ML19338E763

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 800904-05 Meeting W/Mark II Owners in Bethesda,Md Re long-term Program Chugging & Lateral Loads.Attendance List & Handouts Encl
ML19338E763
Person / Time
Site: Nine Mile Point, Susquehanna, Columbia, Limerick, LaSalle, Zimmer, Shoreham, Bailly  File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 09/12/1980
From: Anderson C
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Kniel K
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
REF-GTECI-A-08, REF-GTECI-CO, TASK-A-08, TASK-A-8, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8010060102
Download: ML19338E763 (65)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:, _.. w a pbE Room UNITED STATES ps accug'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON f g .J ,y ; WASHINGTON. D. C. 20565 a 5 / %EP ! 2 1980 Task Action Plan A-8 Docket Nos.: 50-358,50/352/353,50-3'67,50-373/378,50-387/388, 50-410, 50-322, 504397 MEMORANDUM FOR: Karl Knial. Chief Generic Issues Branch Division of Safety Technology FROM: C. J. Anderson, A-8 Task Manager Generic Issues Branch, DST APPLICANT: Members of the Mark II Owners Group

SUBJECT:

MEETING WITH MARK II OWNERS TO DISCUSS THE LONG TERM PROGRAM CHUGGING AND LATERAL LOADS (SEPTEMBER 4 AND 5,1981)

Background

In recent months the Mark II owners have made substantial progress in several of the Long Tenn Program (LTP) subtasks. This progress includes: development of the LTP Condensation Oscillation (CO) and the lateral load specifications; submittal of the LTP lateral load report, the 4T CO test report and the improved chugging load methodology report. The staff completed a preliminary review of these reports and conveyed their comments to the owner's group. These coments were attached to the meeting minutes for the NRC/ Mark II owners group meeting of August 5, 1980. These topics were discussed at the September 4 and 5,1980 meeting along with several other related topics. An attendance list and a copy of the meeting handouts are attached. Sumary A sumary of the discussion is provided below. 8010 0 6 OloS //

K. Kniel 1. Introduction, Mr. Davis of the General Electric Company provided an update on the status of Mark II LOCA related reports. A revised chugging interim load report is to be submitted early in September 1980. Most of the remaining chugging load reports are to be submitted in October 1980. The chugging load definition verification report is scheduled for February 1981 2. Condensation Oscillation Loads Mr. Torbeck of General Electric described the generic C0 load definition proposed by the Mark II owners for the Long Term Program. The load is basically the same as the interim load proposed by the owners for the lead plants in July 1980. The load reflects the results of the 4T C0 tests conducted during 1979 and 1980. It represents a bound of the CO loads observed in the 4T C0 tests. As in the case of the interim CO loads, two loads have been proposed (i.e., a basic CO load and a CO load for the combination of CO and Automatic Depressurization System (ADS). In addition generic guidelines are to be developed by the Mark II owners to provide for plant unique adjustments for pool geometry and pool temperature effects. The staff indicated that the proposed loads appeared conservative. The staff asked that the Mark II owners provide information to show that the 4T C0 test conditions represent a bound of all Mark II plant conditions. The specific areas of interest are vent steam mass flux and vent air content. The LTP Mark II CO load definition report is scheduled to be submitted October 31, 1S80. 3. Mark II Improved Chugging Methodology A.16 Mr. Ashley of the Bechtel Power Corporation responded to coninents and questions raised by the staff. These consnents were attached to the i meeting minutes of the August 5,1980, NRC/ Mark II Owners group meeting. The staff and our consultants concentrated the review of the proposed method to the IWEGS/ MARS computer programs exclusive of the chugging load specification. A revised LTP chugging load is to be described in the chugging source load definition report scheduled for October 31, 1980. The staff does not see any problems with the IWEGS/ MARS codes provided a reasonably conservative source specification is proposed.

