ML19261B133
| ML19261B133 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/03/1978 |
| From: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Sherwood G GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19261B131 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-16, REF-GTECI-SY, TASK-A-16, TASK-OR NUDOCS 7902140031 | |
| Download: ML19261B133 (69) | |
Text
Attachment
-[
UNITED STATES y'
'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
g WASHING TON. O. C. 20555 o.,
c
%,..... *t FEE O 31976 Dr. G. G. Sherwood, Manager Safety and Licensing General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125
Dear Dr. Sherwood:
This letter is to summarize our understanding of the agreements reached at the January 19, 1978 meeting between the NRC Staff and the General Electric Company Staff regarding your Core Spray Distribution program.
We agree as described herein that the overall empirical / engineering method outlined by GE at the January 19 meeting is an acceptable method for veri-fication of the currently assumed core spray distributions which are used to justify conservatism of the spray cooling heat transfer coefficients in ECCS-LOCA licensing calculations.
The outlined method will: ( A) utilize full scale, single nozzle, horizontal flow tests in steam; (B) determine multinozzle effects by a calculational superposition technique used in conjunction with full scale flow tests to be conducted in air (both sector tests and full 3600 tests); and (C) confirm multinozzle effects in steam 0
by independent, multinozzle (full scale 30 sector) flow tests to be con-ducted at the new Lynn, Massachusetts facility.
We believe that this overall empirical approach should result in a repre-sentation of the full reactor core spray distribution that would exist following a LOCA. We agree with GE in the belief that this approach will then have to be applied to each different reactor size and design for which the full-reactor-core, post-LOCA spray distribution is to be determined.
Applicability of the method to each reactor design and size will have to be justified, including empirical tests if previous tests cannot be justified to be appropriate.
The NRC Staff's agreement (as described herein) with your approach of course assumes satisfactory results will be obtained from the confirmatory tests to be conducted at Lynn (see item "C" above and the acceptance criteria requested by Question 1 cf the attachment).
If satisfactory results are not obtained, thermal effects (steam condensation) and hydre "namic effects (nozzle-nozzle interactions) may not be separable as postui ed in your acproach and would indicate that the empirical / engineering 2thod outlined above is not acceptable, because the method will be justified presuming that the separability assumption is correct. We note that GE agreed to b
bhb l
Attachment Dr. G. G. Shenvood test the separability assumption by conducting confirmatory tests at Lynn using a range of steam flows covering the range of steam flows representative of LOCA conditions for which spray cooling credit is assumed.
Our agreement (as described herein) with your approach also assumes that GE will provide satisfactory responses to the attached Requests for Additional Information. The Staff requires answers to Questions 3, 4 and 8 as soon as possible, as they involve documentation of the tech-nical bases for continued operation of facilities and for licensing actions, and documentation of the proposed schedule for obtaining other test data and results.
Although the NRC Staff requires additional information concerning this issue, we believe there is a sufficient technical basis to permit con-tinued plant operation and licensing in the interim period while these additional tests and information are being developed. This interim conclusion is based on:
(1) The existence of a considerable safety margin between available and required spray flow indicated by preliminary analyses and measure-ments provided for each size BWR/l through BWR/5; (2) the relative ease with which ECCS re-analyses could be perfomed to establish an acceptable power limit in the unlikely event that test results do not support the spray flows currently assumed; (3) the possibility that plants under construction could modify their spray nozzles or aiming pattern to provide a better spray distribution, if future test results indicate the desirability of such changes (par-ticularly applicable to the BWR/6, where the type of preliminary measure-ments referenced in (1) above are not yet available);
(4) the existence of counter-current-flow-limiting phenomena in many plants would provide a steam / water layer on top of the core which should force a more even distribution of the core spray; (5) the aforementioned empirical / engineering method is exoected to pro-vide timely confirmation of the spray flow margin presently believed to exist.
Attachment FEB 0 31976 Dr. G. G. Sherwood Please contact Dr. R. Woods of the NRR Staff at (301) 492-8050 for further information or discussion of necessary schedules.
\\ Sincerely, (
\\
\\
f (.hkk( Eise)nhu'l.\\(d <.lll',AssistantD Darrell G.
t for Operational Technology Division of Operating Reactors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Denwood F. Ross, Assistant Director for Reactor Safety Division of Systems Safety Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated
Attachment REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GE CORE SPRAY DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM The items marked 1/19/78 below include all requirements identified at the January 19, 1978 GE-NRC Core Spray Distribution meeting in Bethesda.
The list below also includes a compilation of outstanding questions from all other question lists on this subject.
The list below therefore re-places those previs as lists. Those marked 12/15/77 below were previously asked at the NRC-GE meeting in San Jose on that date (see 12/29/77 minutes of that meeting); those marked 9/2/77 below were previously contained in a letter of that date from 0. Parr, NRC, to G. Sherwood, GE, concerning our review of Amendment 3 to NED0-20566 which addresses this subject.
You will note that questions 1-a,1-b, 2, 3-a, 3-b, 3-d, 3-e, 3-f, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 12 of the 9/2/77 list are not included below.
