in the test apparatus before the "gas dam" was installed. As studied for Millstone 3 with the gas dam in place, the initial gas volume is accumulated to a void fraction of about 8% over the entire length of the horizontal header pipe, which corresponds to a gas volume that has a height of approximately 15% of the pipe inner diameter. Once sufficient air was accumulated to bubble upward into the simulated RWST, the air injection valve was closed, the cameras and the data acquisition system were started with the pumps being simultaneously energized when data acquisition was confirmed.
FA1/09-22. Rev. 0
3.0 TEXT MA TRIX AND RESULTS The Millstone 3 gas-water transport studies investigated the gas transport toward, and potentially into the individual suction locations of the pumps simulating the 51IH, RHR and charging pumps for Millstone 3. Of particular interest is the gas transport history for the plant conditions that could resulIt during the maximum ESF suction flow demand. Table 2 lists the Test Matrix for these experiments as well as the measured gas accumulations in the StH and charging flow separators. In all tests where the RH flow was active, the large flow rate overwhelmed the separator and it only delayed the gas transport to the pump. Therefore, the observations for this flow are only relevant in that virtually all of the gas was transported through this suction pipe. Nonetheless, the gas accumulation in the other two separators is a meaningful representation of the plant response and a valuable benchmark for the capability of the RELAP5 code to represent this behavior.
The first result obtained from these experiments is that, without the installation of the "gas dam", the extent of gas void fraction that could be accumulated within the test. apparatus is approximately I%. This is meaningful to the Millstone 3 observations since it demonstrates that an 8% void could not form over the entire length of the. horizontal pipe. Specifically, the shakedown tests in the scaled apparatus showed that. gas thickness/depth corresponding to a void fraction of 8% would result in a large gas flow rate back into the simulated RWST. This observation illustrates that such a gas depth cannot be supported by the fluid properties, such as surface tension, in the test apparatus and this is even more the case for the plant configuration.
Therefore, either ( I) the physical processes within the horizontal suction pipe cause the gas to taper to a negligible depth at. the upstream of the pipe or (2) there is blockage of some sort.
further along in the pipe. In either case, imposing the blockage as far upstream as possible is a conservative representation of the plant condition.
The location of the gas dam is depicted in Figure 2 and this dam blocked a horizontal section of the pipe cross-sectional area. that is described by the chord shown in Appendix A. For these tests, this chord corresponded to a gas volume depth that was about 15% of the pipe diameter (8% gas void fraction) and with the. location of the dam being at the vertical riser to the FAIIO9-22, Rev. 0
Table 2 Test Matrix (Experimental Plannina)
Flow Flow Flow Rate Initial Estimated Average Rate Rate For the Gas Volumes Void Fraction Test For the For the Charging Gas Void Purpose of the Test Collected (in") Transmitted to the RHS SIH System (%) Pumps (%)
(gpm) (gpm) (gpm) ,, . SIH Charging SIH Charging 1 315 23 22 8 Represent the max ESF case. 0 8.6 0 1.5 2 310 23 22 8 Repeat of Test #1. 0 0 0 0 3 315 24 21 8 Repeat of.Test #1. 0 4.3 0 0.8 Increase the Froude numbers for 4 310 38 34 the SIH and charging flows by 0 17.2 0 2.1 50% as recommended by the Hydraulics Institute.
5 310 38 34 8 Repeat Test #4. 0 17.2 0 2.1 6 310 38 34 8 Repeat Test #4. 0 17.2 0 2.1 Investigate small break LOCA 2-7 0 40 34 8 Train response with a 50% 0 159.8 0 3.8 increase in CHS and SIH flows.
8 0 40 34 8 Repeat Test #7. 0 137.6 0 3.8 Investigate a single train response 9 170 24 21 8 for the RHS with 2-Train response 0 30.1 0 3.4 for CHS and SIH.
Benchmark case for RELAP5.
10 97 24 21 8 Intermediate break with 2-Trains 0 98.9 0 7.3 of CHS and SIH.
