ML19270F815
| ML19270F815 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1978 |
| From: | Guimod P, Schor J, Turnige J Maine Yankee |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19270F805 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903270556 | |
| Download: ML19270F815 (27) | |
Text
+.
I
..D Containment Pressure Model for Maine Yankee ECCS Performance Evaluation by P. J. Guimond Nuclear Engineering Department November 1978
(( -
N Prepared By cSO ;
6
[/
(Date)
E-([
'l C's [T((
Reviewed By g
(Da te)
Approved By 1
Nk k-b'N (Date)
Yankee Atomic Electric Company Nuclear Services Division 20 Turnpike Road Westborough, Massachusetts 01581 7903270556
DISCLAIMER OF RESPONSIBILITY This document was prepared by Yankee Atomic Electric Company on behalf of Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company. This document is believed to be completely true and accurate to the best of our knowledge and info rmation. It is authorized for use specifically by Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company and/or the appropriate subdivisions within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission only.
With regard to any unauthorized use whatsoever, Yankee Atomic Ele ctric Company, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company and their of ficers, directors, agents and employees assume no liability nor make any warranty or representation with respect to the contents of this document or to its accuracy or completeness.
ABSTRACT An analytical model for predicting the minimum containment pressure of the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station following a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) is presented in this report. The model uses the CONTEMPT-LT Version 26 computer program (Containment Temperature Pressure Transient - Long Tert) developed by Aerojet Nuclear Company for ERDA.
The minimum contain=ent pressure prediction is used as an input to the ECCS performance evaluation model of the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station. A benchmark analysis of the containment pressure response following a postulated LOCA at Maine Yankee agrees well with results predicted by Combustion Engineering, Inc.
-111-
=
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DISCLAIMER OF RESPONSIBILITY 11 ABSTRACT 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS
- i LIST OF FIGURES y
LIST OF TABLES vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
AND SLHMARY i
2.0 MODEL DESCRIPr10N 3
3.0 INPUT DATA 5
3.1 Initial Conditions 5
3.2 Containment Volume Data 5
3.3 Mass and Energy Release Data 5
3.4 Heat Absorbing Structures 6
3.5 Heat Transfer Coefficients 7
3.5.1 Surf aces Exposed to Containment Vapor Space 7
3 5.2 Surf ace Exposed to Containment Liquid Region 8
3 5.3 Surf aces Exposed to External Environmental 9
3.6 Active Heat Removal Systems 9
3.6 1 Contain=ent Spray Systems 9
3 6.2 Recirculation Fan Coolers 9
3.6 3 Subcooled ECCS Water Spillage 10 3.7 Time Steps 10 3.8 Me thodology 10 4.0 SAMPLE FROBLEM 13 5.0 REFERENC ES 14
-iv-
LIST OF FIGURES Number Title Page 3.1 Condensing Heat Transfer Coef ficients for Heat 16 Absorbing Surfaces 4.1 Containment Pressure Following a 1.0 DECLG LOCA 17 at Maine Yankee
-v-
LIST OF TABLES
' Number Title Page 3.1 Initial Conditions and Containment Physical Parameteri 18 3.2 Containment Heat Lbsorbing Surfaces 19 3.3 Thermophysical Properties 21 3.4 Heat Sink Mesh Spacing 22 3.5 UCHIDA Heat Transfer Coef ficients 23 3.6 Fan Cooler Heat Removal Capacity 24 3.7 Time Step Size 25 4.1 Mass and Energy Release for 10 DECLG at 26 Maine Yankee
-vi-
4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to thank A.E. Ladieu and R.N. Henault for their technical advice and assistance.
-vii-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Following a loss-of-coolant accident at Maine Yankee, the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) will supply water to the reactor vessel to reflood and cool the reactor core. The rate of core reflooding is governed by the capability of the ECCS water to displace steam generated in the reactor vessel during the core reflooding period. For PWR plants like Maine Yankee, there is a direct dependence of core flooding rate on containment pressure, i.e. the core flooding rate will increase with increasing containment pressure. Therefore as part of the overall evaluation of ECCS performance, paragraph I.D.2 of Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50 requires that the containment pressure used in the evaluation of the performance capability of a PWR ECCS not exceed a pressure calculated conservatively for that purpose. The following guidelines are provided in the USNRC Standard Review Plan 6.2.1.5 (Reference 1) and indicate the conservatism that is required in analyzing the minimum containment pressure response to a LOCA for use in ECCS performance capability.