Although we still require the information requested by those questions, we believe more comprehensive information will be available in those areas when results are available from the new test facility at Lynn, Massachusetts; we there-fore defer our requirements for this information until that time.
1)
(1/19/78) Provide a list of the General Electric Company's criteria for acceptance of the experimental results from the full scale, 300-sector-in-steam tests.
The criteria should state qualitatively and quantitatively: a) what parameters will be measured and exactly how GE will determine whether the results verify or contradict the hypoth-esis that thennal and hydrodynamic effects are separable; and b) how the spray distribution under accident conditions will be conservatively represented in licensing analyses.
2)
(1/19/78) Provide copies of the references cited by Dr. Sandoz at the 1/19/78 rreeting regarding size of the steam condensing region sur-rounding a nozzle. Describe why GE believes that this data is acoro-priate for aoolication to a BWR spray system (e.g., that the geometry, spray flow rates, subcooling, and steam pressures are similar in the referenced tests and in BWR's following a postulated LOCA).
Please include pictures of typical BWR single nozzle spray patterns in steam.
3)
(1/19/78) Present a clear schedule of the overall program, including all experimental and analytical steps presently planned, to determine the credicted core spray distribution in a steam environment for the BWP/6 design and any other designs for which tests are currently planned.
Include tests to be run at the Lynn facility, at the San Jose single nozzle steam facility, and at the Vallecitos full scale air f a ci l i ty.
Attachment 4)
(1/19/78) Discuss how and when GE will administratively inform BWR licensees and applicants that GE has the capability of determining steam environment core s; ay distrit'utions for various plant sizes and designs.
For example,_will GE volunteer to perform this deter-mination for older plant designs, or will GE issue a letter to older plants that the methods are available upon request, or will GE expect the licensees and applicants to make the initial inquiries regarding availability of the service, etc?
5)
(1/19/78) We have heard several presentations regarding test programs 0
to be accomplished at the Lynn, Massachusetts full scale 30 -sector steam test facility.
Each presentation has emphasized investigation of either core spray (CS) distribution or counter-current-flow-limiting (CCFL) phenomena.
In reality, the two are closely coupled.
Please provide a written description regarding how the facility will be utilized to investigate the closely coupled relationship of CS and CCFL phenomena.
6)
(1/19/78) Quantify the expected effects of the smaller amount of steam condensation that is expected to occur in the " hydrodynamic" region. Why does GE expect that this condensation will not invalidate the " separability" hypothesis? (The January 19 meeting disclosed that approximately 25% of the total condensation is expected in this region.)
7)
(1/19/78) What air updraft velocities will be utilized in future Vallecitos air-water full scale tests to simulate steam veic;ities in the post-LOCA environment? Justify the conservatism of the.imulation, including magnitude and direction of the air flow with respect ta pre-dicted steam magnitude and direction following a LOCA.
8)
(1/19/78) Describe and document the results given at the 12/15/77 meeting regarding: a) minimum flow currently predicted per channel, without consideration of steam effects, for BWR/2 through BWR/6 plants, and b) provide a comoarison of that minimum flow to " minimum required flow" (three different definitions should be used for this quantity as discussed at the 12/15/77 mee ti ng). The material was presented on slides TWC-10 (12/12/77) and TWC-ll (12/12/77) at the 12/15/77 meeting.
9)
(12/15/77) Provide documentation regarding why GE believes steam and 0 test facility will adeauately water flow patterns in the Lynn 30 represent the ficw patterns that might be present in a full 3600 reactor uoper plenum following 3 LOCA.
Include discussion of tests both with and without the " pie-sLped baffle" in place.
Attachment 10)
(12/15/77) Quantify the conservatisms resulting from certain features of the present GE-ECCS-LOCA model, which were qualitatively discussed at the 12/15/77 meeting.,,.
11)
(12/15/77) Provide the "CCFL delay vs. zero spray coefficient" tradeoff results (discussed in slides SCR-5 through SCR-8 (12/15/77)) for the sizes and types of jet-pump BWR plants whose results were not presented at the 12/15/77 meeting, and for the second most limiting break location for "LPCI-Modi fied" BWR's.
12)
(Previous number 1-C, 9/2/77) The proposed tests do not include possible effects due to the different steam qualities that might be present under various conditions. Water droplets entrained in the steam may change the interaction of the steam and the spray cone.
Describe how GE plans to quantify such possible effects experimentally and/or analytically.
13)
(Previous number 3-C, 9/2/77)
For " Air Mockup of Steam Environment" tests that will employ Vee Jet Nozzles, will those nozzles be modified to simulate steam effects, and if so, how?
14)
(Previous number 6, 9/2/77) Provide the data for the lower sparger test discussed in the first paragraph of page 4-6.
15)
(Previous number 7, 9/2/77) What updraft was present in the tests reported by Figures 4-5 and 4-6?
16)
(Previous number 8, 9/2/77) There appears to be a discrepancy between Figure 4-6 and Table 4-1 on che minimum measured channel flow.
