ML13070A312
| ML13070A312 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/2012 |
| From: | AREVA NP |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| ANP-3082(NP), Rev. 1 | |
| Download: ML13070A312 (39) | |
Text
ATTACHMENT 9 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN)
Units 1, 2, and 3 Technical Specifications (TS) Change 478 Addition of Analytical Methodologies to Technical Specification 5.6.5.b for Browns Ferry 1, 2, & 3, and Revision of Technical Specification 2.1.1.2 for Browns Ferry Unit 2, in Support of ATRIUM-10 XM Fuel Use at Browns Ferry Thermal Hydraulic Design Report Attached is the non proprietary version of the thermal hydraulic design report.
ANP-3082(NP)
Revision 1 Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic Design Report for ATRIUM TM IOXM Fuel Assemblies August 2012 A
AREVA NP Inc. AREVA
AREVA NP Inc.
ANP-3082(NP)
Revision 1 Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic Design Report for ATRIUM M
T 1OXM Fuel Assemblies
AREVA NP Inc.
ANP-3082(NP)
Revision 1 Copyright © 2012 AREVA NP Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUMTM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page i Nature of Changes Item Page Description and Justification
- 1. None The nonproprietary version was revised because of a typographic error in the header. No changes have been made to the proprietary version.
AREVA NP Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUM TM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page ii Contents 1 .0 Intro d u ctio n .................................................................................................................. 1-1 2.0 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................... 2-1 3.0 Thermal-Hydraulic Design Evaluation .......................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Hydraulic Characterization ................................................................................ 3-2 3.2 Hydraulic Compatibility ................................................................................. 3-.2 3.3 Thermal Margin Performance ........................................................................ 3-5 3 .4 Ro d B ow ........................................................................................................... 3-6 3.5 Bypass Flow ..................................................................................................... 3-7 3 .6 S ta b ility ............................................................................................................. 3 -7 4 .0 Refe re nce s ................................................................................................................... 4-1 Tables 3.1 Design Evaluation of Thermal and Hydraulic Criteria for the ATRIUM 10X M Fuel Assem bly .................................................................................................... 3-8 3.2 Comparative Description of Browns Ferry ATRIUM 1OXM and Coresident F u e l ............................................................................................................................ 3 -1 0 3.3 Hydraulic Characterization Comparison Between Browns Ferry Unit ATRIUM 1OXM and Coresident Fuel Assemblies ....................................................... 3-11 3.4 Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic Design Conditions ................................................... 3-13 3.5 Browns Ferry Transition Core Loading 1 Thermal-Hydraulic Results .......................... 3-14 3.6 Browns Ferry Transition Core Loading 2 Thermal-Hydraulic Results .......................... 3-15 3.7 Browns Ferry Transition Core Loading 3 Thermal-Hydraulic Results .......................... 3-16 3.8 Browns Ferry Transition Core Loading 4 Thermal-Hydraulic Results .......................... 3-17 3.9 Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic Results at 100% CLTP and 100% Core F lo w C o nd itio ns .......................................................................................................... 3 -18 3.10 Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic Results at 62% CLTP and 37.3% Core F low C o nd itio ns .......................................................................................................... 3-19 AREVA NP Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUMTM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page iii Figures 3.1 Axial Power Shapes ................................................................................................... 3-20 3.2 Transition Core Loading 1: Hydraulic Demand Curves 100% CLTP /
10 0 % F lo w ................................................................................................................ 3 -2 1 3.3 Transition Core Loading 1: Hydraulic Demand Curves 62% CLTP / 37.3%
F lo w ........................................................................................................................... 3 -2 2 3.4 Transition Core Loading 2: Hydraulic Demand Curves 100% CLTP /
10 0 % F low ................................................................................................................. 3-2 3 3.5 Transition Core Loading 2: Hydraulic Demand Curves 62% CLTP / 37.3%
F lo w ........................................................................................................................... 3 -24 3.6 Transition Core Loading 3: Hydraulic Demand Curves 100% CLTP /
10 0 % F lo w ................................................................................................................. 3 -2 5 3.7 Transition Core Loading 3: Hydraulic Demand Curves 62% CLTP / 37.3%
F lo w ........................................................................................................................... 3 -2 6 3.8 Transition Core Loading 4: Hydraulic Demand Curves 100% CLTP /
10 0 % F lo w ................................................................................................................. 3 -2 7 3.9 Transition Core Loading 4: Hydraulic Demand Curves 62% CLTP / 37.3%
F lo w ........................................................................................................................... 3 -2 8 AREVA NP Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
M T
Design Report for ATRIUM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page iv Nomenclature AOO anticipated operational occurrences ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers BWR boiling water reactor BWROG BWR Owners Group CHF critical heat flux CLTP current licensed thermal power CPR critical power ratio CRDA control rod drop accident ECCS emergency core cooling system IFG improved FUELGUARD LOCA loss-of-coolant accident LTP lower tie plate MAPLHGR maximum average planar linear heat generation rate MCPR minimum critical power ratio MWR metal-water reaction NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S.