Investigate smaller average void 11 0 27 22 5 for small break LOCA conditions: 0 0 0 0 2-Trains of CHS and SIH.
Investigate small break LOCA 2-12 0 27 22 8 Trains without a 50% increase in 0 30.1 0 0.7 the Froude number.
13 0 27 22 8 Repeat Test #12. 0 34.4 0 0.8 FAI/09-22, Rev. 0
Flow Flow Flow Rate Initial Estimated Average Rate Rate For the Gas Volumes Void Fraction Test For the For the NubrFractionPup(% Charging Gas Void Purpose of the Test Collected (in3) Transmitted to the RHS SIH System % P ps (%)
(gpm) (gpm) (gpm) ° SIH Charging SIH Charging 14 172 26 22 8 Repeat Test #9. 0 51.6 0 5.6 15 172 25 22 8 Repeat Test #9. 0 47.3 0 5.1 Investigate single RHS train 16 175 25 22 5 behavior with a smaller average 0 6.5 0 0.7 void: 2-Trains CHS and SIH.
17 175 25 22 5 Repeat Test #16. 0 4.3 0 0.5 FAI/09-22, Rev. 0
water storage tank, this void fraction was accumulated along the entire length of the 6 inch horizontal suction header.
The gas dam was installed for all of the tests after the shakedown tests. These gas-water transport tests are initiated with all three pumps switched off and the system piping completely full of water. A test was begun by injecting air near the middle of the 27 foot horizontal length of 6 inch transparent piping. Since the pipe is horizontal, as the air is injected, the gas bubble grew upstream and downstream along the upper surface of the horizontal pipe, i.e. back toward the water storage tank and forward to the 6 x 4 concentric reducer. The gas dam inserted in the upstream flange captured (trapped) gas until it accumulated to about an 8% void fraction which is approximately 733 in3 . When the gas bubble begins to discharge gas into the upward facing elbow at the upstream end of the horizontal pipe, the gas flow is stopped and the pumps active in a specific test are started simultaneously with the individual pump run-up times being determined by the maximum of the inertial response of the pump.
As noted above, the piping system is initially water filled up to the level in the water storage tank and therefore, there is no difficulty in starting the pumps. The tests were run until the air was either completely transported into the gas separators, had reached a steady-state distribution in the piping system, or until it reached a pump and the flow degraded. During the tests, all three pumps were discharged into the top of the water storage tank, i.e. the tests were conducted in a closed loop mode. The discharge pipes were submerged in the water inventory of the water storage tank to prevent air entrainment.
The individual flow rates for the three pumps in each test are given in Appendix B. Note that the degradation (decrease) in the RHS flow is generally due to air reaching the RHS pump.
One can develop a perspective of the average gas void fraction of the flow reaching the individual pumps by considering that the time available for gas transport is approximately the interval required for the imposed total volumetric flow rate (Q,,) to sweep the volume of the 27 foot length of the horizontal 6 inch pipe (Vpipe). This can be expressed as the volume of the pipe divided by the steady-state volumetric flow:
FAI/09-22, Rev. 0
At = Vpipe/ Qlo (3)
This approximates the interval that gas would be available at the suction port. During this interval an individual set of pumps, such as the charging pumps with a suction flow rate of Q, would have demanded a suction volume given by:
AVc = Q, At = Vpipe(QC / Qo t ) (4)
The average void fraction for the flow reaching the pump can be estimated as the ratio of the measured gas volume (Vg.,,) increase in the separator and the volume demanded by a specific set of pumps.
VFC = (Vg.1n ]pipe) (Qt ., / Q") (5)
Since this calculation does not consider that, at lower flow rates, some of the gas volume could remain in the 6 inch pipe longer than the one-dimensional sweep-out interval, this expression provides a conservative estimate of the average void fraction delivered to the pump.