1.
Mass and energy release data should be determined in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix K, requirements.
2.
Containment structure modelling should be in compliance with recommendations given in Branch Technical Position CSB6-1 "Hinimum Containment Pressure Model for PWR ECCS Performance Evaluation" (Reference 2).
This report describes the analytical model used by Yankee to predict
~
a conservatively low containment pressure response to a LOCA at Maine Yankee for use in conjunction with Yankee's ECCS performance model of the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station (References 3 & 4).
The model utilizes the CONTEMPT-LT Version 26 (Containment Temperature - Pressure Transient-Long Term) computer program developed by Aerojet Neclear Company for the Energy Research ana Development Admi-stion (References 5,6 and 7).
Model benchmarking was accomplished by direct comparison of predicted containment pressure response to a DECLG (Double-Ended Cold Leg Guillotine)
LOCA event at Maine Yankee to previously reported results of an analysis of the same event by Combustion Engineering for the Cycle 3 reload submittal (References 8 & 9).
Results show reasonable agreement between the two predictions with the YAEC CONTDdPT-LT/026 model producing a slightly more conservative response.
s 2.0 MODEL DESCRIPTION The analytical model of the Maine Yankee containment volume consists of two regions: a gas region at the top containing a steam-air mixture and a liquid region at the bottom containing the sump water. The steam-air mixture is assumed to be in thermal equilibrium. This does not imply thermal equilibrium between the steam-air mixture and the water region.
The liquid region is assumed to be at the total containment pressure, and may be at a dif ferent temperature than the vapor region.
Prior to the initiatior of blowdown, the containment system is assumed to be in a steady state condition. From the steady state condition, the partial pressure, masses, and energy contents of the dif ferent components and the temperature distribution through the heat conducting structures are computed. These values are used as the initial conditions for the transient.
The transient phase starts with the rupture of the reactor coolant pipe. The discharge flow at the break area separates into steam and water phases, depending on the containment total pressure and the energy content of the blowdown. The part flashing to steam is added to the ga. region while the liquid portion enters the containment sump.
In the analysis a quasi-steady condition is assumed during any small time interval, and an equilibrium solution is obtained through a mass and energy balance with proper consideration for heat-conduction to the structures. The heat structures may conduct heat from either the liquid s
or the vapor region. The liquid region can be at subcooled or saturated conditions corresponding to the total containment pressure; while steam in the vapor region can exist at saturated or superheated conditions corresponding to the partial pressure of steam. Air and steam are assumed to be at the same teperature. Boiling of the liquid and condensation of the vapor are taken into account in the mass and energy balance.
The thermodynamic properties of steam and water are computed using the STH 20 Subroutines (Reference 7).
Air is treated as an ideal gas; homogeneous mixing of the steam-air mi..ture 1. assumed.
The containment building is divided into a number of heat-conducting sections. Heat-conducting sections are also used to describe building internals which act as heat sinks such as piping or reactor vessel compo nen ts.
Every heat conducting section is treated as a one-dimensional slab, subdivided into a number of nodes to represent thickness. An energy conservation equation, expressed in finite dif ference form accounts for transient conduction into and out of each node and the temperature rise of the node.
The heat transfer at a boundary is equal to the heat-transfer coefficient times the dif ference between the surf ace temperature and a bulk fluid temperature. The heat-transfer coef ficients used are discussed in Section 3.5 4
4 3.0 INPUT DATA 3.1 Initial conditions The initial internal containment conditions are listed in Table
- 31. The minimum containment atmospheric temperature and pressure, and the maximum humidity encountered under limiting normal operatir.g conditions were used in compliance with BTP CSB 6-1 recommendations. The ambient temperature external to the containment was assumed to be -20 F.
