ML15282A221
Text
ATTACHMENT 31 ANP-3327NP, Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU (Non-Proprietary)
ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU March 2015 AREVA Inc.
AREVA Inc.
ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU
AREVA Inc.
ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU Copyright © 2015 AREVA Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page i AREVA Inc.
Nature of Changes Item Page Description and Justification
- 1.
3-5 Section 3.3 discussion regarding the reference to the ACE/ATRIUM 10XM Critical Power Correlation is modified to the current Browns Ferry Technical Specification approvals.
- 2.
4-1 Added Reference 11 and modified Reference 7 consistent with the description in Item 1.
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page ii AREVA Inc.
Contents 1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................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............................................................................3-4 3.4 Rod Bow...........................................................................................................3-5 3.5 Bypass Flow.....................................................................................................3-5 3.6 Stability.............................................................................................................3-6 4.0 References...................................................................................................................4-1 Tables Table 3.1 Design Evaluation of Thermal and Hydraulic Criteria for the ATRIUM 10XM Fuel Assembly..........................................................................3-7 Table 3.2 Comparative Description of Browns Ferry ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10 Fuel...............................................................................................3-9 Table 3.3 Hydraulic Characterization Comparison Between Browns Ferry ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10..................................................................... 3-10 Table 3.4 Browns Ferry EPU Thermal-Hydraulic Design Conditions............................... 3-11 Table 3.5 Browns Ferry EPU Core Loading 1 Thermal-Hydraulic Results....................... 3-12 Table 3.6 Browns Ferry EPU Core Loading 2 Thermal-Hydraulic Results....................... 3-13 Table 3.7 Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic Results at 100% EPU and 100%
Core Flow Conditions...................................................................................... 3-14 Table 3.8 Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic Results at 54.3% EPU and 37.3% Core Flow Conditions........................................................................... 3-15
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page iii AREVA Inc.
Figures Figure 3.1 Axial Power Shapes............................................................................................. 3-16 Figure 3.2 Core Loading 1: Hydraulic Demand Curves 100% EPU / 100% Flow................... 3-17 Figure 3.3 Core Loading 1: Hydraulic Demand Curves 54.3% EPU / 37.3% Flow................. 3-18 Figure 3.4 Core Loading 2: Hydraulic Demand Curves 100% EPU / 100% Flow................... 3-19 Figure 3.5 Core Loading 2: Hydraulic Demand Curves 54.3% EPU / 37.3% Flow................. 3-20
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page iv AREVA Inc.
Nomenclature Acronym Definition 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 EPU Extended Power Uprated 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 SLMCPR safety limit minimum critical power ratio UO2 uranium dioxide UTP upper tie plate
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 1-1 AREVA Inc.
1.0 Introduction The results of Browns Ferry thermal-hydraulic analyses are presented to demonstrate that AREVA Inc. ATRIUM' 10XM* fuel is hydraulically compatible with ATRIUM-10 fuel at EPU conditions. This report also provides the hydraulic characterization of the ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10 fuel designs for Browns Ferry.
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 is a trademark of AREVA Inc.
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 2-1 AREVA Inc.
2.0 Summary and Conclusions The thermal-hydraulic evaluations presented in this report are for the various, expected core configurations that includes ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10 fuel designs at EPU operation.
These fuel designs have been determined to be hydraulically compatible at Browns Ferry for the entire range of the licensed EPU power-to-flow operating map. Detailed calculation results supporting this conclusion are provided in Section 3.2 and Tables 3.2 to 3.8.
The ATRIUM 10XM and the ATRIUM-10 fuel assemblies are geometrically different, but hydraulically the two designs are compatible at EPU operation. [
]
Core bypass flow is not significantly affected by any combination core loading of ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10 fuel for EPU operation. Analyses at rated conditions show the core bypass flow varying between [
] of rated flow.
Analyses demonstrate the design criteria discussed in Section 3.0 are satisfied for the Browns Ferry EPU cores configuration consisting of ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10 fuel combinations.
These analyses were performed for expected EPU core power distributions and core flow conditions encountered during operation.
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-1 AREVA Inc.
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 AREVA fuel designs 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 AOOs. 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 AOOs.
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.
Control rod drop accident analysis. The deposited enthalpy must be < 280 cal/gm for fuel coolability. AREVA will target to limit maximum deposited enthalpies to < 230 cal/gm.
