ML18043A203
| ML18043A203 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07201042 |
| Issue date: | 01/31/2018 |
| From: | TN Americas LLC |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18043A206 | List: |
| References | |
| E-49539 | |
| Download: ML18043A203 (38) | |
Text
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.1-i APPENDIX 4.9.1 CALCULATION OF EFFECTIVE PROPERTIES FOR HOMOGENIZED FUEL ASSEMBLIES Table of Contents 4.9.1 CALCULATION OF EFFECTIVE PROPERTIES FOR HOMOGENIZED FUEL ASSEMBLIES................................................................. 4.9.1-1 Effective Thermal Properties for PWR Spent Fuel Assemblies 4.9.1.1 in EOS-37PTH DSC..................................................................................... 4.9.1-2 Effective Thermal Properties for BWR Spent Fuel Assemblies 4.9.1.2 in EOS-89BTH DSC.................................................................................... 4.9.1-3 Scaling Factors for Short and Long Fuel Assemblies............................... 4.9.1-5 4.9.1.3 References..................................................................................................... 4.9.1-7 4.9.1.4
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.1-ii List of Tables Table 4.9.1-1 Irradiated UO2 Thermal Properties.......................................................... 4.9.1-8 Table 4.9.1-2 Fuel Cladding Thermal Properties........................................................... 4.9.1-9 Table 4.9.1-3 Bounding Transverse and Axial Effective Thermal Conductivities of Fuel Assemblies in EOS-37PTH DSC.............................................. 4.9.1-10 Table 4.9.1-4 Bounding Effective Specific Heat and Density of Fuel Assemblies in EOS-37PTH DSC.............................................................................. 4.9.1-11 Table 4.9.1-5 Bounding Transverse and Axial Effective Thermal Conductivities of Fuel Assemblies in EOS-89BTH DSC.............................................. 4.9.1-12
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.1-iii List of Figures Figure 4.9.1-1 Finite Element Model of WE14x14 Fuel Assembly.............................. 4.9.1-13 Figure 4.9.1-2 Heat Generation Rate and Temperature Boundary Conditions for WE14x14 Fuel Assembly...................................................................... 4.9.1-14 Figure 4.9.1-3 Finite Element Model of the FANP 9x9 Fuel Assembly....................... 4.9.1-15 Figure 4.9.1-4 Heat Generation Rate and Temperature Boundary Conditions for FANP 9 x 9 Fuel Assemblies................................................................. 4.9.1-16
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.1-1 4.9.1 CALCULATION OF EFFECTIVE PROPERTIES FOR HOMOGENIZED FUEL ASSEMBLIES This section presents the methodology and determines the bounding effective thermal conductivity, specific heat and density for the irradiated spent fuel assemblies (SFAs) for use in the thermal analysis of the EOS-37PTH and EOS-89BTH DSCs. The EOS-37PTH and EOS-89BTH DSC basket assemblies are made up of interlocking slotted plates to form an egg-crate type structure with a grid of 37 and 89 fuel compartments, respectively, that house the fuel assemblies (FAs).
The surface properties of the components that make up the fuel compartment, along with the properties of the FAs, are used to determine the effective thermal properties. Emissivities of 0.8 and 0.09 are used for the Zircaloy fuel cladding and the aluminum sections of the fuel compartment opening as noted in Section 4.2.1. The emissivity of [
] steel surfaces used in the evaluation is also listed in Section 4.2.1. The thermal properties of irradiated uranium dioxide (UO2) and the fuel cladding are listed in Table 4.9.1-1 and Table 4.9.1-2, respectively.
The following conservatisms and assumptions are considered in the calculation of effective properties for FAs in EOS-37PTH and EOS-89BTH DSCs:
- Convection heat transfer within fuel assembly is neglected.
- The radiative heat transfer between fuel pellets and fuel cladding is neglected.
- The backfill gas and fuel pellets are not included in the FA axial effective thermal conductivity calculation as required by NUREG-1536 [4.9.1-1].
- The backfill gas is conservatively not included in calculating the FA effective density and specific heat.
- The FA is centered within a fuel compartment which maximizes thermal resistance between the fuel assembly and the compartment wall.