3.2 containment Volume Data The maximum containment net free volume including uncertainties was used and is given in Table 3.1 This value was calculated by Stone and Webster Corporation and reported in Reference 10.
The maximum gross containment volume (including uncertainty) minus the minimum volumes (including uncertainties) of the individual internal structures was used in the determination of this value.
33 Mass and Energy Addition Data Mass and energy release to the containment will be calculated in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix K (Reference 11) using the YAEC Maine Yankee ECCS performance model (References 3,4).
All primary coolant blowdown (from both ends of double ended breaks), direct spillage of accumulator flow to containment, and subcooled ECCS safety injection water spillage out the break will be accounted for.
3.4 Heat Conducting Structures (Passive Heat Removal)
A summary of mass and heat transfer area of the structural heat sinks is included in Table 3.1.
Table 3.2 lists the same data for the individual heat slabs which are modeled in CONTEMPT. With four exceptions, all heat conducting structures are modeled as symmetrical slabs exposed on both sides to the containment vapor space. Thus, the exposed surface areas shown in Table 3.2 for t' _se slabs is the total for both sides and the thickness shown is the half-thickness. The exceptions are slabs 16, 17,18 and 20 which represent the containment shell and dome and the floor.
These are modeled as full thickness heat sicbs with one side of the shell and dome exposed to the external environment and the other to the internal vapor space, and one side of the floor slab exposed to the pool or sump water and the other to the earth. The areas listed in Table 3 2 for these slabs are the single-sided area and the thickness shown is the full heat thickness.
The effect of paint on heat transfer rate is considerable and for LOCA/ECCS calculations it is conservative to neglect the existence of the sink paint layer on all painted surfaces, thereby increasing the heat effectiveness during the early portion of the transient. Similarly, zin.
coatings on galvanized steel are also neglected.
Table 3.3 lists the thermephysical properties used in the model.
Table 3.4 lists the mesh spacing used in each material to model
_f_
the heat conducting structures.
3.5 Heat Transfer Coefficients Three different classes of heat transfer surface are inherent in the model. Surfaces exposed to the contaiament vapor space, surfaces exposed to the sump and pool liquid, and external surfaces exposed to the environment.
Each type of surface is treated in a different manner.
3 5.1 Surfaces Exposed to the Container Vapor Space The heat transfer coefficient used for this class of surfaces during the different phases of a LOCA are described belcw. These are the same as those prescribed in Reference 2, Branch Technical Position CSB 6-1, and are based upon the work of Tagami (Reference 14) and Uchida (Reference 12).
(1) During the blowdown phase, hs was assumed to follow a linear increase in the condensing heat transfer coefficient from hinitial=8 Btu /hr-ftOF, at t= 0, to a peak value r times greater than the maximum 2
calculated condensing heat transfer coefficient at the end of blowdown, using the Tagami correlation, (R,tference 2),
h
=4xhTagami = 4 x [77.5 x {Q/Vtp] 0. 62) max 2
wnere h
= maximum heat transfer coefficient, Btu /hr-ft _op oax Q
= primary coolant energy, Btu V
= net free containment volume, ft3 4
time interval to end of blowdown, sec.
t
=
p 2
h,
- surface heat transfer coefficient, Btu /hr-ft _op, (2) During the long-term post-blowdown phase of the accident, characterized by low turbulence in the containment atmosphere, a condensing heat transfer coefficient 1.2 times greater than those predicted by the Uchida data (Reference 12) and given in Table 3.5 was used.
(3) During the transition phase of the accident, between the end of blowdown and the long-term post-blowdown phase, a conservative exponential trnnsition in the condensing heat transfer coefficient was calculated as shown in Figure 3.1.
The calculated condensing heat transfer coefficient based on the above method was applied to all exposed passive heat sinks, both metal and concrete.
lleat transfer between adjoining materials in the passive heat absorbing structures was based on the ast,umption of no resistance to heat flow at the material interfaces.