OLMCPR operating limit minimum critical power ratio OPRM oscillation power range monitor PCT peak cladding temperature RPF radial peaking factor SER safety evaluation report SFG standard FUELGUARD SLMCPR safety limit minimum critical power ratio U0 2 uranium dioxide UTP upper tie plate AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUM M
T 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 1-1 1.0 Introduction The results of Browns Ferry thermal-hydraulic analyses are presented to demonstrate that AREVA NP ATRIUMTm 1OXM* fuel is hydraulically compatible with coresident ATRIUM-10 and GE14 fuel. This report also provides the hydraulic characterization of the ATRIUM 1OXM, ATRIUM-10, and GE14 fuel designs for Browns Ferry. The ATRIUM 1OXM fuel was analyzed with the Improved FUELGUARD TM* (IFG) Lower Tie Plate (LTP), while the ATRIUM-10 fuel was analyzed with the IFG LTP and Standard FUELGUARD (SFG) LTP design.
The generic thermal-hydraulic design criteria applicable to the design have been reviewed and approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the topical report ANF-89-98(P)(A) Revision 1 and Supplement 1 (Reference 1). In addition, thermal-hydraulic criteria applicable to the design have also been reviewed and approved by the NRC in the topical report XN-NF-80-19(P)(A) Volume 4 Revision 1 (Reference 2).
- ATRIUM and FUELGUARD are trademarks of AREVA NP.
AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUMTm 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 2-1 2.0 Summary and Conclusions ATRIUM 1OXM fuel assemblies with the IFG LTP have been determined to be hydraulically compatible with the coresident fuel at Browns Ferry for the entire range of the licensed power-to-flow operating map. Detailed calculation results supporting this conclusion are provided in Section 3.2 and Table 3.2-Table 3.10. The results include the various transition cores that may be encountered for any of the Browns Ferry units.
The ATRIUM 1OXM, ATRIUM-10 (SFG and IFG), and the GE14 fuel assemblies are geometrically different, but hydraulically the three designs are compatible. [
Core bypass flow is not adversely affected by the introduction of the ATRIUM 1OXM fuel.
Analyses at rated conditions show that the largest variation occurs for the GE14 to ATRIUM 1 OXM fuel transition with core bypass flow varying between [ ] of rated flow respectively.
Analyses demonstrate the design criteria discussed in Section 3.0 are satisfied for the Browns Ferry transition cores consisting of the following fuel combinations:
- ATRIUM 1OXM, ATRIUM-10 IFG LTP and GE14
- ATRIUM 1OXM and ATRIUM-10 with both SFG and IFG LTPs
- ATRIUM 1OXM and ATRIUM-10 IFG LTP These analyses were performed for the expected core power distributions and core power/flow conditions encountered during operation.
AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUMTM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-1 3.0 Thermal-Hydraulic Design Evaluation Thermal-hydraulic analyses are performed to verify that design criteria are satisfied and to help establish thermal operating limits with acceptable margins of safety during normal reactor operation and AOOs. The design criteria that are applicable to the ATRIUM 1OXM fuel design are described in Reference 1. To the extent possible, these analyses are performed on a generic fuel design basis. However, due to reactor and cycle operating differences, many of the analyses supporting these thermal-hydraulic operating limits are performed on a plant- and cycle-specific basis and are documented in plant- and cycle-specific reports (Reference 2).