- For the pressurized water reactor (PWR) fuel, the instrument tube is not included in the cross-section of WE14x14 FA model. Change of instrument tube to fuel rod increases the heat generation in the center of the FA and the maximum temperature of the FA, which results in lower effective thermal conductivity of the FA.
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.1-2 Effective Thermal Properties for PWR Spent Fuel Assemblies in EOS-37PTH 4.9.1.1 DSC The FAs considered for storage in the EOS-37PTH DSC, including the design data for each fuel assembly, are listed in Table 2-2 and Table 2-4. The FAs listed in Table 2-2 are previously studied in Section M.4.8 and Section P.4.8 of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for the Standardized NUHOMS System [4.9.1-2]. In addition to the FAs analyzed in Section M.4.8 and Section P.4.8 of the Standardized NUHOMS System UFSAR, the EOS-37PTH DSC allows for the storage of certain European and Japanese FAs as shown in Table 2-4.
A comparison of the FA characteristics of the European and Japanese FAs from Table 2-4 to those previously analyzed in Table 2-2 shows that they are either identical or very similar as described below.
- Geometry of Doel 1 and 2 (assembly type 14x14) FA and Kansai (assembly type 14x14 Step I Type A) FA are identical or similar to WE14x14 FA. The active fuel length for Doel 1 and 2 is 96 inches, which is shorter than WE14x14 FA. The heat load for this FA will be adjusted as described in Section 4.9.1.3.
- Geometry of Tihange 1 (assembly type 15x15) FA and Kansai (assembly type 15x15 Step I Type A) FA are identical or similar to WE 15x15 FA.
- Geometry of Doel 3 and 4 (assembly type 17x17) FA, Tihange 2 (assembly type 17x17) FA, Tihange 3 (assembly type 17x17) fuel assembly, Kansai (assembly type 17x17 Step II) FA, ENRESA ASCO (assembly type 17x17)
FA, and AM1000 (assembly type 17x17) FA are identical or similar to WE17x17 FA.
Since the European or Japanese FAs are identical or very similar to the assemblies presented in Table 2-2, the thermal properties for these FAs will be bounded by the properties of the corresponding assemblies from Table 2-2.
Among the various FAs listed in Table 2-2, based on the study in Section P.4.8 of the Standardized NUHOMS System UFSAR, the WE 14x14 FA has the bounding transverse effective conductivity, bounding axial effective conductivity, bounding effective density, and bounding effective specific heat.
Since the same FAs or their corresponding versions (European and Japanese fuel assemblies) are considered for storage within the EOS-37PTH DSC, the effective thermal properties for WE 14x14 are recomputed using the methodologies presented in Section M.4.8 and Section P.4.8 of the Standardized NUHOMS System UFSAR using irradiated UO2 properties and the EOS-37PTH DSC basket configuration shown in the drawings in Section 1.3.1.
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.1-3 The methodology to determine the axial conductivity is described in Section P.4.8.1.3 of the Standardized NUHOMS System UFSAR [4.9.1-2] and is used in this evaluation based on the bounding FA and the properties described above.
Similarly, the effective density and specific heat are determined based on the methodology presented in Section P.4.8.2 of the Standardized NUHOMS System UFSAR, using the bounding FA and the properties described above.
Using the methodology presented in Appendix P, Section P.4.8.1.4 of the Standardized NUHOMS System [4.9.1-2], a two-dimensional (2D) finite element model (FEM) of WE14x14 OFA FA is developed in ANSYS [4.9.1-3]
to determine the transverse effective conductivity. The outer surfaces, representing the fuel compartment walls, are held at a constant temperature, and heat generating boundary condition is applied to the fuel pellets within the model. The models were run with a series of isothermal boundary conditions applied to the nodes representing the fuel compartment walls. The FEMs of WE14x14 OFA FA is shown in Figure 4.9.1-1. Figure 4.9.1-2 shows the heat generation rate and temperature boundary conditions.