g, @ I2 1980 K. Kniel Professor Scanlan an NRC consultant provided the followirg comments related to his review of the chugging methodology described in NEDE-24822-P: "A remaining question is to further confinn the basic validity of the FSI-type wall load used to load a dry structure. This load is the one based on the locally reactive structure concept. The method does give good.results in one example. However, a further more general defense of the use of such a load should be made. It is clear that such a load is theoretically only an approximation; however, it may be a supportable choice. A further back-up to this choice should be given." 4. Downcomer Lateral Loads l Dr. Borhaug of General Electric responded to connents raised by the staff. These coments were attached to the meeting minutes of the August 5,1980 meeting. A stenary of Dr. Borhaug's responses is attached. Dr. Sonin, an NRC consultant, reiterated his concern regarding the ability of the Mark II Owners to accurately determine the applied dynamic load period,7, from experimental data. Comparisons between the calculated and the experimental values of the lateral loads are stengly affected by this determination. Dr. Borhaug referenced Chapter 4 or NEDE-2406-P for the method of determination of the load period from exparimental data. He estaimated that the uncertainty band in this measurement was +~6".. The staff stated that additional documentation of the response to our questions was required. The staff plans to reissue the lateral load questions, considering the September 4, 1980 discussions, as formal questions to the Mark II Owners. This will be done in about three weeks. 5. C.15 Submerged Structures Mr. Lum of the Bechtel Power Corporation discussed the Mark II Owners Task C.15 related to submerged structure drag loads. Submerged structure drag load criteria in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0487 reference loads described on a specific plant docket. The Mark II owners expressed a desire to use a generic document outside of any individual Mark II plant's design assessment report. They stated that the generic document that they plan to reference is sub.tantially the same as the plant unique document referenced in NUREG-0487 Supplement 1. Several technical differences between the two documents were discussed. It appeared to the staff that the differences were :.inor. However, the

K. Kniel -4 SEP 1 2 1980 staff indicated a reluctance to review this report considering other NRC review priorities. Mr. Anderson of the NRC and Dr. Chau of the Mark II Owners agreed to discuss the review of this document in about two weeks. 6. A.5.7 Ring Vortex Model Mr. Shah of Burns and Roe and Dr. Chu of Columbia University discussed the Ring Vortex model. This included a sucinary of the Phase I effort and a description of the new Phase II efforts. The Phase II program includes an extension of the model into the post water clearing period. The results of sensativity studies and model/ data comparisons were presented. 7. Fatique and Building Response Dr. S. Hou of MEB has requested the schedule and the approcches to be used for resolving two staff concerns: (1) Fatigue efforts to downcomers and SRV discharge pipes due to SRV actuations and small LOCA induced cyclic loads, and (2) Effects of newly defined Mark II loads to piping and mechanical components which were designed under previously defined Mark II loads using Rams Heads. Dr. H. Chau, Chaiman of the Mark II Owners Group indicated that analyses are proceeding in lead Mark II plants. Concerns will be addressed on a plant by plant basis in accordance with individual plant licensing schedules. For the Shoreham, Zimer and LaSalle plants, submittals will be ready for NRC review in December, 1980. Approaches to be used were briefly outlined by Dr. Chau. He also indicated that the staff will receive a letter response from him after the meeting. Concluding Coments, Several important milestons are scheduled for the A-8 Program in the next two months. These include: Receipt of the revised interim C0 loads report, staff preparation of the interim C0/ Chugging load report, receipt of the LTP chugging and CO load definition reports and receipt of significant additional data related to domestic scaled multivent steam tests and foreign full scale tests. The staff believes that significant progress has been made toward the completion of the Mark II pool dynamic

4EP I 2 1980 K. Kniel 5-loads program. The Mark II owners indicated that they would be ready to i discuss the LTP chugging load with the staff some time during the week l of October 5,1980. The details of this meeting will be finalized within the next two weeks. Clifford J. Anderson A-8 Task Manager Generic Issues Branch f Attachments: As stated cc: A-8 Internal Distribution List A-8 External Distribution List

.o Mark II/NRC Meeting 9/5/80 Clifford Anderson NRC/ DST /GIB W. M. Davis GE H. Chau long Island Lighting Company J. E. Metcalf Stone and Webster J. R. Lehner BNL F. Eltawila NRC/DSI/CSB T. M. Su NRC/ DST /GIB 4 X. Rienkowski BNL/ Princeton T. Zazueta CFE/MEX S. Zorrilla ININ-CFE/MEX A. Gomez ININ-CFG/MEX A. Shah Burns and ROE C. X. Chu B&R (Columbia University) K. J. Green Sargent and Lundy R. O. Ralph Commonwealth Edison B. Bedrosian Burns and Roe, Inc. D. Baker Burns and Roe, Inc. M. Hershey Burns and Roe, Inc. E. Fredenburg WPPSS