The thermal-hydraulic design criteria are summarized below:
- Hydraulic compatibility. The hydraulic flow resistance of the reload fuel assemblies shall be sufficiently similar to the existing fuel in the reactor such that there is no significant impact on total core flow or the flow distribution among assemblies in the core.
- Thermal margin performance. Fuel assembly geometry, including spacer design and rod-to-rod local power peaking, should minimize the likelihood of boiling transition during normal reactor operation as well as during AQOs. The fuel design should fall within the bounds of the applicable empirically based boiling transition correlation approved for AREVA reload fuel. Within other applicable mechanical, nuclear, and fuel performance constraints, the fuel design should achieve good thermal margin performance.
- Fuel centerline temperature. Fuel design and operation shall be such that fuel centerline melting is not projected for normal operation and AQOs.
- Rod bow. The anticipated magnitude of fuel rod bowing under irradiation shall be accounted for in establishing thermal margin requirements.
- Bypass flow. The bypass flow characteristics of the reload fuel assemblies shall not differ significantly from the existing fuel in order to provide adequate flow in the bypass region.
- Stability. Reactors fueled with new fuel designs must be stable in the approved power and flow operating region. The stability performance of new fuel designs will be equivalent to, or better than, existing (approved) AREVA fuel designs.
- LOCA analysis. LOCAs are analyzed in accordance with Appendix K modeling requirements using NRC-approved models. The criteria are defined in 10 CFR 50.46.
0 Control rod drop accident analysis. The deposited enthalpy must be less than 280 cal/gm for fuel coolability.
- Seismic/LOCA liftoff. Under accident conditions, the assembly must remain engaged in the fuel support.
AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUMTM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-2 A summary of the thermal-hydraulic design evaluation is given in Table 3.1.
3.1 Hydraulic Characterization The basic geometric parameters for ATRIUM 1OXM, ATRIUM-10, and GE14 fuel designs are summarized in Table 3.2. Component loss coefficients for the ATRIUM IOXM are based on tests documented and are presented in Table 3.3. These loss coefficients include modifications to the test data reduction process [
] The bare rod, ULTRAFLOW
- spacer, and UTP friction losses for ATRIUM 1OXM and ATRIUM-10 are based on flow tests. The local losses for the Browns Ferry ATRIUM 1OXM, ATRIUM-10 SFG, and IFG LTPs are based on pressure drop tests performed at AREVA's Portable Hydraulic Test Facility. [
] The local component (LTP, spacer, and UTP) loss coefficients for the GE14 fuel are based on flow test results.
The primary resistance for the leakage flow through the LTP flow holes is [
] The resistances for the leakage paths are shown in Table 3.3.
3.2 Hydraulic Compatibility The thermal-hydraulic analyses were performed in accordance with the AREVA thermal-hydraulic methodology for BWRs (Reference 2). The methodology and constitutive relationships used by AREVA for the calculation of pressure drop in BWR fuel assemblies are presented in Reference 3 and are implemented in the XCOBRA code. The XCOBRA code predicts steady-state thermal-hydraulic performance of the fuel assemblies of BWR cores at various operating conditions and power distributions. XCOBRA received NRC approval in Reference 4. The NRC reviewed the information provided in Reference 5 regarding inclusion of water rod models in XCOBRA and accepted the inclusion in Reference 6.
Hydraulic compatibility, as it relates to the relative performance of the ATRIUM 1OXM, ATRIUM-10, and GE14 fuel designs, has been evaluated. Detailed analyses were performed
- ULTRAFLOW is a trademark of AREVA NP.
AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUM TM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-3 for full core GE14 fuel, full core ATRIUM-10 SFG, full core ATRIUM-10 IFG, and full core ATRIUM 1OXM configurations. Analyses for mixed ATRIUM-10 SFG, ATRIUM-10 IFG, ATRIUM 1OXM, and GE14 cores were performed to demonstrate that the thermal-hydraulic design criteria are satisfied for several possible Browns Ferry transition core configurations, The hydraulic compatibility analysis is based on [
Table 3.4 summarizes the input conditions for the analyses. These conditions reflect two of the state points considered in the analyses: 100% power/1 00% flow and 62% power/37.3% flow.