The computed FA transverse and axial effective conductivities as functions of temperature for irradiated WE14x14 FA are listed in Table 4.9.1-3 and also summarized in Section 4.2.1. The effective specific heat and density for irradiated WE14x14 FA is shown is listed in Table 4.9.1-4 and also summarized in Section 4.2.1. The effective thermal conductivities for the FAs are also applicable for vacuum drying conditions since helium is used for water blowdown from the DSC.
Effective Thermal Properties for BWR Spent Fuel Assemblies in EOS-89BTH 4.9.1.2 DSC The FAs considered for storage in the EOS-89BTH DSC including the design data for each FA, are listed in Table 2-3 and Table 2-4. The FAs listed in Table 2-3 are previously studied in Section T.4.8 and Section Y.4.9 of the Standardized NUHOMS System UFSAR[4.9.1-2], except for the GNF2 FA.
However, the dimensions of GNF2 FA listed in Table 2-3 are very similar to the previously evaluated GE12/GE14 FAs from Section T.4.8 and Section Y.4.9 of the Standardized NUHOMS System UFSAR. Therefore, the thermal properties for the GE12/GE14 FAs are also applicable to the GNF2 FA.
In addition to the FAs analyzed in Section T.4.8 and Section Y.4.9 of the Standardized NUHOMS System UFSAR, the EOS-89BTH DSC allows for the storage of certain European and Japanese FAs as shown in Table 2-4. Since transient evaluations are not performed for the EOS-89BTH DSC in Sections 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6,only the effective transverse and axial conductivities are presented for the FAs allowed for storage in the EOS-89BTH DSC.
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.1-4 A comparison of the FA characteristics of the European and Japanese FAs from Table 2-4 to those previously analyzed in Table 2-3 shows that they are either identical or very similar as described below.
- Geometries of Japanese boiling water reactor (BWR) FA (assembly type 8x8 Step II) and Switzerland-KKL BWR 1/4 fuel assembly (assembly type 8x8) from Table 2-4 are similar to GE8 Type II FA (TN ID: 8x8-60/4) from Table 2-3.
- Geometry of Switzerland-KKL BWR 2/5/8 FA (assembly type 9x9) from Table 2-4 is similar to GE 11/13 FA (TN ID: 9x9-74/2) from Table 2-3.
- Geometry of Switzerland-KKL BWR 3/9/12/13 FA (assembly type 10x10) from Table 2-4 is similar to GE 12/14 FA (TN ID: 10x10-92/2) from Table 2-3.
- Geometry of Switzerland-KKL BWR 6 FA (assembly type 4x4x4) from Table 2-4 is identical or similar to SVEA-64 FA from Table 2-3.
BWR 10/15 FA (assembly type 4x(5x5-3)/4x(5x5-1)) and BWR 11/16 FA (assembly type 4x(5x5-4)/4x(5x5-2)/4x(5x5-1)) from Table 2-4 are similar to SVEA-96 FA from Table 2-3.
Since the European or Japanese FAs are identical or very similar to the assemblies presented in Table 2-3, the thermal properties for theseFAs will be bounded by the properties of the corresponding assemblies from Table 2-3.
Among the various FAs listed in Table 2-3, based on the study in Section T.4.8 and Section Y.4.9 of the Standardized NUHOMS System UFSAR, the FANP 9x9-81 FA has the bounding transverse effective conductivity. Therefore, the transverse effective conductivities are recomputed using the methodologies presented in Section T.4.8 of the Standardized NUHOMS System UFSAR using irradiated UO2 properties and the EOS-89BTH DSC basket configuration shown in the drawings in Section 1.3.2.
Using the methodology presented in Section T.4.8.1.4 of the Standardized NUHOMS System UFSAR, a 2D FEM of FANP 9x9-81 FA is developed in ANSYS [4.9.1-3] to determine the transverse effective conductivity. The outer surfaces, representing the fuel compartment walls, are held at a constant temperature, and heat generating boundary condition is applied to the fuel pellets within the model. The models were run with a series of isothermal boundary conditions applied to the nodes representing the fuel compartment walls. The FEMs FANP 9x9-81 FA is shown in Figure 4.9.1-3. Figure 4.9.1-4 shows the heat generation rate and temperature boundary conditions.