As listed in Table 2, for Test #1 the charging flow rate is 22 gpm, the SIH flow rate is 23 gpm and the RHR flow rate is 315 gpm such that the total suction flow rate through the 6 inch suction header is 360 gpm. With the total volume of the 6 inch pipe being 9161 in3 and a measured gas volume accumulated in the charging pump gas-water separator of 8.6 in3 , the approximate estimated average gas void fraction in the suction line is calculated to be i.5%. The values for the estimated average void fractions in the charging suction flow rates for all of the tests are given in Table 2. Since none of the experiments, including those with the Froude numbers of the charging and SIH flows increased by 50%, observed any significant gas transport into the SIH suction line gas-water separator, the void fractions for this set of pumps are essentially zero for all of the tests.
FAI/09-22, Rev. 0
4.0 CONCLUSION
S The scaled tests of the Millstone 3 suction piping had several key observations.
- 1. Without a blockage, the maximum gas void fraction that could be retained in the horizontal pipe is less than 1%.
- 2. The test results were repeatable as demonstrated by the multiple tests at the same conditions.
- 3. As recommended by the Hydraulics Institute Standard for scale model testing of the gas transport into a suction location, such as the generation of a vortex, the Froude numbers for the S11-I and charging flow rates were increased 50% with the RHR flow rate remaining constant. These tests demonstrated that increasing the Froude numbers in the SIH and charging suction flows did not cause any different phenomena to occur. In particular, while more water and air was transported to the charging pump suction, no different phenomenon, such a vortexing, was observed to occur.
- 4. Essentially no gas was pulled into the S11- suction line and only limited amounts were transported toward the charging pumps. For those tests with the RHS running, essentially all of the gas in the suction pipe was transported toward the RHR pumps.
This agrees with the evaluations of the gas transport given in the Millstone 3 evaluation report.
FA1/09-22, Rev. 0
5.0 REFERENCES
Crane, 1976, "Flow of Fluids Through Valves, Fittings and Pipe", Crane Co. Technical Paper No. 410.
DeConto, R.E., 2008, "Evaluation of Gas Void Discovered in the 24" RWST ECCS Supply Line (CR1 15088)", Dominion Memorandum NUCENG-08-045.
Harleman, D. R. F., et al., 1959, "Selective Withdrawal from a Vertically Stratified Fluid," Int.
Assoc. for Hydraulic Research, 8th Congress, Montreal, August 24-29, Paper No. 10-C.
Hydraulic Institute, 1998, "American National Standard for Pump Intake Design", American National Standards Institute, ANSI/H 1 9.8-1998, Knauss, J., 1987, Swirling Flow Problems at Intakes, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam Wallis, G.B., 1977, "Conditions for a Pipe to Run Full When Discharging Liquid Into a Space Filled With Gas", Transactions ASME, Journal of Fluids Engineering, June, 1977, pp 405-413.
Wallis, G.B., 1969, One-Dimensional Two-Phase Flow, McGraw-Hill, New York FAU09-22, Rev. 0
APPENDIX A Bubble Volume and Height Calculation The analysis in this appendix relates the bubble volume (and void fraction) to either a known water level or a known chord length of the pipe diameter. (The chord length is the bottom of the gas volume (void) as illustrated in Figure A-I.) Note the bubble height in the result section is given by the pipe radius minus the water level. First, the bubble cross-sectional area is computed using Eq. A-I. Note that to solve for h in Eq. A-I, an iterative method needs to be used, since h cannot be solve for explicitly. The results are shown in Figure A-2 in terms of a plot of A,,/Ao vs. h/D which can be used as a lookup figure. (Note also that between void fractions of 0. 15 to 0.85 the curve is almost linear.)
Ah si=23 r 2 cos- I h-r)- sin 2 cos" (A-I) where, r = inside radius of the pipe, 13 = angle as presented in Figure A-I, h = water level height, cos a r-L), and A,, = cross-sectional area of the bubble.
Once Ab is known, the bubble volume and void fraction al the high point are calculated using Eqs. A-2 and A-3.