Table 3.4 also defines the four possible Browns Ferry core loadings for the transition core configurations. Input for other core configurations is similar in that core operating conditions remain the same and the same axial power distribution is used. Evaluations were made with the bottom-, middle-, and top-peaked axial power distributions presented in Figure 3.1. Results presented in Table 3.5-Table 3.10 and Figure 3.2-Figure 3.9 are for the bottom-peaked power distribution. Results for the middle-peaked and top-peaked axial power distributions show similar trends.
Table 3.5-Table 3.8 provide a summary of calculated thermal-hydraulic results for the transition core configurations provided in Table 3.4. Table 3.9-Table 3.10 provide a summary of results for all core configurations evaluated.
Transition Core Loading 1 (Table 3.4) is a transition core consisting of approximately one third ATRIUM 1OXM fuel and one third ATRIUM-10 IFG fuel with the remainder GE14 fuel. This is a representative transition core from a full core of GE14 fuel to a full core of ATRIUM 10XM fuel, including a representative reload of ATRIUM-10 IFG fuel. The core average results and the differences between the fuel designs for both rated and off-rated statepoints are within the range considered hydraulically compatible. As shown in Table 3.5, [
] Differences in assembly flow between the fuel designs as a function of assembly power level are shown in Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3. [ ]
AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUM TM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-4
] Core pressure drop and core bypass flow fraction are also provided for Transition Core Loading I (Table 3.9-Table 3.10). Based on the reported changes in pressure drop and assembly flow caused by the transition from GE14 fuel, both the ATRIUM 1OXM and ATRIUM-10 IFG designs are considered hydraulically compatible with the GE14 design since the thermal-hydraulic design criteria are satisfied.
Transition Core Loading 2 (Table 3.4) is a transition core consisting of approximately one third ATRIUM 1OXM fuel and one third ATRIUM 10 IFG fuel with the remainder ATRIUM-10 SFG fuel. This is a representative transition core from a full core of ATRIUM-10 SFG fuel to a full core of ATRIUM 1OXM fuel, including a representative reload of ATRIUM-10 IFG fuel. The core average results and the differences between the fuel designs for both rated and off-rated statepoints are within the range considered hydraulically compatible. As shown in Table 3.6,
[
] Differences in assembly flow between the fuel designs as a function of assembly power level are shown in Figure 3.4 and Figure 3.5. [
] Core pressure drop and core bypass flow fraction are also provided for Transition Core Loading 2 (Table 3.9-Table 3.10).
Based on the reported changes in pressure drop and assembly flow caused by the transition from ATRIUM-10 SFG fuel, both the ATRIUM-10 IFG and ATRIUM 1OXM designs are considered hydraulically compatible with the ATRIUM-10 SFG design since the thermal-hydraulic design criteria are satisfied.
Transition Core Loading 3 (Table 3.4) is a transition core consisting of approximately one third ATRIUM 1OXM fuel with the remainder ATRIUM-10 IFG fuel. This is a representative transition core from a full core of ATRIUM-10 IFG fuel to a full core of ATRIUM 1OXM fuel. The core average results and the differences between the fuel designs for both rated and off-rated statepoints are within the range considered hydraulically compatible. As shown in Table 3.7,
[
] Differences in AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUMTM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-5 assembly flow between the fuel designs as a function of assembly power level are shown in Figure 3.6 and Figure 3.7. [
] Core pressure drop and core bypass flow fraction are also provided for Transition Core Loading 3 (Table 3.9-Table 3.10). Based on the reported changes in pressure drop and assembly flow caused by the transition from ATRIUM-10 IFG to ATRIUM 1OXM, the ATRIUM 1OXM design is considered hydraulically compatible with the ATRIUM-10 IFG design since the thermal-hydraulic design criteria are satisfied.
Transition Core Loading 4 (Table 3.4) is a transition core consisting of approximately two thirds ATRIUM 1OXM fuel with the remainder ATRIUM-10 IFG fuel. This is a representative transition core for a second reload of ATRIUM 1OXM at Browns Ferry. The core average results and the differences between the fuel designs for both rated and off-rated statepoints are within the range considered hydraulically compatible. As shown in Table 3.8, [
] Differences in assembly flow between the fuel designs as a function of assembly power level are shown in Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9.