The methodology to determine the axial conductivity is described in Section T.4.8.1.3 of the Standardized NUHOMS System [4.9.1-2] and is used in this evaluation for the various FAs listed in Table 2-3 and Table 2-4.
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.1-5 The computed bounding fuel assembly transverse and axial effective conductivities as functions of temperature for the various FAs allowed for storage in EOS-89BTH DSC are listed in Table 4.9.1-5 and also summarized in Section 4.2.1. The effective thermal conductivities determined for the bounding FAs are also applicable for vacuum drying conditions since helium is used for water blowdown from the DSC.
Scaling Factors for Short and Long Fuel Assemblies 4.9.1.3 The various heat load zone configuration (HLZCs) presented in Figure 1 of the Technical Specifications [4.9.1-6] for the EOS-37PTH DSC and Figure 2 of the Technical Specifications [4.9.1-6] for the EOS-89BTH DSC are evaluated in Sections 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 at the maximum allowable heat loads for each HLZC, assuming that the FA has an active fuel length of 144 inches.
For FAs with active fuel length shorter than 144 inches, there is a possibility that the concentration of the heat generation in a smaller volume might result in a non-conservative temperature distribution. To ensure that the temperature distributions evaluated in Sections 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 remain bounding, the maximum allowable heat load for FAs with active fuel length shorter than 144 inches should be determined as discussed below.
Since conduction with effective conductivities is the only heat transfer path considered in the EOS-37PTH and EOS-89BTH DSCs, the temperatures are directly proportional to the FA heat load and inversely proportional to the active fuel length and effective fuel conductivity. Therefore, the following equations are used to determine the heat load for FAs with active fuel length shorter than 144 inches in order to maintain the temperatures at the same level as those determined from the bounding FAs.
FA Bounding eff a
FA Short eff a
k L
q k
L q
=
FA Bounding eff FA Short eff FA Bounding a
FA Short a
k L
L SF SF q
q
=
=
- Where, keff = Effective conductivity for FA, q = Decay heat load per assembly defined for each loading zone, La = Active fuel length, SF = Scaling factor (SF) for short FAs.
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.1-6 The SF determined from the equation should be used to reduce the maximum heat load per FA in each loading zone of the HLZCs presented Figure 1 of the Technical Specifications [4.9.1-6] for the EOS-37PTH DSC and Figure 2 of the Technical Specifications [4.9.1-6] for the EOS-89BTH DSC.
In the above equation, the effective conductivities for the bounding FA are presented in Table 4.9.1-3 and Table 4.9.1-5 for the EOS-37PTH DSC and EOS-89BTH DSC, respectively. The effective conductivity for the shorter FA should be determined using the same approach presented in Sections 4.9.1.1 for the PWR FAs and Section 4.9.1.2 for the BWR FAs.
However, for FAs with active fuel length greater than 144 inches, no scaling is necessary and the maximum heat loads listed for each HLZC in Figure 1 of the Technical Specifications [4.9.1-6] for the EOS-37PTH DSC and Figure 2 of the Technical Specifications [4.9.1-6] for the EOS-89BTH DSC are applicable.
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.1-7 References 4.9.1.4 NUREG-1536, Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Cask Storage 4.9.1-1 Systems at a General License Facility, Revision 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 2010.
AREVA Inc., Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Standardized NUHOMS 4.9.1-2 Horizontal Modular Storage System for Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, NUH-003, Revision 14, September 2014.
ANSYS Mechanical APDL, Version 10.0.
4.9.1-3 NUREG/CR-7024 (PNNL-19417), Material Property Correlations:
4.9.1-4 Comparisons between FRAPCON-3.4, FRAPTRAN 1.4, and MATPRO, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 2011.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, RSIC Computer Code Collection, SCALE, A 4.9.1-5 Modular Code System for Performing Standardized Computer Analysis for Licensing Evaluation, NUREG/CR-0200, Rev. 6, Volume 3, Section M8 (ORNL/NUREG/CSD-2/V3/R6), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, May 2000.
CoC 1042 Appendix A, NUHOMS EOS System Generic Technical 4.9.1-6 Specifications, Amendment 0.