Vh= A ' Lh14 (A-2) where, V1, = bubble volume, and
.LHP = length of high point FA1/09-22, Rev. 0
Figure A-I: Cross-sectional view of a collected gas volume (void) in a horizontal pipe section.
FAI/09-22, Rev. 0
- 34 -
Figure A-2: Void fraction vs. the ratio of water level height to the pipe internal diameter.
Cross-Sectional Area of the Bubble vs. Water Level Height S I I i I I F - 1 F I*
F 4 I (U .4 , i 4
Co 0ý9 F i 4 i . F F i" F F 0
C 081 4 I F I
I F
F I I, ,
C) I IF F . F i (I)
Co Ft F F. -
(U 0 * [ F
!F V
C) 4 FI F F F
- a. 0.6 F
[ F F FF F I 4 FF F I 4 F Co F F F F F F 0.5
" " F F F" F U2 C)
F F - F.
cC C) 4 F , I F
- I F F I F I F I F F 4
(U 0 C.I F F F (C
CC 0.2 C,,
(U 0. I J* ' '
CC F F F 0 F
[
4.
C-) F F F F~I F F
___ 1FF 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0,7 0.8 0.9 Water Level Height / Pipe Diameter FAl/09-22, Rev. 0
Vw - Vb (A-3)
A*LHP where, QxviF = void fraction at the high point, and A = cross-sectional area of the pipe.
For those conditions where the width (chord) of the gas-water interface is know, the chord has a length of chord = 2r sin 13=2r sin !cos- h r(A-4) or
~=sin1 K_2rdl Once P3is calculated, the gas volume is determined from Eq. A-I. Figure A-3 shows the void fraction as a function of the ratio of the chord length to the pipe internal diameter.
FAI/09-22, Rev. 0
Figure A-3: Void fraction vs. the ratio of the chord length to the pipe internal diameter.
Cross-Sectional Area of the Bubble vs. Water Level Height
. I J I I L¸ : I 8 0.9 o 0.8 a')
0: 7:
Q
?L 0.6 0.5 0.4 1 CO 0.3
- k*!ý!
C
- 0.2 I
So.1 0 II. . !-Ji 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Chord Length / Pipe Diameter FA1/09-22. Rev. 0
APPENDIX B FAU09-22, Rev. 0
Test 1: RHR System Simularted Flow Rate vs, Time I - Test 1 Ra. Data 350 30(:
250
- 200 too
- 10 t
50 1
Oa 5 3 0 10 20 25 30 Time (sec)
Test 1: SIH System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time Test 1 Raw Data 30 25 20 cc 0
10 5
0~*IakaA 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Time (sec)
FAl/O9-22. Rev.O0
39-Test 1: Charging System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time I - TeslI Haw Data I 20 15 f
a:
- o Is 0
0 5 jIt) 20 25 30 Time (sec)
Test 1: Simulated Flow Rate vs. Time for All 3 Systems
- RHR System Sit-H System Charging System I 350 325 300 275 250 225
, 200 a
01 16 175 150 125 100 50-25 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (sec)
FA1/09-22, Rev. 0
Test 2: RHR System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time I°lest 2 Raw Data' E 100 U.
I0 10:
20 Time (sec)
Test 2: SIH System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time I-Thesi 2 Raw Data I 30 25 20 0
X 15 0
10 5k 0 l5 10 20 25 Time (sec)
FAI/O-_22. Rev. 0
-41 Test 2: Charging System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time I esI 2 Raw Data, 15 If
-tO 0 5 10 1" 20 25 Time (sec)
Test 2: Simulated Flow Rate vs. Time tor All 3 Systems I.RHR System SIH System Charging System 350 325 300 275 250 225 L200 1t75 I 150 125
- 100 75 2-5 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (sec)
FAU09-22. Re\'. 0
42-Test 3: RHR System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time I - Test 3 Pa, Data I 200 I cc t~ct 0 5 1O I5 20 25 Time (sec)
Test 3: SIH System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time Test 3 Raw Data 30 20~
0.