For example, no channel in the periphery had a 3.4 gpm flow for VNC nozzles with deflectors in and no intermediate channel had a minimum flow of 6.8 gpm with VNC nozzles, deflectors out. Please explain the apparent discrepancy.
17)
(Previous number 11, 9/2/77) Justify your assumption that one-half of the " Appendix K" quoted core spray heat transfer coefficients can be used when spray flow to a bundle is below minimum design ficw.
You should provide results of experimental spray heat transfer coefficient measurements taken at icwer spray flows. Also, you should quantitatively demonstrate that actual penetration of the assumed (lower) flow into the bundle is consistent with your CCFL data and correlations, under all conditions predicted by your ECCS calculations where this assumption 3f lower heat transfer coefficients is made.
18)
(Previous number 13,9/2/77) GE has changed the type of nozzles used in various B'.!R designs, for example between the BWR/3 and SWR /4 Please provide the rationale for such chac.;es, including a description of any tests which indicated the desirability for the above mentioned change, and the results of those tests.
~ ~ ~
A ++-Len Cij'(q{73 66'
>-s,
> ! L-CORE SPRAY PROGRAM e
PURPOSE OF MEETIilG DESCRIBE TECHNICAL BASIS FOR PRESENT GE PROGRAM G0AL IS TO DEVELOP SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO CONFIRM DESIGN TECHNIQUES CONCLUDE WITH GE/NRC AGREEMENT ON A PROGRAM TO CLOSE OPEN ISSUE AJL: DAJ/10 1/19/78-1
CORE SPRAY PROGRAM APPARENT NRC POSITIONS e
FULL CIRCLE SPRAY SPARGER TESTS IN STEAM ARE NECESSARY FOR THE VERIFICATION OF THE ANALYTICAL MODEL e
NO IMMEDIATE LICENSING CONCERN AS LONG AS AN ACCEPTABLE TEST PROGRAM IS IN PLACE AJL: DAJ/11 1/19/78-2
e CORE SPRAY PROGRAil GE PROGRAM e
6.5 MILLION DOLLARS FULL SCALE SINGLE N0ZZLE TESTS Ill STEAM SINGLE N0ZZLE ANALYTICAL MODEL
( SNAP )
FULL SCALE SINGLE N0ZZLE TESTS IN AIR N0ZZLE DISTRIBUTION SUPERPOSITION TOOL ( GENUS )
FULL SCALE MULTIPLE N0ZZLE TESTS Ill AIR FULL SCALE FULL CIRCLE GE0 METRY INTERACTION TESTS IN AIR FULL SCALE MULTIPLE N0ZZLE C0ilFIRMATION TESTS IN STEAM
CORE SPRAY PROGRAM e
RESTRAINTS ON TEST PROGRAM STEAM SOURCE TIME AVAILABLE RESOURCES AVAILABLE SCALING EFFECTS AJL: DAJ/13 1/19/78-4
CORE SPRAY PROGRAt1 e
KEY ITEMS THERMODYNAMIC AND HYDRODYNAMIC PARAMETERS ARE SEPARABLE EFFECTS OF THERMODYNAMIC PARAMETERS CAN BE ACCOUNTED FOR EXTENDED SPRAY TRAJECTORY IS CONTROLLED BY HYDRODYNAMIC PARAMETERS ALL TEST OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED ALL SIGNIFICANT PARAMETERS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED INTERACTION EFFECTS ARE HYDRODYNAMIC AND ARE ACCOUNTED FOR BY 360 AIR TEST AJL:DAJ/28 1/19/78-5
NRCREVIEW0F GETE0V10LOGYPROGPAi01 (DE SPPAY EFF0fFNiCE o
PROGPA1INTRODUCTIQ1 G.E. DIX o
PROGR41 WERVIEW:
G.E. DIX SOLlHION OPT 10f6 AND ESULTS o
CCIERDLLIl4GPFSOUMfDR S.A. SAT)0Z EACTOR APPLICATI0tG o
M1TIPLE fiOZZLE STEA'i S.A. SAT)0Z FACILITYOPT106 o
REACHAGREEPEiT G.E.D.
2/18/78
GE U1DERST#iDifiG T CURPS U ISSUE DECE'eER NRC PRESBiTATICt10F PROGPM DETAIL o
o mLY QiE SIGNIFIC#1T ISSUE NOT CLOSED o
REPAINING ISSUE IS SELECTING itLTHiOZZLE STEM CONFIWATim EXPERIFEiT G.E.D.
1/18/78
S&E lif0RTMT ISSLES f0T ffEVIOUSLY CGtU11CATED o LOCALIZED NATUE OF CQWSATION o WHY STEAM & AIR HAVE SAT tiLTI N0ZZLE INTEFACTIONS o Iff0RTMT SCALING C0ffR@llSES
)
fiOZZL C
R N
N.