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.1-8 Table 4.9.1-1 Irradiated UO2 Thermal Properties T
Thermal Conductivity (Equation 2.3-9 of
[4.9.1-4])
T Specific Heat (Equation 2.2-1 of
[4.9.1-4])
Density (95% of TD of
[4.9.1-5])
°F Btu/(hr-in-°F)
°F Btu/(lbm-°F) lbm/in3 100 0.138 32 0.054 200 0.133 212 0.062 300 0.128 392 0.067 0.376 400 0.123 752 0.071 500 0.119 1502 0.076 600 0.116 700 0.112 800 0.109 900 0.107 1000 0.105
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.1-9 Table 4.9.1-2 Fuel Cladding Thermal Properties T
Thermal Conductivity (Equation 3.2-1 of
[4.9.1-4])
T Specific Heat (Table 3.1-1 of
[4.9.1-4])
Density [4.9.1-5]
°F Btu/(hr-in-°F)
°F Btu/(lbm-°F) lbm/in3 100 0.618 80 0.067 200 0.655 260 0.072 300 0.690 692 0.079 0.237 400 0.723 1502 0.090 500 0.756 600 0.787 700 0.819 800 0.851 900 0.883 1000 0.916
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.1-10 Table 4.9.1-3 Bounding Transverse and Axial Effective Thermal Conductivities of Fuel Assemblies in EOS-37PTH DSC T
keff T
kaxl
(°F)
Btu/(hr-in-°F)
(°F)
Btu/(hr-in-°F) 160 1.467E-02 200 4.606E-02 251 1.728E-02 300 4.852E-02 343 2.054E-02 400 5.084E-02 436 2.459E-02 500 5.316E-02 530 2.910E-02 600 5.534E-02 626 3.423E-02 800 5.984E-02 722 3.968E-02 819 4.719E-02 916 5.456E-02 1014 6.236E-02 1113 6.984E-02 SI UNITS T
keff T
kaxl
(°C)
W/(m-K)
(°C)
W/(m-K) 71 3.047E-01 93 0.957 121 3.589E-01 149 1.008 173 4.266E-01 204 1.056 224 5.107E-01 260 1.104 277 6.043E-01 316 1.149 330 7.110E-01 427 1.243 383 8.241E-01 437 9.800E-01 491 1.133E+00 546 1.295E+00 600 1.450E+00
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.1-11 Table 4.9.1-4 Bounding Effective Specific Heat and Density of Fuel Assemblies in EOS-37PTH DSC T
Cp eff eff
(°F)
Btu/(lbm-°F)
(lbm/in3) 80 0.0576 0.0968 260 0.0646 692 0.0719 1502 0.0779 SI units T
Cp eff eff
(°C) kJ/(kg-K)
(kg/m3) 27 0.2411 2679 127 0.2706 367 0.3008 817 0.3263
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.1-12 Table 4.9.1-5 Bounding Transverse and Axial Effective Thermal Conductivities of Fuel Assemblies in EOS-89BTH DSC T
keff T
kaxl
(°F)
Btu/(hr-in-(°F)
(°F)
Btu/(hr-in-(°F) 124 0.0141 200 0.0427 220 0.0165 300 0.0450 317 0.0194 400 0.0472 415 0.0228 500 0.0493 513 0.0267 600 0.0514 611 0.0312 800 0.0555 709 0.0360 808 0.0414 907 0.0476 1006 0.0541 1106 0.0610 SI UNITS T
keff T
kaxl
(°C)
W/(m-K)
(°C)
W/(m-K) 51 2.918E-01 93 0.888 105 3.420E-01 149 0.935 159 4.023E-01 204 204 213 4.735E-01 260 1.024 267 5.547E-01 316 1.066 322 6.476E-01 427 1.153 376 7.486E-01 431 8.595E-01 486 9.875E-01 541 1.123E+00 596 1.266E+00
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.1-13 Figure 4.9.1-1 Finite Element Model of WE14x14 Fuel Assembly
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.1-14 Figure 4.9.1-2 Heat Generation Rate and Temperature Boundary Conditions for WE14x14 Fuel Assembly
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.1-15 Figure 4.9.1-3 Finite Element Model of the FANP 9x9 Fuel Assembly
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.1-16 Figure 4.9.1-4 Heat Generation Rate and Temperature Boundary Conditions for FANP 9 x 9 Fuel Assemblies
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.2-i Proprietary Information on Pages 4.9.2-i through 4.9.2-iii and 4.9.2-1 through 4.9.2-39 Withheld Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.3-i APPENDIX 4.9.3 MESH SENSITIVITY Table of Contents 4.9.3 MESH SENSITIVITY................................................................................................ 4.9.3-1 4.9.3.1 Mesh Sensitivity for Storage Analysis........................................................ 4.9.3-1 4.9.3.2 Mesh Sensitivity for Transfer Analysis.................................................... 4.9.3-10 4.9.3.3 References................................................................................................... 4.9.3-19