I E t5 05 I 15 10 t 20 25 Time (sec)
FAU0(9-22, Re\,. 0
Test 3: Charging System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time
- Iest 3 Haw Data I
-E-15 II L. 10 it A 5 10 20 Time (sec)
Test 3: Simulated Flow Rate vs. Time for All 3 Systems I- HR System SIH System _ Charging Systemni 350 325 300 'pI 275 250 225 E 200 01 175 tr LL150 125 100 75 50 25 01 0 10 15 20 25 Time (sec)
FAI/09-22. Rcv. 0
-44 -
Test 4: RHR System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time I IipsI 4 Raw Data 1 2500 cL 200 IM 0- *. I 1*
0 t 1010 t
50 5 4
0 10 1-, 20 25 Time (sec)
Test 4: SIH System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time Test 4 Raw Data!
45 40 35 30 25
- 20 15 10 10 5
0, 0
5 10 15 20 Time (sec)
FAU09-22, Rev. 0
45 Test 4: Charging System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time i e1s 4 Raw Data i 40 30 I
25 i
I t a:
20 4, I 15 Io
- t 0
0 10 15 Time (sec)
Test 4: Simulated Flow Rate vs. Time for All 3 Systems I -RHR System SiH System - Charging System 350 325 300 275 250 225 200 175 I
o 150 I
125 100 75 S
50 I 25 0 10 15 20 25 Time (sec)
FAI!09-22, Rev. 0
46 Test 5: RHR System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time I lest 5 Raw Data
.5) 0I 25 00 50*
0 5 10 I5 20 25 Time (sec)
Test 5: SIH System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time Test 5Raw Data 45 40 35 30 E
2b a
IS 20 3:
0.
105 10 5
0 5 15 20 25 Time (sec)
FA!/09-22. Rev. 0
47 Test 5: Charging System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time
,Test 5 Raw Data 40 35 30 25 Jl EL I i 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (sec)
Test 5: Simulated Flow Rate vs. Time for All 3 Systems RHR System- SIH System Charging System 350 325 300 275 225 2501 200 175 o 150 125 1001 75 50 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (sec)
FA1/09-22. Rev. 0
Test 6: RHR System Simularted Flow Rate vs, Time I 1est 6 Riv. Data, I 300~
250 200.
a:
CL 0
U 5 10 20 Time (sec)
Test 6: SIH System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time Test 6 Raw Data 40 35 kk 30 15 15C 5 5 0 b*
10 15 20 Time (sec)
FAI/09-22. Rc%". 0
Test 6: Charging System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time Ies 6 Rav Data 40 35 30 3O I 25 &
~2O~
U- i It 3o 325 1~
5 0t 0 5 to 15 20 25 lime (sec) 300 Test 6: Simulated Flow Rate vs. Time for All 3 Systems IRHR System SIH System ACharging System 350 325 300 275 250 225 200 175 o t50 t25 1001 75~
50 10 1520 25 Time (sec)
FA!/09-22. Rev. 0
50 Test 7: RHR System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time Test 7 Raw Daia 50 45 35 30 25 a: 20 15 1
301 .
0 S 10 15 20 25 30 3b 40 45 50 Time (sec)
Test 7: SIH System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time rest 7 Raw Data 50' 45~
'Who 40 35 j30, I
~25 0
LL 20 15-10 5]
0 C.~
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 3S 40 45 5O Timrne (sec)
FAIIO9-22, ReN,. 0
51 Test 7: Charging System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time I esl 7 Raw Dati 30 25 f1 20 0
97 15 0 5 2O f! 20 25 30 40 45 35 50 Time (sec)
Test 7: Simulated Flow Rate vs. Time for All 3 Systems RHR Systemn SIR System A Carging Systemi 50 46 40 35 30 0) 25 016 0
U- 20 15 5j 0
05 15 20 25 30 35 40 4b 50 lime (sec)
FAI/09-22. Rev. 0
Test 8: RHR System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time I Test 8 Raw Data I 50 4fý 40 30 2b E20 to I
0 5 10 15 20 2b A.30 35 40 Time (sec)
Test 8: SIH System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time Test 8 Raw Data 50 45 40 8~
35 30 0
20 I10 10 0 5 15 20 25 30 35 40 Time (sec)
FA1109-22. Rev. 0
53 Test 8: Charging System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time I Test 8 Raw Data I 40
[
m 30 I 25~
201 20.