[
] Core pressure drop and core bypass flow fraction are also provided for Transition Core Loading 4 (Table 3.9-Table 3.10). Based on the reported changes in pressure drop and assembly flow caused by the second reload of ATRIUM 1OXM at Browns Ferry, the ATRIUM 1OXM design is considered hydraulically compatible with the co-resident fuel (ATRIUM-10 IFG) since the thermal-hydraulic design criteria are satisfied.
3.3 Thermal Margin Performance Relative thermal margin analyses were performed in accordance with the thermal-hydraulic methodology for AREVA's XCOBRA code. The calculation of the fuel assembly CPR (thermal margin performance) is established by means of an empirical correlation based on results of boiling transition test programs. The CPR methodology is the approach used by AREVA to determine the margin to thermal limits for BWRs.
AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUM TM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-6 CPR values for ATRIUM 1OXM are calculated with the ACE/ATRIUM 1OXM critical power correlation (Reference 7) while the CPR values for ATRIUM-10 SFG, ATRIUM-10 IFG, and GE14 fuel are calculated with the SPCB critical power correlation (Reference 8). The NRC-approved methodology to demonstrate the acceptability of using the SPCB correlation for computing GE14 fuel CPR is presented in Reference 9. Assembly design features are incorporated in the CPR calculation through the K-factor term in the ACE correlation and the F-eff term for the SPCB correlation. The K-factors and F-effs are based on the local power peaking for the nuclear design and on additive constants determined in accordance with approved procedures. The local peaking factors are a function of assembly void and exposure.
For the compatibility evaluation, steady-state analyses evaluated ATRIUM 1OXM, ATRIUM-10 SFG, ATRIUM-10 IFG, and GE14 assemblies with radial peaking factors (RPFs) between [
Table 3.5-Table 3.8 show representative CPRs of the ATRIUM 1OXM, ATRIUM-10 SFG, ATRIUM-10 IFG and GE14 fuel. Table 3.9-Table 3.10 show similar comparisons of CPR and assembly flow for the various core configurations evaluated. Analysis results indicate ATRIUM 1OXM fuel will not cause thermal margin problems for the coresident fuel.
3.4 Rod Bow AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUM TM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-7 3.5 Bypass Flow Total core bypass flow is defined as leakage flow through the LTP flow holes, channel seal, core support plate, and LTP-fuel support interface. Table 3.9 shows that total core bypass flow (excluding water rod flow) fraction at rated conditions changes from [ ] of rated core flow during the transition from a full GE14 fuel core to a full ATRIUM 1OXM core (bottom-peaked power shape). Differences in bypass flow fractions between other transition core combinations of AREVA fuel and GE14 are either equal to or less than the full core GE14 fuel to a full core ATRIUM 1OXM fuel results. [
] In summary, adequate bypass flow will be available with the introduction of the ATRIUM 1OXM fuel design and applicable design criteria are met.
3.6 Stability Each new fuel design is analyzed to demonstrate that the stability performance is equivalent to or better than an existing (NRC-approved) AREVA fuel design. The stability performance is a function of the core power, core flow, core power distribution and, to a lesser extent, the fuel design. [
] A comparative stability analysis was performed with the NRC-approved STAIF code (Reference 11). The analysis shows that the ATRIUM 1OXM fuel design is equivalent to or better than other approved AREVA fuel designs.
As stated above, the stability performance of a core is strongly dependent on the core power, core flow, and power distribution in the core. Therefore, core stability is currently evaluated on a cycle-specific basis and addressed in the reload licensing report.
AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(N P)
Design Report for ATRIUMTTM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-8 Table 3.1 Design Evaluation of Thermal and Hydraulic Criteria for the ATRIUM 1OXM Fuel Assembly Criteria Section Description Criteria Results or Disposition 3.0 Thermal and Hydraulic Criteria 3.2 Hydraulic Hydraulic flow resistance Verified on a plant-specific basis.
compatibility shall be sufficiently ATRIUM 1OXM demonstrated to be similar to existing fuel compatible with coresident fuel such that there is no significant impact on total designs at Browns Ferry.
core flow or flow [
distribution among assemblies.