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.3-ii List of Tables Table 4.9.3-1 Discretization Error of the EOS-HSM loaded with the EOS-37PTH DSC Model............................................................................................ 4.9.3-20 Table 4.9.3-2 Discretization Error of the EOS-TC125 loaded with the EOS-37PTH DSC Model................................................................................ 4.9.3-21
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.3-iii List of Figures Figure 4.9.3-1 Maximum Fuel Cladding Temperatures versus Number of Elements for EOS-HSM with EOS-37PTH DSC.................................. 4.9.3-22 Figure 4.9.3-2 Maximum Fuel Cladding Temperatures versus Number of Elements for EOS-TC125 with EOS-37PTH DSC................................ 4.9.3-23
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.3-1 4.9.3 MESH SENSITIVITY 4.9.3.1 Mesh Sensitivity for Storage Analysis A grid convergence study of the ANSYS FLUENT computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model for the EOS horizontal storage module (HSM) loaded with the EOS-37PTH dry shielded canister (DSC) is performed to determine the discretization error of the solution. The discretization error is determined by using the five-step procedure for uncertainty estimation specified in Appendix A.4 of NUREG 2152 [4.9.3-8] based on Richardson extrapolation. The Richardson extrapolation method is currently the most robust method available for prediction of numerical uncertainty as noted in [4.9.3-8]. The five-step procedure specified in [4.9.3-8] is identical to the approach presented in Section 2-4.1 of American Society of Mechanical Engineers Standard for Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer (ASME V&V) 20-2009 [4.9.3-1]. In addition to the discretization error, this section computes the observed order of accuracy (p) and compares it to the theoretical order of accuracy of the ANSYS FLUENT solution. Four grids are considered for the study of the ANSYS FLUENT model.
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.3-2 Proprietary Information on Pages 4.9.3-2 through 4.9.3-18 Withheld Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.3-19 4.9.3.3 References 4.9.3-1 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Standard for Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer, ASME V&V 20-2009, November 30th, 2009.
4.9.3-2 ANSYS FLUENT, Version 14.0, ANSYS, Inc.
4.9.3-3 Ismail B. Celik et.al, Procedure for Estimation and Reporting of Uncertainty Due to Discretization in CFD Applications, Journal of Fluids Engineering, ASME, July 2008, Volume 130.
4.9.3-4 Examining Spatial (Grid) Convergence, NPARC Alliance CFD Verification and Validation Website, http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/wind/valid/tutorial/spatconv.html 4.9.3-5 NUREG-1536, Revision 1, Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Cask Storage Systems at a General License Facility, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
4.9.3-6 Not used.
4.9.3-7 Not used.
4.9.3-8 U.S. NRC, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Computational Fluid Dynamics Best Practice Guidelines for Dry Cask Applications-Final Report, NUREG-2152, Rev. 0, March 2013.