3.5.2 Surfaces Exposed to the Liquid Region A heat transfer coef ficient of 500 Btu /hr-f t2_oF was used between the liquid region pool and heat transfer surfaces in contact with it, namely the floor slab and sump.
This is consistent with the value previously used by CE for the Cycle 3 and Cycle 4 analyses.
(References 8, 9).
4 3.5.3 Surfaces Exposed to the External Environment Heat conducting struc'ures such as the containment shell and dome are exposed on one side to the ambient atmosphere. The natural convection heat transfer coefficient assumed for these surfaces is 2.0 Btu /hr-ft2_oF consistent with the value used by CE in the Cycle 3 and Cycle 4 analyses.
(References 8, 9).
Sensitivity studies show that containment pressure is not sensitive to this value over the time span of interect.
3.6 Active Heat Removal Systems All active heat removal systems which function to control or limit the containment pressure or temperature following a LOCA are assumed to be operable in the model at their maximun heat removal capacities.
3.6.1 Containment Sprav System For the purposes of this model both containment spray pumps are assumed to actuate at time zero following the LOCA and are assumed to deliver their maximum flow capacity of 4000 gpm per pump to the containment spray headers. The temperature of the containment spray water is assumed to be 40 F, the minimum temperature allowed by the Maine Yankee Technical Specifications for the stored spray water.
Spray "ef fectiveness" is assumed to be 100%.
3.6.2 Recirculation Fan Coolers The six air recirculation f an coolers are act of engineered safety feature grade, however, they are all assumed to be operating at time zero, and to remain operable throughout the transient, with heat re= oval capacity given in Table 3.6.
3.6.3 Subcooled ECCS Spillage The spillage of subcooled ECCS water into the contain=ent and subsequent stea:-water mixing is taken into consideration by multiplying the ECCS spillage flow rate by a correction factor which accounts for its higher enthalpy (and hence lower spray ef ficiency). The corrected spillage flow rate is, in turn added to the contain=ent spray flow rate assuming it to be at the same te perature and enthalpy as the spray flow.
3.7 Tice steps Ti=e step values were selected so that small time steps were used during periods of high rates of change of contain=ent conditions. Larger time steps were used when contain=ent conditions were changing slowly.
The convergence para eter, dE/E, edited by CONTEMPT was kept at or below 0.1" as recommended on page 200 of Ref erence 5.
This criterion was verified as being adequate to guarantee a converged solution by reducing the time step size by a f actor cf 20 f or the first 100 seconds with no observed change in results. The time steps used are shown in Table 3.7.
3.8 Methodology In order to run CONTEMPT-LT/026 in its present version in co=pliance with CSB6.1, heat transfer ccefficient requirements, it is necessary to take two separate computer runs.
The first run is made with the heat sink boundary condition option set equal to -5 on all containment internal surfaces except the floor slabs.
This allows the user to input in a table the initial values for hcond during 2
the blowdown period f rom h=8.0 (BTU /hr-f t - F) to h=4 x h When the Tagami.
code detects end-of-blowdown on the 300 series Mass + Energy input, the n theae internal surf aces is calculated by CONTEMPT-values used for hcond This provides a good first approximation of LT to be equal to hUchida.
the air / water mass ratios during the transition period and a set of initial to be used in calculating values of h,g,g in compliance estimates of hUchida with CSB 6.1 for the transition period following end of blowdown. These are calculated by the user ::.d input to CONTEMPT-LT as a heat transfer coef ficient versus time table for the second computer run.
The second computer run is made with identical input as the first with the exception of the internal heat slabs boundary cor.dition options being set equal to +5, which forces CONTEMPT to use the input table of heat transfer coefficient versus time calculated by the user to be in conformance with CSB 6.1.
This two-step method will be required until CONTEMPT-LT/026 can be modified to internally calculate transition period values of the heat transfer coefficient and reflect the 1.2 x h c nstant factor called Uchida for by Branch Technical Position CSB 6.1.
This two-step approach results in slightly more conservative (i.e.,
than an integral calculation would predict.