ASME overpressurization analysis. ASME pressure vessel code requirements must be satisfied.
Seismic/LOCA liftoff. Under accident conditions, the assembly must remain engaged in the fuel support.
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-2 AREVA Inc.
A summary of the thermal-hydraulic design evaluation is given in Table 3.1.
3.1 Hydraulic Characterization The basic geometric parameters for ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10 fuel designs are summarized in Table 3.2. Component loss coefficients for the ATRIUM 10XM 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 10XM and ATRIUM-10 are based on flow tests. The local losses for the Browns Ferry ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10 LTPs are based on pressure drop tests performed at AREVAs Portable Hydraulic Test Facility. [
]
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.
ULTRAFLOW is a trademark of AREVA Inc.
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-3 AREVA Inc.
Hydraulic compatibility, as it relates to the relative performance of the ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10 fuel designs, has been evaluated. This report provides ATRIUM-10 and ATRIUM 10XM mixed core analysis for possible EPU conditions. These analyses were performed to demonstrate that the thermal-hydraulic design criteria are satisfied for expected Browns Ferry core configurations under EPU operation.
The hydraulic compatibility analysis is based on [
]
Table 3.4 summarizes the input conditions for the analyses. These conditions reflect two of the statepoints considered in the analyses: 100% EPU power/100% flow and 54.3% EPU power/37.3% flow. Table 3.4 also defines the two Browns Ferry core configurations presented in this report. 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 Tables 3.5 to 3.8 and Figures 3.2 and 3.5 are for bottom peaked power distribution.
Results for the middle-peaked and top-peaked axial power distributions show similar trends.
Table 3.5-Table 3.6 provide a summary of calculated thermal-hydraulic results for the core configurations provided in Table 3.4. Tables 3.7 to 3.8 provide a summary of results for all core configurations evaluated.
Core Loading 1 (Table 3.4) is a core consisting of approximately one third ATRIUM 10XM fuel with the remainder ATRIUM-10 fuel. This represents a core with a single reload of ATRIUM 10XM 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
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-4 AREVA Inc.
power level are shown in Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3. [
] Core pressure drop and core bypass flow fraction are also provided for Core Loading 1 (Table 3.7-3.8). Based on the reported changes in pressure drop and assembly flow caused by the first reload of ATRIUM-10XM, the ATRIUM 10XM design is considered hydraulically compatible with the ATRIUM-10 design for EPU operation since the thermal-hydraulic design criteria are satisfied.
Core Loading 2 (Table 3.4) is a core consisting of approximately two thirds ATRIUM 10XM fuel with the remainder ATRIUM-10 fuel. This represents a core with two reloads of ATRIUM 10XM 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 Core Loading 2 (Table 3.7-3.8). Based on the reported changes in pressure drop and assembly flow caused by the second reload of ATRIUM 10XM at Browns Ferry, the ATRIUM 10XM design is considered hydraulically compatible with the ATRIUM-10 fuel design for EPU operation 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.
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-5 AREVA Inc.
CPR values for ATRIUM 10XM fuel are calculated with the ACE/ATRIUM 10XM critical power correlation (References 7 and 11) while the CPR values for ATRIUM-10 fuel are calculated with the SPCB critical power correlation (Reference 8). 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 10XM and ATRIUM-10 fuel assemblies with radial peaking factors (RPFs) between [
] and representative K-factors and F-effs. Tables 3.5 to 3.6 show representative CPRs of the ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10. Table 3.7-3.8 show similar comparisons of CPR and assembly flow for the various core the mixed configurations evaluated. Analysis results indicate ATRIUM 10XM fuel will not adversely affect the thermal margin performance of the ATRIUM 10 fuel.
3.4 Rod Bow
[
]
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 3.7 shows that total core bypass flow (excluding water rod flow) fraction at rated conditions changes from [
] of rated core flow during the core configurations 1 and 2 (bottom-peaked power shape). [
]
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-6 AREVA Inc.
[
] In summary, adequate bypass flow will be available for a core mixture of ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM 10 fuel design under EPU operation 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 10). The analysis shows that the ATRIUM 10XM 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.
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-7 AREVA Inc.