N
^
s RE ON N
N N
's N
N s
\\
\\
s
\\
\\
EACKGROUtB o
FULTIPLE t0ZZLE SYSTEM HISTORICALLY DESIGNE FRril TESTS IN AIR o
STEAM BNIRONPST EFFECTS ON SOFE INDIVIDUAL t0ZZLES IDBRIFIED IN ShEDB1 o
SAFETY IPPLICATIONS QUICKLY EVALUATED STEAi EFFECTS ON GE N0ZZLES CONFIR1ED ShEDISH EVALLATION OF All GE N0ZZLES PRELIMINARY 360 AIR SIFULATIONS JOINTLY DEVELOPED INTERIM LICB4SI:1G EASIS e
SIGNIFICKlT TECHOLOGY DEVELOPFEIT PRCGP#1 e
G.E.D.
1/18/78
PROGP#1 BACKGROUO s
o ECHt0 LOGY PROGP#1 PLAN TO ADDRESS OLESTICU AGGRESSIVE PROGP#1 C0tilFSIT TASK FORE EFFORT EXP40EDSTAFF NEWFACILITIES FULTIPLE PATH APPROACH FLEXIBILIT( TO REFLECT I4EW K0WLEDGE o
TEChiilCAL SUPPORT TO PLANT CEERS REQUESTS BIG RG POINT FAJOR EFFORT TO IMIE G.E.D.
1/18/78
LORE SPRAY SYSTEM l
~'s 1
PL U.
d bs C RE SPRAY
) SPARGERS 6
.b CORE HEADER INLETS
.:Y FUEL CRANNELS SPR6Y N
CORE SPRAY SPARGER G.E.D.
1/18/78
EEFB1TS OF PLA'4NED GE CORE SPRAY PROGRAM o
SINGLE f0ZZLE TESTS IN STEAM LOCAL N0ZZE BEFAVIOR IN STEAM CHAPACTERIZED EXTENDEDSPRAYCOVERAGEINSTEA90@1TIFIED f0ZZE PERFORM 4E TPACKED BY ANALYSIS 0
o Full SIZE 360 L._._x TESTS IN AIR PRTIPE N0ZZE HYDRODYN#11CS ETERMINED REPRESBITATIVE SECTOR DEIERMINED o
Full REACTOR PERFORMiCE EVALUATION SINGE [0ZZE STEAM PERFORFANCE FRTIPE N0ZZE SUPERPOSITION BRTIPE N0ZZE HYDRODYNAMIC INTERACTICUS o
FULL SIZE 30 SECTOR TEST IN STE@l CONFIRFATIONOFPETliOD G.E.D.
1/18/78
PROGPAM OVERVIEW:
SOLlHIONOPTIONSANDRESULTS o
INITIAL ACTIONS TAKEN o
INITIAL PROGPM PlA4 ALL POTENTIAL PAES ID64TIFIED o
EWLilTI0li 0F PlK NEW EPIRICAL INFORPATION SCALING EVALLATIONS TE0iNICAL JUDG'ENTS MiY SDFE TASKS INCLUDED - OEERS NOT o
CURRENT GE TE0iiOLOGY PROGPM PLM G.E.D.
1/18/78
IfilTIALGEACT10fiS o
TASK FORCE FOR FAST TECH 11 CAL RESPONSE o
Pl#1NED MULTIPLE PATH APPROACH o
INCREASED STAFF TO HANDE LARGE PROGRM1 o
C0ftllSS10I1ED ASEA FOR STE#1 N0ZZLE TESTS o
CONSTRUCTED STE#1 HORIZONTAL N0ZZLE TEST FACILITY o
IIllTIATED ANALYTICAL IBELORER PROGRAM o
EVALUATED LARGE STE#1 FACILITY CAPABILITIES G.E.D.
1/18/78
Pf0GPM N.TERMTI\\S CO6IDERED W
W g
BUILDING Ril. M R1L M
, gg SlfilATIW IDD6TRATIm lll AIR IN STEM
/
SitRE 3
( EW10P)
SItt1ATOR t0ZZlf l
(EPRW#IE/
(t0ZZifS/
r (FILTI-)
1
/
ICZZLE 3
y f0ZZLE (f0CK-LP/
(S!PEH61TI0h g ptgi m)
AIR I
T (SIP 11ATIG1)
/riLTIPLE 10ZZLEi
( IfREPACTI006j O
O O
RLL REACTOR Fill REACTm Ril EACIM EPESEfEATI0rl EPRESBlIATIG1 EPESSHATION n
f IlMSMIT
( CUFIR"ATIm /
O G.E.D.
1/18/78
BUILDIrlG BLOCK APPROACH OPTIONS FXPERIMEtlTAL ANALYTICAL.
If
[ REACTOR h
Y hhfff S/
I
'Ai1ALYTICALMODEL COMPREHEi1SIVE L
q I IMPROVEI Y
ihPgSITI0t!
