ML19263B388
| ML19263B388 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 11/22/1978 |
| From: | GILBERT/COMMONWEALTH, INC. (FORMERLY GILBERT ASSOCIAT |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19263B387 | List: |
| References | |
| GAI-1998, NUDOCS 7901180178 | |
| Download: ML19263B388 (13) | |
Text
NOVEMBER 22, 1978 GAI REPORT NO. 1998 FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION HIGH PRESSURE INJECTION SYSTEM ANALYSIS CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PIANT GILBERT ASSOCIATES, INC.
P. O. BOX 1498 READING, PENNSYLVANIA 19603 Geert/Commommesut 79011807'l8. _... _ -
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 1
MATHEMATICAL METHOD 2
RESULTS 2
REFERENCES 3
TABLES:
1.
Branch Data 4
2.
Equivalent Length in Pipe Diameters (L/D) of Valves and Fittings 6
3.
Pump Head Data 7
4.
Control Run Results 8
5.
HPI Flow Distribution 9
FIGURES:
1.
Pump A Control Set Model 10 2.
Pump B Control Set Model 11 3.
Pump C Control Set Model 12 4.
Schematic of High Pressure Injection System 13 Gdbert /Commemrewth
I INTRODUCTION This report evaluates the effect on the High Pressure Injection of opening all valves in the discharge F2ader of the Make-Up and Purification Pumps.
The effect of opening these valves is to allow the discharge from any pump to flow to the cold leg of all four primary loops.
The purpose of the evaluation was to determine the distribution of flow between the four loops.
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION The High Pressure Injection System was designed to provide a flow of 500 GPM from each of two Make-Up and Purification Pumps with one pump on stand-by.
The flow is directed to the primary loops to maintain core cooling following a LOCA.
The flow from each pump was initially set for 500 GPM using the stop-check valve at the pump discharge and with the flow directed to two loops (see Figures 1, 2, and 3).
Pumps MUP 1A and MUP IB were set up to discharge through Penetrations 434 and 435, pump MUP IC through Penetration 336 and 337.
With all valves in the discharge header open (see Figure 4),
the flow from any one pump will discharge through all four penetrations to all four primary loops.
The purpose of the analysis was to determine the flow distribution from any one pump through the four loops; i.e.,
calculate the flow through each leg of the piping to each primary loop considering the actual piping from the plant piping design drawings.
(Whert /Commonwea! n
2 Two calculations were made for each pump.
The first calculation established the required resistance of the discharge valve used to limit the flow to 500 GPM when the flow was directed to two loops. The second calculation determined the total flow and the flow distribution when the flow was directed to all four loops. The discharge valve resistance established in the first calculation was used in the second calculation.
In all cases, the pressure in the primary system was assumed to be 600 psia.
MATHEMATICAL METHOD The method of analysis is identical to that described in Reference 1.
The GAI computer program Hydraulic Analysis of Piping Networks, Reference 2, is used to obtain a steady-state solution.
The input to the program consists of a description of each branch of piping as shown in Table 1.
Other data used to construct the model is shown in Tables 2 and 3.
Tha system to be described is an open system and a " dummy" branch must be included to close the system.
The fluid in this branch is given a density, and the branch is assigned an arbitrary elevation change such that the pressure drop is equal to the difference in pressure between the two points (600 psia and 14. 7 psia).
A low viscosity and large pipe size assures that the pressure loss is due only to head losses.
RESULTS The results are summarized in Tables 4 and 5.
Table 4 gives the results of the control run, showing the total flow and the control valve resistance, and also showing the distribution between the two loops. Table 5 shows the total flow and the flow in each loop for each of the three pumps running separately.
The calculation was made for maximum (~46') level and minimum (~5') level in the B'4ST; however, the difference was negligible.
Gibert /Commonweetth
3 REFERENCES 1.
GAI Report, Reactor Building Spray and ECCS Storage Tanks Drawdown Transient Analysis, GAI-1955, July 15, 1977.
2.
GAI Topical Report, Hydraulic Analysis of Piping Networks Using PIPF Computer Program, Report No. GAI-TR-105P-A and GAI-TR-105NP-A, June 1078.
3.
Flow of Fluids Through Valves, Fittings and Pipes, Crane Technical Paper No. 410.
h /Commonweeath
TABLE 1 i
BRANCll DATA I
S to p Check Pipe Straight Swing or Entr.
Total Elev From To I. D.