Table 3.1 Design Evaluation of Thermal and Hydraulic Criteria for the ATRIUM 10XM Fuel Assembly Criteria Section Description Criteria Results or Disposition 3.0 Thermal and Hydraulic Criteria 3.2 Hydraulic compatibility Hydraulic flow resistance shall be sufficiently similar to existing fuel such that there is no significant impact on total core flow or flow distribution among assemblies.
Verified on a plant-specific basis.
ATRIUM 10XM demonstrated to be compatible with ATRIUM 10 fuel designs at Browns Ferry at EPU conditions.
[
]
3.3 Thermal margin performance Fuel design shall be within the limits of applicability of an approved CHF correlation.
SPCB critical power correlation is applied to the ATRIUM-10 fuel.
ACE/ATRIUM 10XM critical power correlation is applied to the ATRIUM 10XM.
< 0.1% of rods in boiling transition.
Verified on cycle-specific basis for Chapter 14 analyses.
Fuel centerline temperature No centerline melting.
Refer to the mechanical design report.
3.4 Rod bow Rod bow must be accounted for in establishing thermal margins.
Design basis for fuel rod bowing is that lateral displacement of the fuel rods shall not be of sufficient magnitude to impact thermal margins.
3.5 Bypass flow Bypass flow characteristics shall be similar among assemblies to provide adequate bypass flow.
Verified on a plant-specific basis.
Analysis results demonstrate that adequate bypass flow is provided.
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-8 AREVA Inc.
Table 3.1 Design Evaluation of Thermal and Hydraulic Criteria for the ATRIUM 10XM Fuel Assembly (Continued)
Criteria Section Description Criteria Results or Disposition 3.0 Thermal and Hydraulic Criteria (Continued) 3.6 Stability New fuel designs are stable in the approved power and flow operating region, and stability performance will be equivalent to (or better than) existing (approved)
AREVA fuel designs.
Core stability behavior is evaluated on a cycle-specific basis.
ATRIUM 10XM channel and core decay ratios have been demonstrated to be equivalent to or better than other approved AREVA fuel designs.
LOCA analysis LOCA analyzed in accordance with Appendix K modeling requirements. Criteria defined in 10 CFR 50.46.
Approved Appendix K LOCA model.
Plant-and fuel-specific analysis with cycle-specific verifications.
CRDA analysis
< 280 cal/gm for coolability.
Cycle-specific analysis is performed. AREVA will target to limit maximum deposited enthalpies to < 230 cal/gm.
ASME over-pressurization analysis ASME pressure vessel core requirements shall be satisfied.
Cycle-specific analysis is performed.
Seismic/LOCA liftoff Assembly remains engaged in fuel support.
Refer to the mechanical design report.
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-9 AREVA Inc.
Table 3.2 Comparative Description of Browns Ferry ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10 Fuel Fuel Parameter ATRIUM 10XM ATRIUM-10 Number of fuel rods Full-length fuel rods PLFRs 79 12 83 8
Fuel clad OD, in 0.4047 0.3957 Number of spacers 9
8 Active fuel length, ft Full-length fuel rods PLFRs 12.500 6.25 12.454 7.5 Hydraulic resistance characteristics Table 3.3 Table 3.3 Number of water rods 1
1.378*
Square water channel outer width.
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-10 AREVA Inc.
Table 3.3 Hydraulic Characterization Comparison Between Browns Ferry ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-11 AREVA Inc.
Table 3.4 Browns Ferry EPU Thermal-Hydraulic Design Conditions Reactor Conditions 100%P / 100%F 54.3%P / 37.3%F Core power level, MWt 3952 2146 Core exit pressure, psia 1060 987 Core inlet enthalpy, Btu/lbm 523.2 492.2 Total core coolant flow, Mlbm/hr 102.5 38.2 Axial power shape Bottom-peaked (Figure 3.1)
Bottom-peaked (Figure 3.1)
Number of Assemblies Central Region Peripheral Region Core Loading 1
[
]
Core Loading 2
[
]
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-12 AREVA Inc.
Table 3.5 Browns Ferry EPU Core Loading 1 Thermal-Hydraulic Results
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-13 AREVA Inc.
Table 3.6 Browns Ferry EPU Core Loading 2 Thermal-Hydraulic Results
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-14 AREVA Inc.