[COMPARIS0ilS TO)
(MODEL /
i f
y A
L REPRgTATIVEj Y
[ I:lTERACTION TEST
(
CORRECTIONS )
dCCEPTABL N/=
YES
<h
\\
FULL REACTOR PREDICT REACTOR REPRESENTATI0tl DISTRIBUTI0ils
GE EXPERIPERAL CORE SPRAY EXPERIfERS SINE 1974 FULLSCALEHARDWAPE ESCRIPTION fGEER VERTICAL SINGE t0ZZE (STEAFD 600 VERTICAL SINGE IDZZE (AIR) 300 HORIZONTAL SINGE IDZZE (AIR) 200 HORIZ0i1TAL SINGE f0ZZE (STEAFD 200 FULTI-N0ZZE AfD SECTOR (AIR) 50 FULLCORE (AIR) 400 G.E.D.
1/18/78
M CLUSIONS FPm STEM t0ZZLE STUDIES CONCLUSION PASIS STEM IllFLUENCE EXPERIFDITALOBSERVATION ISREPEATABLE CONDB61NGEFFECTS LITERATURESTUDIESAt0 OCCURCLOSETON0ZZLE EXPERIENTALOBSERVATION EXTB0ED SPRAY CONTFOLLED EXPERIENTAL OBSERVATION BY HYDRODYNMICS WITH PDDEL CCtPARISONS
- AIR INTERACTIONS ACCURATE
- HYDRODYNMIC FDDELING PPACTICAL G.E.D.
1/18/78
TEC'if11CALLY SUFFICIEf1T PROGRAMS 360 BUILDING 360 FULL SCALE BLOCK APPROACH SIflULATION IN AIR V
/FULLSCALE}
s I DEVELOP SIMULATOR )
( N0ZZLE TEST)
/ q N0ZZLE J
V (SINGLE N0ZZLE MODEL) 1 I (N0ZZLESUPERPOSITION)
U y
INTERACTI0fl
/
[360 FULL SCALE I
[(360 N
CORRECTIONS L
AIR TESTS J
N/
N/
FULL REACTOR FULL REACTOR REPRESENTATION REPRESENTATION
PRACTICAL 04SIDEPAT10NS EADifE TO CURRENT GE PROGPAM o
IEVELCBGT OF EXACT AIR SIftLATORS T00 TIFE CG4SliilNG o
EULTIPLE t0ZZE C04FIRi% TION IN STENi PRUDBff G.E.D.
1/18/78
CURRENT GE CORE SPRAY PROGRAM 360 BUILDING BLOCK APPROACH FOREACHDESIGi(_
\\
-[DEVELOPSIMULATOR
[FULLSCALE 3
~
N0ZZLE
)
( N0ZZLE TEST)
'q U
SINGLEN0ZZLE)
[(MODEL
/
Y
(/N0ZZLESUPERPOSITI0ilj' 5
y Y
I360 INTERACTI0ill -
(360 FULLSCALE)
(CORRECTIONS
)~
(AIRSIMULATIONj V
FULL REACTOR REPRESENTATION A
[MULTIPLEN0ZZLE
\\
(STEAflC0tlFIRMATI0il)
TE0iNICAL BASIS FOR CONTROLLING C0flCLUS10NS e
STEAMINFLlECEISREPEATABlI e
CUE 81 SING EFFECTS OCCUR CLOSE T0 f0ZZLE GiARACTERIZEDEPPIRICALLY e
EXTF1EED SPPAY TRAJECTORY CONTROLLED BY HYDRODYTMMICS FULTIPLE t0ZZLE INTEPACTIONS SIBUlATED BY AIR liYDRODYNAMIC FDDELING PRACTICAL G.E.D.
1/18/78
8 9
SPRAY PHENOMENA INFLUENCE ON TEST DESIGN SINGLE N0ZZLE BEHAVIOR MULTIPLE N0ZZLE EFFECTS
SPRAY PHYSICS
- \\\\\\
g%< ~ N N
/~x x
\\
N N
h x
\\
\\
\\
ENTRAf1CE EFFECTS ENTRAINMEilT SPRAY BREAK-UP VAPOR VELOCITY GRAVITY DRAG
CONDENSING SPRAY N 8//
k
~, s
\\
/
2Y[t
[
U 3
'. \\
i y
/ lq l
L: N
/
x 1
O
((
\\
y y
/
/i I
[
l t
I l
l CONDENSATION-INDUCED ENTRAINMENT ADDED TO AERODYNAMIC ENTRAINMENT
NEAR-N0ZZLE REGION HAS e
COLDEST WATER e
LOWEST VOID FRACTION e
SMALLEST CONE SURFACE AREA THEREFORE:
STRONGEST ENTRAINMENT
4
\\ \\ \\ \\ '\\
s i
I
\\
\\ \\
\\
g g\\
g
\\
\\ \\ \\ g\\
3
\\
g\\
3 4
~
3
~
?&7/4y7 l
bV a-
/ Y llllW, l%
2 x1 F
.,a9 ;l;l; t-9A y
's,j /,
I/
'/
J
\\
N
\\
N
\\
O
\\
\\
==
s
\\
\\
\\
4
\\
1 g
s' 3
\\
+
'Y
/-
c>
//
~~+
//*//lE.'ig//////',#
. /,
=
}
/
K.