This high) values for hcond is attributable to the use of the value for hUchida calculated by CONTEMPT-LT in the first run as the first approximation for h in the equation stag used to calculate the transition values for hcond given n Figure
.5.
calculated in the first run are based on air / steam The values of hUchida mass ratios which are lower than would be predicted using the appropriate CSB 6.1 value for hcond (i.e., at a given point in time af ter blowdown more steam would have been condensed if a heat transfer coefficient complying with CSB 6.1 had been used). Thus, the values for h are high and the stag values input to the second computer run for hcond after the end-of-blowdown are also slightly conservative.
4 4.0 SAMPLE PROBLEM The sample problem analyzed was the containment ps--:ssure follovir.g a postulated DECLG (Double-Ended Cold Leg Guillotine) break at Maine Yankee.
This transient was analyzed by Combustion Engineering for the Maine Yankee ECCS performance reload analysis for Cycles 3 and 4 (References 11,12).
Mass and energy release data, Table 4.1, for this event reported by CE in Reference 8 was input to the CONTEMPT-LT model of the Maine Yankee containment described in Section 2 0 and 3.0 of this report. Comparison of the resulting minimum containment pressure prediction to the corrected CE prediction reported in Ref erence 9 shows excellent agreement (Figure 4.1).
~
5.0 REFERENCES
?..
USNRC Standard Review Plan 6.2.15 Minimum Containment Pressure Analysis for Emergency Core Cooling System Performance Capability Studies, (March, 1975).
2.
USNRC, Branch Technical Position CSB 6-1, " Minimum Containment Pressure Model for PWR ECCS Performance Evaluation", Part of Standard Review Plan 6.2.15, (March, 1975).
3 A. Husain et al., Application of Yankee-WREM-Based Generic PWR ECCS Evaluation Model to Maine Yankee (3-Loop Sample Problem), YAEC-ll60 (July, 1978).
4.
A. Husain et al., Application of Yankee-WREM-Based Generic PWR ECCS Evaluation Model to Maine Yankee (2-Loop Sample Problem) Break in Active Loop _, YAEC-ll64 (September, 1978).
5 L.L. Wheat, et al., CONTEMPT-LT: A Computer Program for Preditting Containment Pressure-Temperature Response to a Loss-of-Coolant Accident.
ANCR-1219, (June, 1975).
6.
W.J. Mings, Version 26 Modifications to the CONTEMPT-LT Program, SRD-83-76, lNEL (April, 1976).
7.
R.J. Wagner, STH20, A Subroutine Package to Compute the Thermodynamic Properties of Water, Aerojet Fuclear Company (April 30, 1975).
8.
MYAPCo letter to NRC WMY77-3 dated January 12, 1977, Proposed Change
- 52-Cycle 3 Reload Supplement No. 1.
9.
CE Letter to MYAPCo, " Maine Yankee Core IV ECCS Performance Results",
CE 3068-075, (June 23, 1978).
10.
Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation letter to MYAPCo, dated May 14, 1976, Attachment 1, " Containment Data Maine Yankee Nuclear Plant".
11.
10 CFR Part 50.46, " Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Light Water Nuclear Power Reactors", and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, "ECCS Evaluation Models".
12.
H. Uchida, A. Oyama, and Y. Toga, " Evaluation of Post-Incident Cooling Systems of Light-Water Power Reactors", Proc. Third International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, Volume 13, Session 3.9, United Nations, Geneva (1964).
13.
R. Byron Bird, et al., Transport Phenomena, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
- p. 353, (1960).
14.
T. Tagami. " Interim Report on Safety Assessments and Facilities Establishment Project in Japan for Period Ending June 1965 (No. 1),"
prepared for the National Reactor Testing Station, February 28, 1966 (unpublished work).