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.3-20 Proprietary Information on Pages 4.9.3-20 through 4.9.3-23 Withheld Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.4-i APPENDIX 4.9.4 WIND IMPACT ON THE THERMAL PERFORMANCE OF THE EOS-HSM Table of Contents 4.9.4 WIND IMPACT ON THE THERMAL PERFORMANCE OF THE EOS-HSM.................................................................................................................... 4.9.4-1 Introduction to Wind Impact on the EOS-HSM....................................... 4.9.4-1 4.9.4.1 Thermal Model for Wind Impact Analysis............................................... 4.9.4-3 4.9.4.2 Baseline Model (Load Case #1)................................................................... 4.9.4-7 4.9.4.3 Frontal Wind Effect (Load Case #F-1 through #F-3)............................... 4.9.4-7 4.9.4.4 Back Wind Effect (Load Case #B-1 through #B-3)................................... 4.9.4-8 4.9.4.5 Side Wind Effect (Load Case #S-1 through #S-3)..................................... 4.9.4-8 4.9.4.6 Summary of Wind Impact on Thermal Performance of EOS-4.9.4.7 HSM............................................................................................................ 4.9.4-10 Evaluation of Grid Convergence Index for Wind Impact..................... 4.9.4-12 4.9.4.8 References................................................................................................... 4.9.4-17 4.9.4.9
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.4-ii List of Tables Table 4.9.4-1 Design Load Cases for Wind Effect Study of the EOS-HSM Loaded with EOS-37PTH DSC with Normal Hot Condition................ 4.9.4-18 Table 4.9.4-2 Fuel Cladding and DSC Shell Temperatures......................................... 4.9.4-19 Table 4.9.4-3 GCI Calculations for Wind Impact........................................................ 4.9.4-20 Table 4.9.4-4 Total Heat Transfer Rates of the [
]..................... 4.9.4-21 Table 4.9.4-5 Total Heat Transfer Rates of the [
]........... 4.9.4-22 Table 4.9.4-6 Total Heat Transfer Rates of the [
]........... 4.9.4-23 Table 4.9.4-7 Total Heat Transfer and Mass Flow Rates [
]................................................................................. 4.9.4-24 Table 4.9.4-8 Impact on Total Heat Transfer due to [
].................................................................................................... 4.9.4-25 Table 4.9.4-9 Maximum Component Temperatures of EOS-HSM Loaded with EOS-37PTH DSC [
] Normal Hot Storage Condition, HLZC #1.......................................................... 4.9.4-26
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.4-iii List of Figures Figure 4.9.4-1 Computational Domain for EOS-HSM with EOS-37PTH DSC Shell and External Air Domain.............................................................. 4.9.4-27 Figure 4.9.4-2 Exterior Boundary Conditions............................................................... 4.9.4-28 Figure 4.9.4-3 Temperature and Velocity Profiles for the Baseline Model (Load Case #1)................................................................................................. 4.9.4-29 Figure 4.9.4-4 Temperature and Velocity Profiles for the Bounding Frontal Wind Condition ( [ ] mph, Load Case #F-1)................................................ 4.9.4-30 Figure 4.9.4-5 Temperature and Velocity Profiles for the Bounding Back Wind Condition ( [ ] mph, Load Case #B-1)............................................... 4.9.4-31 Figure 4.9.4-6 Temperature and Velocity Profiles for the Bounding Side Wind Condition ( [ ] mph, Load Case #S-2)................................................ 4.9.4-32 Figure 4.9.4-7 Computational Domain for EOS-HSM with EOS-37PTH DSC
[
] and External Air Domain............... 4.9.4-33 Figure 4.9.4-8 Temperature and Velocity Profiles for the Bounding Side Wind Condition ( [ ] mph, Load Case #S-2, 70 °F ambient temperature) for EOS-HSM with EOS-37PTH DSC [
] and HLZC # 1 (50 kW)................................................................................. 4.9.4-34 Figure 4.9.4-9 Temperature and Velocity Profiles for the Bounding Side Wind Condition ( [ ] mph, Load Case # 2, 90 °F ambient temperature) for EOS-HSM with EOS-37PTH DSC [
] and HLZC # 2 (41.8 kW).............................................................................. 4.9.4-36 Figure 4.9.4-10 Total Heat Transfer Rates through [
] for the Coarse and Fine Grids.............................. 4.9.4-38 Figure 4.9.4-11 Maximum Fuel Cladding Temperatures for the [
] for the Coarse and Fine Grids............................................. 4.9.4-39
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.4-1 Proprietary Information on Pages 4.9.4-1 through 4.9.4-10 Withheld Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.4-11 Among the different load cases evaluated for the EOS-HSM, [
]
results in the maximum air temperature rise of 138°F. The maximum air temperature rise is determined as the difference in the average air temperature between the inlet and outlet.