~
0 b%#V//h
~
/
n 7
/
/
/
/
/
/
~
/
~~
/
SPRAY BREAK-UP JET FILM BREAKUP 9, pY' f(e*, 'k-l,b %"T;,j',', LIGAMENTS LENGTH o
DROPS JET BREAK-UP LENGTHS 5 N0ZZLE DIAMETERS FOR CORE SPRAY fl0ZZLES
( 6 INCHES)
HOW MUCH CONDENSATI0il OCCURS IN THIS REGION?
C0NDENSATI0N RATES DATA FROM LITERATURE S. WEINBERG (1952)
LOW NGZZLE ff 90% TO SATURATION IN FILM PHASE BWR-RANGE N0ZZLE LP 75% TO SATURATION IN FILM PHASE SIMPSON & LYNN (1977)
ANALOGOUS PROCESS (MASS TRANSFER) 85% TO EQUILIBRIUM IN FILM PHASE FOR REACTOR SPRAY N0ZZLES, CONDENSATION OCCURS WITHIN 6 INCHES OF THE N0ZZLE
C0NDENSATI0N EFFECTS e
CONCENTRATED NEAR THE N0ZZLE e
NEAR-N0ZZLE ENTRAINMENT CHANGES N0ZZLE FLOW DISTRIBUTION e
SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING IS SUFFICIENT TO MAKE ENGINEERING DECISIONS
W
+e
_MMM_..
~ = r___.e: w _--,-,
g ;.
m.
kh"~
Wh7'NM l
,W y g g W [,..M.h gtE~M,.-19 -Y_ - --
". w 3..
g 7/
maw w'ow a g' g. :
T 't
, _ ts-q g, hgs. ----
m W - M.8__
'~
i
, ' ' ' 1.89f '
p g
l
-E;,.
T
p.
Y R J.*t.?. M :
4
'_d;cg/N '
2_
..h
- F1,
- n..
. c.e. -w, c. :- >
e y
- - m.:-;gs; 2.-eg.... +
.O.
. w.,p a
w.. w h50%.# w$Rd
,i N^
,... +
w.~.
.,.i.
w 2-m w
I,'.
h
~ dE:=a -*-,
- . y; I=E!',,
- A p m
w u.
- .%28"..s.
.~*
12:V u.
c'
+
- t.
y
.m...
3 m
w.
1 g.[..-
~
i.
6 m h =5 W-
'- ~
w-f w g.
u4_n
--. s. -
~- my -
ycgg -
=
. ;: :w:
.:~~...,
~y
.:y?.~$- g w (g
s.
f
. i'-:&
g
$hM~4Ai fr.lMR_ n,%[4,
..a
-y
+
y.Y,7.$4.
1 j,_
.._.2,-
w-L-
a e
- 5.. w& !?t&l 5~% -$
w ~t~~ ': 2,-:,m W~ k g, $.;.y
.x n
, y".~-.
-r 4
7,'q:= l%;.n,%seg(kRW'Efs%.&c
-. _"". ;-"f70 s.p,4-4Ly -,~, -
-g a-imes
- P.-
-2 =iTi5 ' * ?.2=*
w tr?:~,d f. :'.19$'-:
~ f -C n.'4 uw. a.
- i M..,'&. 'd
~.54Af e
Lk(!s's.M:: f._.
~,,~4r.,
- y. gg.. _t?' * '.CQ.6. '?..,.:
=Q- -- 4 w Q.;*.M C. r..:
.a
?. - r,,:a..,, -
.ps a.
$..: ;~-: a.w.7. - --
.s
~ ~ _ ~ ~.-7,.f.
....w.
a
.Y
~
d,
- ).'.
~
- * : ~.. '...:. v;. -
=-se,.
- ., ; M b / ]l's,8 i _..
2.'..J d ' ^ * '--a ~
~ -.,,
7.
e 9
T U
b c
Z
/
C3 Z OO M --*
7 Q (D im e/
/
/
O e
I l
/l I
' l/ < /
,h/
/
f M
h e.
ZZ i-n LLI O L2J' b
-J o tu N
U c::-
NO Z
N07ZLE SPRAY CONE S'
J \\
\\
\\
\\
,j' s
l\\ ="k
\\
\\
/
\\
s FLOW DISTRIBUTION M[)