Table 3.7 Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic Results at 100% EPU and 100% Core Flow Conditions
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-15 AREVA Inc.
Table 3.8 Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic Results at 54.3% EPU and 37.3% Core Flow Conditions
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-16 AREVA Inc.
Figure 3.1 Axial Power Shapes
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-17 AREVA Inc.
Figure 3.2 Core Loading 1:
Hydraulic Demand Curves 100% EPU / 100% Flow
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-18 AREVA Inc.
Figure 3.3 Core Loading 1:
Hydraulic Demand Curves 54.3% EPU / 37.3% Flow
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-19 AREVA Inc.
Figure 3.4 Core Loading 2:
Hydraulic Demand Curves 100% EPU / 100% Flow
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-20 AREVA Inc.
Figure 3.5 Core Loading 2:
Hydraulic Demand Curves 54.3% EPU / 37.3% Flow
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 4-1 AREVA Inc.
4.0 References
- 1.
ANF-89-98(P)(A) Revision 1 and Supplement 1, Generic Mechanical Design Criteria for 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 Calculation of Pressure Drop 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-10298PA Revision 0, ACE/ATRIUM 10XM Critical Power Correlation, AREVA Inc.,
March 2010.
- 8.
EMF-2209(P)(A) Revision 3, SPCB Critical Power Correlation, AREVA, September 2009.
- 9.
EMF-2245(P)(A) Revision 0, Application of Siemens Power Corporation's Critical Power Correlations to Co-Resident Fuel, Siemens Power Corporation, August 2000.
- 10.
EMF-CC-074(P)(A) Volume 1, STAIF - A Computer Program for BWR Stability Analysis in the Frequency Domain; and Volume 2, STAIF - A Computer Program for BWR Stability Analysis in the Frequency Domain - Code Qualification Report, Siemens Power Corporation, July 1994.
- 11.
ANP-3140(P), Revision 0, Browns Ferry Units 1, 2, and 3 Improved K-factor Model for ACE/ATRIUM 10XM Critical Power Correlation, AREVA NP, Inc., August 2012.
ATTACHMENT 31 ANP-3327NP, Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU (Non-Proprietary)
ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU March 2015 AREVA Inc.
AREVA Inc.
ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU
AREVA Inc.
ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU Copyright © 2015 AREVA Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page i AREVA Inc.
Nature of Changes Item Page Description and Justification
- 1.
3-5 Section 3.3 discussion regarding the reference to the ACE/ATRIUM 10XM Critical Power Correlation is modified to the current Browns Ferry Technical Specification approvals.
- 2.
4-1 Added Reference 11 and modified Reference 7 consistent with the description in Item 1.
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page ii AREVA Inc.
Contents 1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................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............................................................................3-4 3.4 Rod Bow...........................................................................................................3-5 3.5 Bypass Flow.....................................................................................................3-5 3.6 Stability.............................................................................................................3-6 4.0 References...................................................................................................................4-1 Tables Table 3.1 Design Evaluation of Thermal and Hydraulic Criteria for the ATRIUM 10XM Fuel Assembly..........................................................................3-7 Table 3.2 Comparative Description of Browns Ferry ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10 Fuel...............................................................................................3-9 Table 3.3 Hydraulic Characterization Comparison Between Browns Ferry ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10..................................................................... 3-10 Table 3.4 Browns Ferry EPU Thermal-Hydraulic Design Conditions............................... 3-11 Table 3.5 Browns Ferry EPU Core Loading 1 Thermal-Hydraulic Results....................... 3-12 Table 3.6 Browns Ferry EPU Core Loading 2 Thermal-Hydraulic Results....................... 3-13 Table 3.7 Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic Results at 100% EPU and 100%
Core Flow Conditions...................................................................................... 3-14 Table 3.8 Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic Results at 54.3% EPU and 37.3% Core Flow Conditions........................................................................... 3-15
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page iii AREVA Inc.
Figures Figure 3.1 Axial Power Shapes............................................................................................. 3-16 Figure 3.2 Core Loading 1: Hydraulic Demand Curves 100% EPU / 100% Flow................... 3-17 Figure 3.3 Core Loading 1: Hydraulic Demand Curves 54.3% EPU / 37.3% Flow................. 3-18 Figure 3.4 Core Loading 2: Hydraulic Demand Curves 100% EPU / 100% Flow................... 3-19 Figure 3.5 Core Loading 2: Hydraulic Demand Curves 54.3% EPU / 37.3% Flow................. 3-20
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page iv AREVA Inc.