Figure 3.1 Condensing Heat Transfer Coefficients for Heat Absorbing Surfaces u
E t0y O
h
- 4. x h
=
max Tagami U
linear 8
%m I
I h=h
+ (h'
-h
.025(t-t )
stag) e p
g stag max E
I ce l
3 h
= 1.2 x h stag Uchida e
E 8
h =8.
o o
I t
i P
Time l
' blowdown i reflood I
I I
i FIcuae 4.1
-i 1
l HAli;E Yli!;KEE CORE 4 1
0.5 x DOUBLE El'DED GUILLOTIi;E BREAK lii PUi;P DISCH/iRGE LEG C0t! TAI.,'?EilT PRESSURE i
i l
G YAEC CONTEMPT RESULTS
- - CE PREDICTION 60,000 a
il 50.000 l d.
.'l
\\
f
\\.
I c\\
40.000 I
b.
i l
A. N e w j
5
-N.%,
E 30,.000l i
s
.m P>
u HSE o_
2.0.000 t) 10#000 0,,000 o
o o
o o
o o
a o
o a
O o
o a
o O
o a
o o
CO
-l N
M ae TliiE AFTER Dr.EAK, SEC
TABLE 3.1 Containmer c Data for ECCS Evaluation Model 6
3 Net Free Volume 1.842x10 ft Initial Conditions Internal Pressure 14.7 psia 60 F Internal Temperature Relative Humidity 100%
-20 F External Air Temperature 40 F RWST Temperature Spray System Number of Trains Operating 2
Spray Flow Rate Per Train 4000 gpm Assumed Actuation Time 0
0 Assumed Delay Time Recirculation Fan Coolers Number of Fan Coolers Operating 6
Heat Removal Capacity Table Heat Sinks 2
Misc. Steel Heat Sinks 208,195 ft 2.43x106 tgg 2
Lined Concrete Heat Sinks 57,600gt 1.04x10 LBM (STEEL)
Unlined Concrete Heat Sinks 119,997 ft t
Table 3.2 Containment lleat Absorbing Surfaces Slab Thickneas, HeatSing No.
Description Material Inches Arch, ft 1
Structural Steel &
2arbon Steel 0.12 75465 Refueling Cavity Liner 2
Misc. Steel Carbon Steel 0.436 9183 3
Misc. Steel Carbon Steel 1.23 12556 4
Misc. Steel Carbon Steel 0.273 36339 5
Misc. Steel Carbon Steel 0.843 7779 6
Equip and Supports Carbon Steel 2.40 480 7
Equip. and Supports Carbon Steel 7.73 1593 8
Equip. and Personnel Carbon Steel 4.84 65 Hatch Flanges 9
Equipment, Piping Stainless Steel 0.149 391 10 Misc. Piping Stainless Steel 0.40 5585 11 Cable Trays, Conduit,
Galvanized Steel
.037 60873 Duct Work 12 Conduit Galvanized Steel 0.23 4609 13 Internal Walls and Concrete 0.94 ft 66681 Floors 14 Internal Walls and Concrete 1.47 ft 48619 Floors 15 Internal Walls and Concrete 4.07 ft 9593 Floors 16 Containment Dome Carbon Steel 0.5 28862 Concrete 2 ft 6 in 17 Containment Dome Carbon Steel 3.0 4
Vent Concrete 2.5 ft 18 Conta inment Shell Carbon Steel 0.384 29601 Concrete 4.5 ft Table 3.2 (cont.)
Slab Thic kne s s,
Heat Sink No.
Description Material Inches Area, ft2 19 Steam Generator Carbon Steel 0.5 246 Supports Concrete 6.5 ft 20 Floor Slab Concrete 24.0 11830 Carbon Steel 0.375 Concrete 120.0 Table 3.3 Thermophysical Properties
_ Material Conductivity Volume Heat Capacity (BTU /Hr-Ft-F)
(BTU /Ft3 0F)
Carbon Steel 30.
60.
Stainless Steel 10.
60.
Concrete 1.5
- 32.
Table 3.4 Heat Structure Material Mesh Spacing Material Mesh Sizes, Inches Stainless Steel
.037/.040*
Carban Steel
.030/.050*
l Concrete 0.1
- Minimum / Maximum mesh spacing used.