3.3 Thermal margin Fuel design shall be SPCB critical power correlation is performance within the limits of applied to both the ATRIUM-10 and applicability of an GE fuel.
approved CHF ACE/ATRIUM 1OXM critical power correlation. correlation is applied to the ATRIUM 1OXM
< 0.1 % of rods in boiling Verified on cycle-specific basis for transition. Chapter 14 analyses.
Fuel centerline No centerline melting. Refer to the mechanical design temperature report.
3.4 Rod bow Rod bow must be Design basis for fuel rod bowing is accounted for in that lateral displacement of the fuel establishing thermal rods shall not be of sufficient margins, magnitude to impact thermal margins.
3.5 Bypass flow Bypass flow Verified on a plant-specific basis.
characteristics shall be Analysis results demonstrate that similar among adequate bypass flow is provided.
assemblies to provide adequate bypass flow.
AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
T Design Report for ATRIUM M 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-9 Table 3.1 Design Evaluation of Thermal and Hydraulic Criteria for the ATRIUM 1OXM Fuel Assembly (Continued)
Criteria Section Description Criteria Results or Disposition 3.0 Thermal and Hydraulic Criteria (Continued) 3.6 Stability New fuel designs are Core stability behavior is evaluated stable in the approved on a cycle-specific basis.
power and flow operating ATRIUM 1OXM channel and core region, and stability decay ratios have been performance will be pequivmalent t( bete demonstrated to be equivalent to or better than other approved AREVA than)
AREVA existing (approved) fuel designs. fuel designs.
LOCA analysis LOCA analyzed in Approved Appendix K LOCA accordance with model.
Appendix K modeling Plant- and fuel-specific analysis requirements. Criteria with cycle-specific verifications.
defined in 10 CFR 50.46.
CRDA analysis < 280 cal/gm for Cycle-specific analysis is coolability. performed.
ASME over- ASME pressure vessel Cycle-specific analysis is pressurization core requirements shall performed.
analysis be satisfied.
Seismic/LOCA Assembly remains Refer to the mechanical design liftoff engaged in fuel support. report.
AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUMTM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-10 Table 3.2 Comparative Description of Browns Ferry ATRIUM 1OXM and Coresident Fuel Fuel Parameter ATRIUM 1OXM ATRIUM-10 GE14 Number of fuel rods Full-length fuel rods 79 83 78 PLFRs 12 8 14 Fuel clad OD, in 0.4047 0.3957 0.404 Number of spacers 9 8 8 Active fuel length, ft Full-length fuel rods 12.500 12.454 12.500 PLFRs 6.25 7.5 7.0 Hydraulic resistance characteristics Table 3.3 Table 3.3 Table 3.3 Number of water rods 1 1 2 Water rod OD, in 1.378* 1.378* 0.980
- Square water channel outer width.
AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUMTM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-11 Table 3.3 Hydraulic Characterization Comparison Between Browns Ferry Unit ATRIUM 1OXM and Coresident Fuel Assemblies AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUM M
T 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-12 Table 3.3 Hydraulic Characterization Comparison Between Browns Ferry Unit ATRIUM 1OXM and Coresident Fuel Assemblies (continued)
AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUMTM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-13 Table 3.4 Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic Design Conditions Reactor Conditions 100%P / 100%F 62%P / 37.3%F Core power level, MWt 3458 2146 Core exit pressure, psia 1060 987 Core inlet enthalpy, Btu/Ibm 524.7 492.2 Total core coolant flow, Mlbm/hr 102.5 38.2 Axial power shape Bottom-peaked Bottom-peaked (Figure 3.1) (Figure 3.11)
Number of Assemblies Central Peripheral Region Region Transition Core Loading I Transition Core Loading 2 Transition Core Loading 3 Transition Core Loading 4 AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
M T
Design Report for ATRIUM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-14 Table 3.5 Browns Ferry Transition Core Loading I Thermal-Hydraulic Results AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
M T
Design Report for ATRIUM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-15 Table 3.6 Browns Ferry Transition Core Loading 2 Thermal-Hydraulic Results AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
M T