Pipe 90 45 Cate Check Globe Tee Tee or Equiv Change pict J_unc t ion Junction (inch)
(feet)
Elbow Elbow Valve Valve Valve Run Branch Reducer Exit L/D (feet) 1 1
2 120.0 10.0
-46.0/-5.0 2
2 3
13.25 25.75 2
1 1
125
-14.5 3
3 25 6.065 187.0 9
2 1
1 1
1 442
-1.5 4
25 4
6.065 11.7 1
1 1
1 109
-6.56 5
4 5
4.026 1.0 1
1 35
-0.73 6
5 6
Pump 7
6 7
2.626 32.1 4
1 1
1 571
-1.33 8
7 8
3.438 1.0 1
30 0.0 9
8 24 3.438 18.0 3
2 3
146 7.25 10 24 9
3.438 17.8 3
2 1
106
~7.25 11 9
10 3.438 15.83 2
2 1
132 8.5 12 10 11 2.125 9.25 4
1 1
1 493
- 3. 5 13 11 12 2.3 7.75 1
3 0.0 14 12 13 2.125 145.7 10 2
2 1
1 557 21.77 15 10 14 2.125 7.92 4
1 1
1 493 3.5 16 14 15 2.3 7.75 1
3 0.0 17 15 13 2.125 61.5 7
2 1
1 465 21.8 18 8
16 3.438 26.7 3
1 120 8.5 19 16 17 2.125 15.4 2
1 2
1 433 3.5 20 17 18 2.3 7.75 1
3
- 0. 0 21 18 13 2.125 63.5 8
2 1
1 485 21.77 22 16 20 2.125 8.54 3
1 1
1 489 3.5 23 20 21
- 2. 3 7.75 1
3 0.0 24 21 13 2.125 165.1 11 1
2 1
1 1
621 21.77 25 25 26 6.065 12.5 2
1 46 0.0 26 26 30 6.065 11.7 1
1 1
1 109
-6.56 27 30 31 4.026 1.0 1
1 35
-0.73 c.
TABLE 1 (Cont.)
Stop Check Pipe Straight Swing or Entr.
Total Elev From To 1.D.
Pipe 90 45 Cate Check Globe Tee Tee or Equiv Change No Junction Junction (inch)
(feet) elbow elbow Valve Valve Valve Run Branch Reducer Exit L/D (feet) 28 26 27 6.065 22.a 1
1 3
1 1
155
-6.56 29 27 28 4.026 1.0 1
1 35
-0.73 30 31 32 pump 31 32 33 2.626 17.8 4
1 1
555 5.92 32 33 24 3.439 4.8 1
1 1
110 0.0 33 28 29 pump 3
34 29 34 2.626 36.0 7
1 1
1 631
-1.33 35 34 9
3.4 38 1.0 1
1 90 0.0 36 13 1
100.0 10.0 Dummy Fluid 0.0 100.0 m
6 TABLE 2 f
Equivalent Length in Pipe Diameters (L/D) of Valves and Fittings 90 degree elbow 14" pipe 21" radius 13 all other pipe, long radius 20 45 degree elbow 16 Standard tee (flow thru run) 20 Standard tee (flow thru branch) 60 Gate valve 13 Globe or Stop Check 340 Swing Check 135 14x6 reducer 22 6x4 reducer 15 3x4 reducer 30 4x2-1/2 reducer 13 3x2-1/2 reducer 3
1 entrance (tank - 14" pipe, k=0.5) 40 1 exit (2-1/2" - 28" pipe, k=1.0) 52
7 TABLE 3 Pump Head Data Flow-GPM 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 595.0 Head-f ee t 6700.0 6650.0 6250.0 5550.0 4450.0 3000.0 1150.0 mee - g hw
==
- wwe
======a
8 TABLE 4 Control Run Fesults Total
_P_enetration Flow Flow
- 434
- 435 Pump A:
Flow-GPit 499.8 276.5 223.3 Percentage 55.3 44.7 Control Valve AP-520.04 psi Pump B:
- 434
- 435 Flow-GPM 499.8 276.6 223.3 Percentage 55.3 44.7 Control Valve 6P-517.26 psi Pump C:
- 336
- 337 Flow-GPM 499.8 271.9 227.9 Pe rcen tage 54.4 45.6 Control Valve AP-514.64 psi
- w
9 TABLE 5 HPI Flow Distribution Total
__4434
- 435
- 336
- 337 Penetration Flow
? low Pump A:
Flow-CPM 506.3 114.7 142.4 135.6 113.6 Percentage 22.6 28.1 26.8 22.4 Pump B:
Flow-GPM 507.1 111.5 138.5 140.1 117.0 Percentage 22.0 27.3 27.6 23.1 Pump C:
Flow-GPM 505.8 108.4 134.6 143.1 119.8 Percentage 21.4 26.6 28.3 23.7
~....
10 k
N m.
g (w
g N
% /*gm y
nm e
1 k
Q s
1.%
- q s
5 5
FIGURE 1 N
\\
PU!IP A N
CONTROL SET
11 b
N
~
n X
X
+
a s+++^y e
~
g2 wa e
a
=
k, (E:
a S
3 5
FIGURE 2 N
\\
PUtIP B CONTROL SET N
N m
~&
12
~
k
%)
$ - _. __ -. s X
N N
+
a C
pl O
X e n
~a
- s. 3 X
3 5
\\
FIGURE 3
/
y PL71P C kg/
y CONTROL SET
P 13 k%
N m---
3 m
~
b i
4 c
x g
X k
X a
X "m
g4 c"
x 4
X X
X 4
0
/
W
\\@
<r m
~
e_
e X
X X
X m
a 4..z g
g
({3 ag..;
r.,
N-e 5
5 X
h X
X X
'X FIGURE 4 SCHDIATIC OF SYSTEM N
\\
/
p j
N g N
/ /
0
--