's e
1 3.0 i
5 N0ZZLE
\\
I TYPE
\\g
\\
I
\\
2.5 S
\\B I
e
\\
\\
=
w d
2.0 L.
O C
W
~
1.5 5
5
$5 m
o 1" OPEN ELB0',1 e
1.0 -*
~a O
g o
Cr -
5
=
.5 i
.05 0.1
.15 0.2
.2I T/HFG)
SUBC00 LING (Cp
9 6
12 g
10 W
A 5
8 B
W n
6
-~
g C
u co 4
8 2
1" OPEN ELB0W e
e.m e-e u
0.1 0.2 0.3 SUBC00 LING (Cp T/HFG)
360 1" OPEN ELB0W 300 0 AND TYPES A, B, & C o
G e
e 5
T 0
LS 2L10 0
o o
0 e
8 E
180 u
E e
120 Ed v>
30 0
O.1 0,2 0.3 SUBC00 LING (Cp T/HFG)
NEAR-NOZZLE BEHAV10R IN STEAM e
CONSISTENT e
REPRODUCIBLE
.s CORRELATES AS A FUNCTION OF SUBC00 LING
DROP DIAMETER D O' ~
'x t
N J
I*
A
\\
l GAS VELOCITY, UP
\\
\\
l ELEVATION'i GRAVITY, G l
\\
LANDING POINT DISTANCE
=
9
/
\\k a
en
\\
w sM
/
b
=
b I
/
A/\\/
~n 5 ^
2 Y$
A/
I
/\\
l
^
/
2 s
{,, '
N0ZZLE lYPE:
1 IN. 0.E. IN AIH 8
/,
N O...
/
\\
J=01
.\\.
\\
s _<
,-~~
/
\\
\\
/
x j-r J=1 5
1 1
(
1 J
\\
/m
\\
a i
/
]
4 1\\.'
1 J-s
/
g rf
\\
l ed
\\
L
\\
\\
J l
/.
3
\\
\\
/
/
~
'\\
\\
h b,.10 I
f
.I
\\\\
\\
g 1,
\\
\\\\
1
/ j; 2
.N
\\
/
\\\\ \\fj/ /
I
/
NNx s#
f 1-NN N _.
~ ~ PR E DICTION DATA NOZZLE LOCATION 0
O O
2.
2.o 3.o 4.o s.o 6.o FEET CONSTANT FLOW DENSITY LINES IN THE HORIZONTAL PLANE J IS FLOW DENSITY IN GPM/FT2
[/
N0ZZLE TYPE:
1 IN. VNC 114/16 10.
I I
J l
1 Flow Rate:
68 mpe Plant: BWR/5-251 Water Temp.: 1Ao r Header:_11ppgr Environ.: m.m
,_ Pres sur e : 44.1 esta 9,
8.
7.
6.
H J-0.5 w
w 5.
N u.
i
,e%s, J-1.0 a'
s, 4.
's s
i
\\
J=5.0 s
~
s s
i
%g g
3.
t,
~
',,f li l
s e
J-10.
-l
/,/
2.
.i s s o I s '.
\\ <
1.
Prediction Test Data 0
I I
I 3,
2.
1.
1.
2.
1 FEET N0ZZLE
RESULTS 0F M0 DEL SENSITIVITY STUDIES RELEVANT PARAMETERS (FOR BWR'S) 1.
PRIMARY (SEVERAL BUNDLE WIDTHS)
DROP SIZE DROP VELOCITY DENSITY OF ENVIRONMENT GRAVITY 2.
SECONDARY (~ ONE BUNDLE WIDTH)
VAPOR VELOCITY 3.
TERTIARY (LESS THAN ONE BUNDLE)
ADDED MASS DUE TO CONDENSATION CONTROLLING PHENOMENA ARE HYDRODYNAMIC
MULTI-N0ZZLE STEAM TEST OPTIONS 0
e FULL-SCALE 360, REDUCED STEAM REQUIREMENTS
's REDUCED-SCALE 360 e
FULL-SCALE 360 IN AIR FULL-SCALE SECTOR IN STEAM
FULL SCALE 360 REDUCED STEAM e
REDUCE FLOW OR SUBC00 LING REDUCED FLOW PROVIDES POOR DISTRIBUTION REDUCED FLOW FEWER N0ZZLES INTERACTIONS WRONG VAPOR VELOCITIES NOT CORRECT REDUCED SUBC00 LING - VERY SMALL CONDENSING EFFECT e
REDUCED SCALE 360 e
UTILIZE REACTOR N0ZZLES e
SCALING:
LENGTH
-R 2
FLOW
-R NUMBER OF N0ZZLES - R VELOCITY
-R 2
N0ZZLE21P
-R e
MAJOR PHENOMENA COMPROMISES:
C0flDENSATION LENGTH INCREASES DROPLET SIZE INCREASES
REDUCED SCALE 360 UTILIZING REACTOR fl0ZZLES CMMSATIM f-
/
\\
o c
FULL SCALE REG 1
nua
'ir REDUCED SCALE
REDUCED SCALE 360 e
UTILIZE MOMENTUM - SCALED N0ZZLES e
SCALING:
LENGTH
-R 2
FLOW
-R NUMBER OF N0ZZLES - SAME 2
FLOW /N0ZZLE
-R N0ZZLE DIAMETER
-R DROPLETS
-R2/3 (SOME COMPROMISE) e MAJOR PHENOMENA COMPROMISES CONDENSATION LENGTH APPROXIMATELY CONSTANT REQUIRES GRAVITY TO BE INVERSELY SCALED