Design Report for ATRIUM 10XM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-16 Table 3.7 Browns Ferry Transition Core Loading 3 Thermal-Hydraulic Results AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUMTM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-17 Table 3.8 Browns Ferry Transition Core Loading 4 Thermal-Hydraulic Results AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUMTM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-18 Table 3.9 Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic Results at 100% CLTP and 100% Core Flow Conditions AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUMTM 10XM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-19 Table 3.10 Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic Results at 62% CLTP and 37.3% Core Flow Conditions AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUM 1OXM M
T Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-20 Figure 3.1 Axial Power Shapes AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUM M
T 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-21 C
Figure 3.2 Transition Core Loading 1:
Hydraulic Demand Curves 100% CLTP / 100% Flow AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
M T
Design Report for ATRIUM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-22 Figure 3.3 Transition Core Loading 1:
Hydraulic Demand Curves 62% CLTP / 37.3% Flow AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUMTM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-23 Figure 3.4 Transition Core Loading 2:
Hydraulic Demand Curves 100% CLTP / 100% Flow AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUM M
T 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-24 Figure 3.5 Transition Core Loading 2:
Hydraulic Demand Curves 62% CLTP / 37.3% Flow AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
M T
Design Report for ATRIUM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-25 Figure 3.6 Transition Core Loading 3:
Hydraulic Demand Curves 100% CLTP / 100% Flow AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUMTM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-26 Figure 3.7 Transition Core Loading 3:
Hydraulic Demand Curves 62% CLTP / 37.3% Flow AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
M T
Design Report for ATRIUM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-27 Figure 3.8 Transition Core Loading 4:
Hydraulic Demand Curves 100% CLTP / 100% Flow AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUMTM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 3-28 Figure 3.9 Transition Core Loading 4:
Hydraulic Demand Curves 62% CLTP / 37.3% Flow AREVA NP, Inc.
Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic ANP-3082(NP)
Design Report for ATRIUM TM 1OXM Revision 1 Fuel Assemblies Page 4-1 4.0 References
- 1. ANF-89-98(P)(A) Revision 1 and Supplement 1, Generic Mechanical Design Criteriafor BWR Fuel Designs, Advanced Nuclear Fuels Corporation, May 1995.
- 2. XN-NF-80-19(P)(A) Volume 4 Revision 1, Exxon Nuclear Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors: Application of the ENC Methodology to BWR Reloads, Exxon Nuclear Company, June 1986.
- 3. XN-NF-79-59(P)(A), Methodology for Calculationof PressureDrop in BWR Fuel Assemblies, Exxon Nuclear Company, November 1983.
- 4. XN-NF-80-19(P)(A) Volume 3 Revision 2, Exxon Nuclear Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors, THERMEX. Thermal Limits Methodology Summary Description, Exxon Nuclear Company, January 1987.
- 5. Letter, R. A. Copeland (ANF) to R. C. Jones (USNRC), "Explicit Modeling of BWR Water Rod in XCOBRA," RAC:002:90, January 9,1990.
- 6. Letter, R. C. Jones (USNRC) to R. A. Copeland (ANF), no subject (regarding XCOBRA water rod model), February 1, 1990.
- 7. ANP-1 0298PA Revision 0, ACE/ATRIUM 1OXM CriticalPower Correlation,AREVA NP, March 2010.
- 8. EMF-2209(P)(A) Revision 3, SPCB CriticalPower Correlation,AREVA, September 2009.
- 9. EMF-2245(P)(A) Revision 0, Application of Siemens Power Corporation'sCritical Power Correlationsto Co-Resident Fuel, Siemens Power Corporation, August 2000.
- 10. ANP-1 0298PA Revision 0 Supplement 1 P Revision 0, Improved K-factor Model for ACE/ATRIUM IOXM CriticalPower Correlation,AREVA NP, December 2011.
- 11. EMF-CC-074(P)(A) Volume 1, STAIF - A Computer Programfor BWR StabilityAnalysis in the Frequency Domain; and Volume 2, STAIF - A Computer Programfor BWR Stability Analysis in the Frequency Domain - Code QualificationReport, Siemens Power Corporation, July 1994.
- 12. ANP-3140(P) Revision 0, Browns Ferry Units 1, 2, and 3 Improved K-factor Model for ACE/ATRIUM IOXM Critical Power Correlation,AREVA NP, August 2012.
AREVA NP, Inc.