IL15 10~
0 0i 5 10 15 20 30 40 Time (sec)
Test 8: Simulated Flow Rate vs. Time for All 3 Systems I RHR Systemr- SIH System - Charging Systemr 50 45 40 35
?3 0 i
~25 3S A 20 15 1>
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Time (sec)
FAII09-22. Rev. 0
Test 9: RHR System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time I est 9 Raw Dala 200 180
-N-140 120 I
100 tr
,' 80 60 401 20 0
10 20 25 Time (see)
Test 9: SIH System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time I Test 9 Raw Data I 30 25 20 LL 0 0 10 15 10 0 10 15 20 25 30 Time (sec)
FAI/09-22. Rev. 0I
- 55 Test 9: Charging System Simularted Flow Rate vs, Time Test 9 Raw Data 25 20 -
10 A M I 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (sec)
Test 9: Simulated Flow Rate vs. Time for All 3 Systems RHR Systemn SIR System Charging System 190 1980 170 160 150 140 130-120 I 110ot cr 90 80 70 6o0 50
- 40° 30 -
20 -li 10]
0 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (sec)
FAU09-22. Rev. 0
50(
Test 10: RHR System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time Test 10 Raw Data 120 100 I
90 60 LL40 30}
20 10
- 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Time (sec)
Test 10: SIH System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time Test 10 Raw Data I 30 25 20 S15 3t 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Time (sec)
FAI/09-22. Rev. 0
57 Test 10: Charging System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time Test 10 Raw Data 20 151 t0 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Time (sec)
Test 10: Simulated Flow Rate vs. Time for All 3 Systems
- RHR System ý SIH System - Charging System 120 10 - I 100 90 80 70 610 50 40 30 20 10 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Time (sec)
FA1/09-22. Rev. 0
Test 11: RHR System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time I - Test 11 Raw Datas 45
- " 30 25
. 20 10 3
0 ii t0 15 30 35 40 0 20 25 Time (sec)
Test 11: SIH System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time I-lest 11 Ravenatal 35 30 20 CL l 0t 0
05 10 15 20 30 35 40 Time (sec)
FAL'09-22, Re\v. ()
59 Test 11: Charging System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time I " est 11 Raw Data 20 25 II a: i cr, i I I 6 ~ I,10 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 Time (sec)
Test 11: Simulated Flow Rate vs. Time for All 3 Systems RHR System SIH System Chargirn System 1 35 I 30 25 10 0!
05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 lime jsec)
FAU09-22. Rev. 0
- 60-Test 12: RHR System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time Tesl 12 Raw Datal 50 45 40 35 30 C 25 ff 20 15 10 I4 5
0 0 1O 20 30 40 50 Time (sec)
Test 12: SIH System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time Tesi 12 Raw Data 35 30 25 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (sec)
FAU09-22. Rev. 0
-61 -
Test 12: Charging System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time I lsip 12 taw ]Data 30 25 20 Ic t w'
100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (sec)
Test 12: Simulated Flow Rate vs. Time for All 3 Systems
- RHR System SIH System . Charging System 35 30-25 151 i
ts 10 1 010 20 30 40 50 60 Time (sec)
FAI/09-22. Rev. 0
62 Test 13: RHR System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time Test 13 Raw DataI 50 45 40 35 g 30 25 f 20 15 10 5
0 4O..