In summary, if the heat load of a DSC during storage operations is greater than 41.8 kW and less than or equal to 50 kW, wind deflectors will be implemented to ensure the thermal performance of the EOS-HSM remains within its allowable limits. For heat loads less than or equal to 41.8 kW, wind deflectors are not needed for EOS-37PTH DSC.
Further, for each HLZC (1 through 3), the maximum heat loads of the EOS-89BTH DSC are lower compared to the EOS-37PTH DSC. Therefore, the same restriction is also applicable for the EOS-89BTH DSCs. If the heat load of an EOS-89BTH during storage operations is greater than 41.6 kW and less than or equal to 43.6 kW, wind deflectors will be implemented to provide assurance that the thermal performance of the EOS-HSM remains within its allowable limits.
For heat loads less than or equal to 41.6 kW, wind deflectors are not needed for the EOS-89BTH DSC.
In addition, wind deflectors are not necessary during accident conditions to maintain the maximum fuel cladding temperature below the allowable limit of 1058 °F. Based on the description presented in Section 4.4.1 for Load Case #5, the blocked vent accident condition considers a complete blockage of the inlet and outlet vents for 40-hour duration. Any loss or damage to the wind deflectors only affects the outlet vents. Therefore, the complete blockage of both the inlet and outlet vents as considered for the blocked vent accident condition bounds the loss of wind deflector accident condition.
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.4-12 Proprietary Information on Pages 4.9.4-12 through 4.9.4-16 Withheld Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.4-17 References 4.9.4.9 NUREG-2174, Impact of Variation in Environmental Conditions on the 4.9.4-1 Thermal Performance of Dry Storage Casks, U.S. NRC, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Feb. 2015.
ANSYS ICEM CFD, Version 14.0, ANSYS, Inc.
4.9.4-2 ANSYS FLUENT, ANSYS FLUENT Users Guide, ANSYS FLUENT Theory 4.9.4-3 Guide, Version 14.0, ANSYS, Inc.
CoC 1042 Appendix A, NUHOMS EOS System Generic Technical 4.9.4-4 Specifications, Amendment 0.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Standard for Verification and 4.9.4-5 Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer, ASME V&V 20-2009, November 30th, 2009.
U.S. NRC, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Computational 4.9.4-6 Fluid Dynamics Best Practice Guidelines for Dry Cask Applications-Final Report, NUREG-2152, Rev. 0, March 2013.
[
4.9.4-7
]
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.4-18 Table 4.9.4-1 Design Load Cases for Wind Effect Study of the EOS-HSM Loaded with EOS-37PTH DSC with Normal Hot Condition
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.4-19 Table 4.9.4-2 Fuel Cladding and DSC Shell Temperatures Load Case # (1)
DSC Shell Temperature (°F)
Maximum Fuel Cladding Temperature (°F)
Maximum Average 1
422 352 724 (See Table 4-5)
F-1 406 336
< 724 F-2 397 323
< 724 F-3 388 296
< 724 B-1 417 349
< 724 B-2 416 345
< 724 B-3 406 335
< 724 S-1 434 361
< 735 S-2 436 366 735 427 (2) 348 (2) 729 (2) 409 (4) 330 (4) 713 (4)
S-3 430 362
< 735 2(3) 417 350 688 Notes:
(1)
See Table 4.9.4-1 for the description of the load cases.
(4)
These temperatures are determined based on a yearly average ambient temperature of 70 °F based on the discussion in Section 4.9.4.6.1.
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.4-20 Proprietary Information on Pages 4.9.4-20 through 4.9.4-39 Withheld Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390
NUHOMS EOS System Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Rev. 1, 01/18 Page 4.9.5-i Appendix 4.9.5 is newly added in Revision 1 pursuant to the 10 CFR 72.48 process.
Proprietary Information on Pages 4.9.5-i through 4.9.5-iii and 4.9.5-1 through 4.9.5-28 Withheld Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390