0. M. O'Connor BECHTEL J. J. Whittle Philadelphia Electric Company Tim Lum BECHTEL L. Steinert GE Dale Roth Pennsylvania Power Light R. F. McClelland GE J. Weyandt BECHTEL T. L. Wana Stone A Webster H. S. Yu EBASCO H. R. Asare EBASCO J. Wilnshurst EBASCO R. Hoagland GE

o' NRC/ Mark II Meeting 9/4/80 C. J. Anderson NRC/ DST /GIB G. Bienkowski BNL/ Princeton John R. Lehner BNL Farouk Eltawila NRC/ DST /CSB Pei-Yina Chen NRC/DE/E08 Larry Steinert GE John E. Torbeck GE W. M. Davis GE 1 H. Chau Long Island Liohting Company J. E. Metcalf Stone and Webster C. Calderin CNSNS/MEX T. Zazueta CFE/MEX J. Wilmshurst EBASCO H. S. Yu EBASCO H. R. Asare EBASCO D. J. Roth Pennsylvania ~ Power and Light J. A. Weyandt BECHTEL T. L. Wano Stone and Hebster F. L. Ooden NMPC E. R. Klein NMPC R. F. McClelland GE M. Hershey Burns and Roe B. Bedrosian Burns and Roe D. Baker Burns and Roe E. A. Fredenburg WPPSS

0. R. Hoaaland GE R. E. Kingston GE T. Trocki GE J. R. Fitch GE J. J. Whittle Philadelphia Electric Comoany D. M. O'Connor BECHTEL

-Tim Lum BECHTEL C. N. Krishnaswamy Sargent and Lundy R. O. Ralph Commonwealth Edison K. J. Green Sarnent and Lundy D. J. Frederick Gn&E Company G. K. Asaley BECHTEL R. J. Muzzy GE A. A. Sonin MIT (for BNL) T. M. Lee RSR/NRC R. H. Scanlan Princeton Unive;sity/BNL

M MARK 11 OWNERS /NRC MEETING BETHESDA,MD SEPTEMBER 4, 1980 SUBJECT TIME 8:30 m o INTRODUCTION i o CONDENSATION OSCILLATION (C.O.) LOAD DEFINIT 8:45 m e DATA BASE e BASIC C.O. LOAD e C.O. LOAD FOR COMBINATION WITH ADS e PLANT UNIQUE MODIFICATIONS e CONSERVATISMS e SumARY ~ 10:30 m o BREAK 10:45 m o RESPONSE TO HRC A.16 QUESTIONS 12:00 N0oN o LUNCH. 1:00 m o RESPONSE TO NRC LATERAL LOAD QUESTIONS 1:45 PM o C.15 SUBMERGED STRUCTURES s 2:30 m o A.5.7 RING VORTEX MODEL 3:30 m o FATIGUE AND BUILDING RESPONSE 4:15 m o NRC CAUCUS 5:15 m o ADJOURN

MARK II LOCA REPORT STATUS e 4T CONDENSATION OSCILLATION TEST PROGRAM MAY 1980 FINAL TEST REPORT NEDE 24811-P MARK II CONDENSATION OSCILLATION LOAD OCTOBER 31 DEFINITION REPORT e 4TC0 CHUGGING DATA REPORT EARLY OCTOBER e MARK II CHUGG'ING SOURCE LOAD DEFINITION OCTOBER 31 REPORT ~ A?llSUBSCALEf.1ULTIVENTTESTFINALREPORT OCTOBER 31 e MARK 11 CHUGGING LOAD DEFINITION M i VERIFICATION REPORT

  1. c$ ?I l
1.