Nomenclature Acronym Definition 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 EPU Extended Power Uprated 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 SLMCPR safety limit minimum critical power ratio UO2 uranium dioxide UTP upper tie plate
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 1-1 AREVA Inc.
1.0 Introduction The results of Browns Ferry thermal-hydraulic analyses are presented to demonstrate that AREVA Inc. ATRIUM' 10XM* fuel is hydraulically compatible with ATRIUM-10 fuel at EPU conditions. This report also provides the hydraulic characterization of the ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10 fuel designs for Browns Ferry.
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 is a trademark of AREVA Inc.
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 2-1 AREVA Inc.
2.0 Summary and Conclusions The thermal-hydraulic evaluations presented in this report are for the various, expected core configurations that includes ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10 fuel designs at EPU operation.
These fuel designs have been determined to be hydraulically compatible at Browns Ferry for the entire range of the licensed EPU power-to-flow operating map. Detailed calculation results supporting this conclusion are provided in Section 3.2 and Tables 3.2 to 3.8.
The ATRIUM 10XM and the ATRIUM-10 fuel assemblies are geometrically different, but hydraulically the two designs are compatible at EPU operation. [
]
Core bypass flow is not significantly affected by any combination core loading of ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10 fuel for EPU operation. Analyses at rated conditions show the core bypass flow varying between [
] of rated flow.
Analyses demonstrate the design criteria discussed in Section 3.0 are satisfied for the Browns Ferry EPU cores configuration consisting of ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10 fuel combinations.
These analyses were performed for expected EPU core power distributions and core flow conditions encountered during operation.
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-1 AREVA Inc.
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 AREVA fuel designs 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 AOOs. 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 AOOs.
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.
Control rod drop accident analysis. The deposited enthalpy must be < 280 cal/gm for fuel coolability. AREVA will target to limit maximum deposited enthalpies to < 230 cal/gm.
ASME overpressurization analysis. ASME pressure vessel code requirements must be satisfied.
Seismic/LOCA liftoff. Under accident conditions, the assembly must remain engaged in the fuel support.
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-2 AREVA Inc.
A summary of the thermal-hydraulic design evaluation is given in Table 3.1.
3.1 Hydraulic Characterization The basic geometric parameters for ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10 fuel designs are summarized in Table 3.2. Component loss coefficients for the ATRIUM 10XM 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 10XM and ATRIUM-10 are based on flow tests. The local losses for the Browns Ferry ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10 LTPs are based on pressure drop tests performed at AREVAs Portable Hydraulic Test Facility. [
]
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.
ULTRAFLOW is a trademark of AREVA Inc.
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-3 AREVA Inc.
Hydraulic compatibility, as it relates to the relative performance of the ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10 fuel designs, has been evaluated. This report provides ATRIUM-10 and ATRIUM 10XM mixed core analysis for possible EPU conditions. These analyses were performed to demonstrate that the thermal-hydraulic design criteria are satisfied for expected Browns Ferry core configurations under EPU operation.
The hydraulic compatibility analysis is based on [
]
Table 3.4 summarizes the input conditions for the analyses. These conditions reflect two of the statepoints considered in the analyses: 100% EPU power/100% flow and 54.3% EPU power/37.3% flow. Table 3.4 also defines the two Browns Ferry core configurations presented in this report. 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 Tables 3.5 to 3.8 and Figures 3.2 and 3.5 are for bottom peaked power distribution.
Results for the middle-peaked and top-peaked axial power distributions show similar trends.
Table 3.5-Table 3.6 provide a summary of calculated thermal-hydraulic results for the core configurations provided in Table 3.4. Tables 3.7 to 3.8 provide a summary of results for all core configurations evaluated.
Core Loading 1 (Table 3.4) is a core consisting of approximately one third ATRIUM 10XM fuel with the remainder ATRIUM-10 fuel. This represents a core with a single reload of ATRIUM 10XM 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
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-4 AREVA Inc.
power level are shown in Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3. [
] Core pressure drop and core bypass flow fraction are also provided for Core Loading 1 (Table 3.7-3.8). Based on the reported changes in pressure drop and assembly flow caused by the first reload of ATRIUM-10XM, the ATRIUM 10XM design is considered hydraulically compatible with the ATRIUM-10 design for EPU operation since the thermal-hydraulic design criteria are satisfied.