I this corre., ponds to the thermal fourinchesonly,inconcreteforthetimespanof First penetration thickness interest. Mesh size beyond four inches confirms with recommendations made on P35 of Reference 5.
2 Distance within a semi-infinite uniform slab beyond which temperature changes less than 1% of a step change occurring at the slab boundary surface. (Reference 13)
Table 3.5 UCHIDA Heat Transfer Coef ficients Mass Heat Transfer Mass Heat Transfer Ratio Coeffic(ent Ratio Coefficignt (Ib air /lb stea=)
(Stu/hr-ft"- F (lb air /lb stea=)
(Etu/hr-ft - F) 50 2
3 29 20 5
2.3 37 IS 9
1.8 46 14 10 1.3 63 10 14 0.S 95 7
17 0.5 140 3
21 0.1 250 4
24 Table 3.6 Fan Coolers Heat Removal Capacity Vaper Temperature, ( F)
Capacity, (Btu /Hr) 90.0 0.0 6
200.
79.873 x 10 300.0 152.484 x 10 Table 3.7 Time Step Used for 1.0 DECLC LOCA Sample Problem Time Interval, (seconds)
Time Step, (seconds) 0.0 - 20.0 0.01 20.0 - 40.0 0.05 40.0 - 100.0 0.10 100.0 - 400.0 0.50
$ )
TABLE 4.1 Maine Yankee Core III Blowdown and Refiood Mass and Energy Release Data 1.0 DEG/PD Integral of Integral of Time Ess Flow Energy Release Mass Flow Energy Re) ase Sec lbm/sec Btu /sec lbm Btu 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.05 8.246 x id 4.505 x 107 4.2614 x 1 2.3272 x 106 6
0.10 9.027 x ld 4.935 x 107 8.5023 x 1 4.6465 x 10 0.15 9.031xld 4.933 x 107 1.3016 x 1 7.1125 x 106 6
0.20 8.741 x id 4.778 x 107 1.7422 x 1 9.5193 x 10 7
0.25 8.684 x 10' 4.753 x 107 2.1785 x 1 1.1906 x 10 0
7 0.35 8.454 x 10' 4.634 x 107 3.0371 x 1 1.6609 x 10 0.45 8.396 x 10 4.606 x 107 3.8813 x 1 2.1239 x 107 0.60 8.314 x 10' 4.564 x 107 5.1370 x 1 2.8130 x 107 0.80 8.287 x 10' 4.555 x 107 6.7964 x 1 3.7245 x 107 0
1.0 8.143 x 10 4.483 x 107 8.4384 x 1 4.6278 x 107 1.2 7.851 x 1 4.330 x 107 1.0039 x 10) 5.5101 x 107 1.4 7.355 x 1 4.063 x 107 1.1559 x 10P 6.3488 x 107 1.6 6.975 x 1 3.859 x 107 1.2990 x 10) 7.1397 x 107 1.8 6.697 x 1 3.710 x 107 1.4361 x 10 7.8990 x 107 5
2.0 6.248 x 1 3.464 x 107 1,5655 x 10>
8.6157 x 107 2.4 5.576 x 1 3.097 x 107 1.8013 x 10) 9.9242 x 18 2.8 5.156 x 1 2.868 x 107 2.0152 x 10P 1.1113 - 108 3.2 4.852 x 1 2.405 x 107 2.2152 x 1 1.2227 x 1@
3.6 4.621 x 10 2.584 x 107 2.4041 x 1 1.3282 x 1@
4 4.0 4.404 x 10 2.475 x 107 2.5848 x 1 1.4295 x l@
4 4.8 3.959 x 10 2.265 x 107 2.9200 x 1 1.6193 x 1@
4 5.6 3.577 x 10 2.087 x 107 3.2203 x 1 1.7929 x 1@