REDUCED SCALE 360 OTHER OPTIONS e
SCALING COMPROMISES e
SMALL N0ZZLE DEVELOPMENT MANY CONSTRAINTS:
DROP SIZE,'!ELOCITY,
- ETC, IMPORTANT BUT SUBTLE EFFECTS HARD TO MATCH:
SKEWING, LOCAL STEAM EFFECTS e
DIFFICULT TO INTERPRET LARGE SCALE REACTOR PERFORMANCE DISSIMILAR PHYSICS CANNOT UNCOVER REAL GREMLINS
a N0ZZLE E
TIPL TS M UL EFFEC SKEWING e
PLENUM UPPER FLOW IN VAPOR e
INTERACTION e
EXPERIMENTAL 0BSERVATI0NS DELIBERATE SKEW e
SYSTEMATIC 10 N0ZZLE SKEWING LEADS TO CHANGE IN CENTER FLOW DENSITY REACTOR HARDWARE e
NATURAL FLOW SKEW " CANCELS OUT"
" SWIRL" IS AN UNDERSTANDABLE HYDRODYNAMIC EFFECT
k\\ \\ \\
e
\\ \\ \\
\\ \\ g
\\
\\ \\
g\\ g
\\
s\\
\\ \\ \\
g%g3
\\
g\\
1
- ~
g g
$!!////jji)V l
V
/ E'" MHUM//J'h 5
/' ! S ll N N $ \\
=
/ /
's,I); l/,
l /
f'
'/
J
\\
N
\\
N
\\
O
\\
\\
~~
s
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
s
\\
r
.s l~
~~~
/'/ M,U//M/
F
=
/
m f
~
/
/
/
O
360 1" OPEft ELB0W 300 0 o
AND TYPES A, B, & C G
e e
T 8
0, o "o g
8 2l10 0
0 S
5 E
180 u
E ha 120 5
m 60 0
O.1 0.2 0.3 SUBC00 LING (Cp T/HFG)
F G
~
~
sx
/
{\\
le>
>\\
L lj L
L t'
s 4;
u
.s'
- \\<Q,
N0ZZLE ARRANGEMENT BWR CORE SPRAY
~
-5~
k~
t CONDENSATION OCCURS IN THE NON-INTERACTION REGION IN BWR CORE SPRAY GEOMETRY
~
N STEAM DOME s
N E
B i
,s s s a
UPPER u
O PLENUM C
6 8
LOWER PLENUM
]
\\
/
BWR GE0 METRY
9 UPPER PLENUM VAPOR FLOW I
p
/
N
'f'
~k 9 r)
O%
@ (>l I n'%
I to o s i
r, n
Jl A
J J
h a
I
VAPOR FLOW M A G il l T U D E
/
\\
/
N/
t
/
/
/\\
'\\
k t
STEAM VELOCITY TO SUPPLY C0!lDEllSAT10il 15 FT/SEC AT 6-IriCH RADIUS 7.5 FT/SEC AT 12-INCH RADIUS
l EFFECT OF VAPOR VELOCITY t
N0ZZLE :
~
~
s
~s
's c ~ s s N
s.
~
s s
sw s
~
E _1
's s
s
[
.? s SIDEDRAFT 8
'x
's210FT/SEC s
s p
s DOWND FT 's
's
$ -2 10 FT/SEC N
d 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
DISTANCE (FEET)
DROP DIAMETER = 2 MM DROP VELOCITY = 20 FT/SEC STEAM, 14.7 PSIA
VAP0R FL0W EFFECTS
SUMMARY
e GEOMETRY FORCES VAPOR FLOW IN TO BE VERTICAL AND AXIALLY SYFIETRIC e ' CONDENSATION AT N0ZZLES DRAWS VAPOR FLOW RADIALLY OUTWARD o
AERODYNAMIC ENTRAINMENT DRAWS VAPOR FLOW RADIALLY INWARD o
CONDENSATION-INDUCED VAPOR FLOW RATES ARE NOT LARGE ADDED FLOW HYDRODYNAMICS DUE TO CONDENSATION ARE SMALL; CONFIRMATION IN A SECTOR TEST
FULL SCALE 360 AIR PLUS FULL SCALE STEAM SECTOR CORRECT PHENOMENA IN STEAM NEAR-N0ZZLE VAPOR 8 LIQUID FLOW CONDENSATION-INDUCED VAPOR FLOW N0ZZLE GE0 METRY & RELATIONSHIPS U
360 HYDRODYNAMIC EFFECTS SIMULATED CORRECTIY IN AIR 9
e 9
e
SUMMARY
1.
REDUCED STEAM REQUIREMERTS IllTERACTIONS WR0i'lG 2.
REDUCED-SCALE 360 DISTORTS PHYSICS POTENTIALLY MISLEADIilG RESULTS 3.
FULL SCALE 360 AIR PLUS FULL SCALE 300 STEAM CLOSEST APPROXIMATI0il TO FULL SCALE PHYSICS 182 Ki10WN PHENOMENA il0T ACCURATELY REPRESENTED Ki10Wil PHENOMENA ARE ACCURATELY 3
REPRESEilTED