Core Loading 2 (Table 3.4) is a core consisting of approximately two thirds ATRIUM 10XM fuel with the remainder ATRIUM-10 fuel. This represents a core with two reloads of ATRIUM 10XM 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 Core Loading 2 (Table 3.7-3.8). Based on the reported changes in pressure drop and assembly flow caused by the second reload of ATRIUM 10XM at Browns Ferry, the ATRIUM 10XM design is considered hydraulically compatible with the ATRIUM-10 fuel design for EPU operation 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.
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-5 AREVA Inc.
CPR values for ATRIUM 10XM fuel are calculated with the ACE/ATRIUM 10XM critical power correlation (References 7 and 11) while the CPR values for ATRIUM-10 fuel are calculated with the SPCB critical power correlation (Reference 8). 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 10XM and ATRIUM-10 fuel assemblies with radial peaking factors (RPFs) between [
] and representative K-factors and F-effs. Tables 3.5 to 3.6 show representative CPRs of the ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10. Table 3.7-3.8 show similar comparisons of CPR and assembly flow for the various core the mixed configurations evaluated. Analysis results indicate ATRIUM 10XM fuel will not adversely affect the thermal margin performance of the ATRIUM 10 fuel.
3.4 Rod Bow
[
]
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 3.7 shows that total core bypass flow (excluding water rod flow) fraction at rated conditions changes from [
] of rated core flow during the core configurations 1 and 2 (bottom-peaked power shape). [
]
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-6 AREVA Inc.
[
] In summary, adequate bypass flow will be available for a core mixture of ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM 10 fuel design under EPU operation 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 10). The analysis shows that the ATRIUM 10XM 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.
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-7 AREVA Inc.
Table 3.1 Design Evaluation of Thermal and Hydraulic Criteria for the ATRIUM 10XM Fuel Assembly Criteria Section Description Criteria Results or Disposition 3.0 Thermal and Hydraulic Criteria 3.2 Hydraulic compatibility Hydraulic flow resistance shall be sufficiently similar to existing fuel such that there is no significant impact on total core flow or flow distribution among assemblies.
Verified on a plant-specific basis.
ATRIUM 10XM demonstrated to be compatible with ATRIUM 10 fuel designs at Browns Ferry at EPU conditions.
[
]
3.3 Thermal margin performance Fuel design shall be within the limits of applicability of an approved CHF correlation.
SPCB critical power correlation is applied to the ATRIUM-10 fuel.
ACE/ATRIUM 10XM critical power correlation is applied to the ATRIUM 10XM.
< 0.1% of rods in boiling transition.
Verified on cycle-specific basis for Chapter 14 analyses.
Fuel centerline temperature No centerline melting.
Refer to the mechanical design report.
3.4 Rod bow Rod bow must be accounted for in establishing thermal margins.
Design basis for fuel rod bowing is that lateral displacement of the fuel rods shall not be of sufficient magnitude to impact thermal margins.
3.5 Bypass flow Bypass flow characteristics shall be similar among assemblies to provide adequate bypass flow.
Verified on a plant-specific basis.
Analysis results demonstrate that adequate bypass flow is provided.
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-8 AREVA Inc.
Table 3.1 Design Evaluation of Thermal and Hydraulic Criteria for the ATRIUM 10XM Fuel Assembly (Continued)
Criteria Section Description Criteria Results or Disposition 3.0 Thermal and Hydraulic Criteria (Continued) 3.6 Stability New fuel designs are stable in the approved power and flow operating region, and stability performance will be equivalent to (or better than) existing (approved)
AREVA fuel designs.
Core stability behavior is evaluated on a cycle-specific basis.
ATRIUM 10XM channel and core decay ratios have been demonstrated to be equivalent to or better than other approved AREVA fuel designs.
LOCA analysis LOCA analyzed in accordance with Appendix K modeling requirements. Criteria defined in 10 CFR 50.46.
Approved Appendix K LOCA model.
Plant-and fuel-specific analysis with cycle-specific verifications.