4 6.4 3.231 x 10 1.927 x 107 3.4935 x 1 1.953. x 1@
4 7.2 2.807 x 10' l.733 x 107 3.7349 x 1 2.1002 x l@
8.0 2.274 x 10' 1.520 x 107 3.9399 x 1 2.2306 x 18 4
8 8.8 1.488 x 10 l.275 x 107 4.0891
-1 2.3420 x 10 4
8 9.6 1.267 x 10 1.117 x 107 4.1966 x 1 2.436C x 10 3
8 10.5 9.425 x 10 9.570 x 106 4.2955 x 1 2.5302 x 10 3
8 11.5 7.164 x 10 8.023 x 106 4.3777 x 1 2.6178 x 10 3
8 12.5 5.444 x 10 6.473 x 106 4.4408 x 1 2.6906 x 108 13.5 3.541 x 1 4.366 x 106 4.4857 x 1 2.7451 x 10 8 14.5 2.029 x 1 2.556 x 106 4.5130 x 1 2.7791 x 10 8 15.5 9.390 x 10 1.172 x 106 4.5273 x 1 2.7971 x 10 1
0 16.5 5.704 x 10 6.662 x 104 4.5316 x 1 2.8022 x 10 2
8 17.4 7.115 x 10 8.903 x 105 4.5325 x 105 2.8032 x 10 Time of Annulus Downflow Start of Reflood (Val *2es Below are for Steam Only) 5 8
30.84 0.0 0.0 4.5325 x 10 2.8032 x 10 5
8 40.84 0.0 0.0 4.5325 x 10 2.8032 x 10 5
8 50.84 0.0 0.0 4.5325 x 10 2.8032 x 10
. E. b' TABLE 4.1 (Continued)
Integral of Integral of Time Mass Flow Energy Release
)bss Flow Energy Release Sec lbm/sec Btu /sec lbm Btu 2
5 5
0 60.84 1.9313 x 10 2.5208 x 10 4.5483 x 10 2.8239 x 10 2
5 5
8 70.84 2.1843 x 10 2.8509 x 10 4.5672 x 10 2.8485 x 10 2
5 5
8 80.84 2.1060 x 10 2.7488 x 10 4.5885 x 10 2.8763 x 10 2
5 5
0 90.84 2.0663 x 10 2.6970 x 10 4.6094 x 1C 2.9036 x 10 2
5 8
100.84 2.0250 x 10 2.6430 x 10 4.6299 x 10 2.9303 x 10 5
120.84 1.9645 x 10~
2.5641 x 10 4.6697 x 10 2.9822 x 10 2
5 5
8 140.84 1.9153 x 10 2.4998 x 10 4.7084 x 10 3.0328 x 10 2
5 5
8 160.84 1.8898 x 10 2.4665 x 10 4.7464 x 10 3.0824 x 10 2
5 5
8 180.84 1.8658 x 10 2.4353 x 10 4.7839 x 10 3.1314 x 10 5
5 200.84 1.8524 x 10 2.4178 x 10 4.8212 x 10 3.1800 x 10 8 220.84 1.8581 x 10~
2.4252 x 10 4.8583 x 10 3.2285 x 10 2
5 5
8 240.84 1.8536 x 10 2.4193 x 10 4.8955 x 10 3.2769 x 10 2
5 5
8 260.84 1.8606 x 10 2.4284 x 10 4.9326 x 10 3.3254 x 10 2
5 5
8 280.84 1.8626 x 10 2.4311 x 10 4.9698 x 10 3.3740 x 10 2
5 5
8 300.84 1.8704 x 10 2.4412 x 10 5.0071 x 10 3.4226 x 10 2
5 5
0 320.84 1.8632 x 10 2.4319 x 10 5.0444 x 10 3.4714 x 10 2
5 5
8 340.84 1.8644 x 10 2.4334 x 10 5.0818 x 10 3.5201 x 10 2
5 5
8 360.84 1.8669 x 10 2.4367 x 10 5.1191 x 10 3.5689 x 10 2
5 5
8 380.84 1.8758 x 10 2.4483 x 10 5.1565 x 10 3.6117 x 10 2
5 5
8 400.84 1.8721 x 10 2.4435 x 10 5.1940 x 10 3.6665 x 10 2
5 5
8 430.84 1.8723 x 10 2.4438 x 10 5.2502 x 10 3.7399 x 10