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Time (sec)
Test 13: SIH System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time Test 13 Raw Data 35 30 25 a 20 15 10 5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Time (sec)
FAIIO9-22, Rev. 0
Test 13: Charging System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time i Test13 Ra Data e1 Cc 0
10 20 30 40 60 70 Time (sec)
Test 13: Simulated Flow Rate vs. Time for All 3 Systems SRHR System SIH System Charging System 35 30 25 E i cL 20 3: 15 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Time (sec)
FAI/09-22. Rev. 0
64 Test 14: RHR System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time f Test 14 Ra, [(a'a 200; 1130 I 160
(,i, W120s S100 U,080 60 40}
J so 60 -
- 20 C
10 20 30 40 Time (sec) 50 Test 14: SIH System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time V lest 14RawDLata 30 25 20 3 5
0 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 Time (sec)
FAVO09-22. Rei,. 0
- 65 -
Test 14: Charging System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time Test 14 Raw Dat*,
gI 15 CL LLt 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (sec)
Test 14: Simulated Flow Rate vs. Time tor All 3 Systems I
- RHR System ý SIH System - Charging System I 200 190 180 170 "60 t50 140 130 j 1201 0110 100 tic 3: 9 S0!
E 80
- /0 60 50 40 30 20 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (sec)
FAI09-22. Rev. 0
66 -
Test 15: RHR System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time
- I est 15 Raw Data I 200 190 18a 70 /
160 140 SO 130 at10:
N 100 uf 80 70 60 50
- 40 30
- 20 0 '0 15 20 25 30 5O 35 40 45 Time (sec)
Test 15: SIH System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time I Test 15_Raw Data 30 25 20 at.
15 5,
0 0 5 101o 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (sec)
FAI/09-22. Rev. 0
- 67 Test 15: Charging System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time I - Test 15 Raw Data 20 to !b t
E 10 t
A IA 0M 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (sec)
Test 15: Simulated Flow Rate vs. Time tor All 3 Systems R HR System SIH System,- Charging System 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 M 110
' 100
- 90 L. 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0* - - ! -,- -I. - --- -i- -
Wri~if - -L-0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (sec)
FAI/09-22. Re\. 0
Test 16: RHR System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time
- Ilesl 16 Rav, Data 210 200 190 180 170 150 140 00 FA 80 t
130 70 12()
5o 40 30 20 10 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (sec)
Test 16: SIH System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time I Test 16 Raw ataI 30 f
-I I I
°, . I I I i p vs 20 11 c.
0 LL 10 0 5 10 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (sec)
FAI/09-22. Rev. 0
Test 16: Charging System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time
- Iesi 16, Pa Data 20 cn M
3:
0 a 101
' i5 0
10 15 20 25 30 3b 40 45 501 Time (sec)
Test 16: Simulated Flow Rate vs. Time for All 3 Systems
- RHR System SIH System - Charging System 210 200 190 180 170 160 150-,
140 130 E
CL 120 110
- 3. t00 90 0
LL 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -f It -
0p 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (sec)
FAUO9-22. Rev. 0)
- 70 -
Test 17: RHR System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time
'I esl 17 Raw Data 210 200 190 180 110 160 150 I 140 130 120 t
110 E4, 100 I 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 I -
10 lb 20 30 35 40 45 Time (see)
Test 17: SIH System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time I - Test 17 Raw Data I 30 2b 20 15 0
10 0
0 5 10 15 20 30 35 40 45 Time (sec)
FAII09-22, Rev. 0
71 Test 17: Charging System Simularted Flow Rate vs. Time i - lest 17 Raw Data' i I I
0 b ii I, c~ t0J Ij 0 5~~aA 15 20 30 35 40 45 10 Time (sec)
Test 17: Simulated Flow Rate vs. Time for All 3 Systems I RHR Systemn SIH System' - Charging System I 210 200 190 170 160 150 140 130 c120 S
3: 90{
1 too 70*
50 40 80 20
- 0 40 j
15 20 25 30 35 40 46 0 10 Time (sec)
FAU09-22. Rev. 0