CRDA analysis
< 280 cal/gm for coolability.
Cycle-specific analysis is performed. AREVA will target to limit maximum deposited enthalpies to < 230 cal/gm.
ASME over-pressurization analysis ASME pressure vessel core requirements shall be satisfied.
Cycle-specific analysis is performed.
Seismic/LOCA liftoff Assembly remains engaged in fuel support.
Refer to the mechanical design report.
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-9 AREVA Inc.
Table 3.2 Comparative Description of Browns Ferry ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10 Fuel Fuel Parameter ATRIUM 10XM ATRIUM-10 Number of fuel rods Full-length fuel rods PLFRs 79 12 83 8
Fuel clad OD, in 0.4047 0.3957 Number of spacers 9
8 Active fuel length, ft Full-length fuel rods PLFRs 12.500 6.25 12.454 7.5 Hydraulic resistance characteristics Table 3.3 Table 3.3 Number of water rods 1
1.378*
Square water channel outer width.
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-10 AREVA Inc.
Table 3.3 Hydraulic Characterization Comparison Between Browns Ferry ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-11 AREVA Inc.
Table 3.4 Browns Ferry EPU Thermal-Hydraulic Design Conditions Reactor Conditions 100%P / 100%F 54.3%P / 37.3%F Core power level, MWt 3952 2146 Core exit pressure, psia 1060 987 Core inlet enthalpy, Btu/lbm 523.2 492.2 Total core coolant flow, Mlbm/hr 102.5 38.2 Axial power shape Bottom-peaked (Figure 3.1)
Bottom-peaked (Figure 3.1)
Number of Assemblies Central Region Peripheral Region Core Loading 1
[
]
Core Loading 2
[
]
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-12 AREVA Inc.
Table 3.5 Browns Ferry EPU Core Loading 1 Thermal-Hydraulic Results
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-13 AREVA Inc.
Table 3.6 Browns Ferry EPU Core Loading 2 Thermal-Hydraulic Results
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-14 AREVA Inc.
Table 3.7 Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic Results at 100% EPU and 100% Core Flow Conditions
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-15 AREVA Inc.
Table 3.8 Browns Ferry Thermal-Hydraulic Results at 54.3% EPU and 37.3% Core Flow Conditions
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-16 AREVA Inc.
Figure 3.1 Axial Power Shapes
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-17 AREVA Inc.
Figure 3.2 Core Loading 1:
Hydraulic Demand Curves 100% EPU / 100% Flow
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-18 AREVA Inc.
Figure 3.3 Core Loading 1:
Hydraulic Demand Curves 54.3% EPU / 37.3% Flow
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-19 AREVA Inc.
Figure 3.4 Core Loading 2:
Hydraulic Demand Curves 100% EPU / 100% Flow
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 3-20 AREVA Inc.
Figure 3.5 Core Loading 2:
Hydraulic Demand Curves 54.3% EPU / 37.3% Flow
Evaluation of AREVA Fuel Thermal-Hydraulic Performance for Browns Ferry at EPU ANP-3327NP Revision 1 Page 4-1 AREVA Inc.
4.0 References
- 1.
ANF-89-98(P)(A) Revision 1 and Supplement 1, Generic Mechanical Design Criteria for 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 Calculation of Pressure Drop 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-10298PA Revision 0, ACE/ATRIUM 10XM Critical Power Correlation, AREVA Inc.,
March 2010.
- 8.
EMF-2209(P)(A) Revision 3, SPCB Critical Power Correlation, AREVA, September 2009.
- 9.
EMF-2245(P)(A) Revision 0, Application of Siemens Power Corporation's Critical Power Correlations to Co-Resident Fuel, Siemens Power Corporation, August 2000.
- 10.
EMF-CC-074(P)(A) Volume 1, STAIF - A Computer Program for BWR Stability Analysis in the Frequency Domain; and Volume 2, STAIF - A Computer Program for BWR Stability Analysis in the Frequency Domain - Code Qualification Report, Siemens Power Corporation, July 1994.
- 11.
ANP-3140(P), Revision 0, Browns Ferry Units 1, 2, and 3 Improved K-factor Model for ACE/ATRIUM 10XM Critical Power Correlation, AREVA NP, Inc., August 2012.