. :c.:.: .I t MARK"fi"5$NERIC"dDN5$N55fIdN"d5Ci((4TidNI ND"D$FYNYTidN' e BACKGROUND e DESCRIPTION ~ e LOAD BASIS o APPLICATION e JUSTIFICATION / COMPARISON OF MARK II AND 4TC0. CONDITIONS. e 'COMPARIS0N OF MARK II AND 4TC0 GEOMETRIES e o COMPARISON OF MULTIVENT AND 4TCO DATA e P0TENTIAL PLANT UNIQUE ADJUSTMENTS e POOL GE0 METRY o P00L' TEMPERATURE ^ o

SUMMARY

JET 9/80

I .I t e DESCRIPTION OF LOAD DEFINITION e TWO LOAD CASES e BASIC CO LOAD e C0 LOAD FOR COMBINATION WITH ADS e LOAD SPECIFIED AS TIME HISTORIES e 4TCO BOTTOM CENTER PRESSURE e DISTRIBUTED AS SHOWN IN FIGURE 2.5 4TCODRblELLPRESSURE e APPLIED UNIFORMLY THROUGHOUT DRYWELL e e JET 9/80

- ~ ' ' ~' s* .'s .8-ORYYtELL n J WETWELL AeM5 PACE f vENr f FOR NODE CN L PEQESTAL g PCOLSURFACE j v v T r v 7 T 7 9 j g i e 4 + + + ,4- + + + Y r I i ( FOR N00 E ON CONTAWME N

  • s iei Si1,ir "1r s' <r ir 1'y 1'V T" " "

i N_ 'FOR NOOE ON 7LOOR / i . FIGURE 2.Sa) OVERVIEW OF DISTRIBUTION ~ s I WrATER SURPAC23 5 5 ~ NENT ExtT) i g t f (CONTAINMENT SASE) l / Nom.MUZEu PntssunE (P/P4TCO) FIGURE 2.5b) DETAILOFDISTRIBuiTON FIGURE 2.5 WETWELL PRESSURE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION JET Q /00

4TC0 PRESSURE DATA FOR BASIC CO LOAD 1 1 l l ITCU'RON TYM51$5 Yds 155d5i 4 l l 3 13 To 15 4 10 To 12 5 19 To 21, 8 5 To 9 9 10 To 22 10 26 To 30 12 22 To 25 15 31 To 48 22 13 To 21 ~ 2l.' 12 To 14 ~~ i 26 16 To 24 27 18 To.34 28 19 To 21 4TC0 PRESSURE DATA FOR ADS 4 CO LOAD 13 50 To 59 14 50 To' 59 JET 9/80 w ,4 ^

'l t. e llTC0 DATA SELECTION FOR BASIC CO LOAD o INCLUDE ALL 2 SECOND PERIODS WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO PSD ENVELOPE IN FREQUENCY RANGE O TO 60 Hz ifAD PLANT APPfm01 AND PK II GEERIC APPRdACH EQUIVALENT, EXCEPT IDD PLANT DATA BASE LIMITED TO SUFPRESSI.CN. POOL TEMPERATURES REPRESENTATIVE FOR ~ SECIFIC LEAD PIRIS 9 ~ ~ JET 9/80

.I i 4TC0 DATA SELECTION FOR C0 LOAD FOR COMBINATION WIT o o CRITERIA ~ o 21/8 INCH BREAKS o VENT STEAM MASS FLUX LESS THAN UPPER BOUND FOR ADS ACTUATION o SELECTED 4TC0 DATA e BOTTOM CENTER WETWELL PRESSURE AND DRYWELL PRESSURE TIME HISTORIES e TIMEPERIODSI RUN 13 50 TO 59 SEC RUN 14 50 TO 59 SEC JET - 9/80

') L ~ 30sTipitnifdN5 o 4TCO CONDITIONS VS, MARK II 4TCO GE0 METRY VS'.' MARK II o 4TC0 DATA VS FULL-SCALE MULTIVENT DATA o O i e C e JET 9/80

I I t f W I l 305fiFidniidN : "liff "is5t"CdfibifEdN5 l e BASED ON COMPARISONS OF CALCULATED J MARK II CONDITIONS WITH 4TCO I MEASURED VALUES e 4TCO TESTED CONDITIONS ENVELOPE MARK II BLOWDOWN CONDITIONS ~ i JET 9/80

e. I h ~ liU5TipithfidN'Z"liidd"dtdMstpv BASED ON DIRECT COMPARISON OF KEY i o GEOMETRIC PARAMETERS BETWEEN 4TC0 AND MARK II PLANTS 4TC0'GE0 METRY IS BOUNDING OR o REPRESENTATIVE OF MARK II PLANT ~ . GE0METRIES l JET 9/80 .,m-m - -,. ,,,-wwr

k e + u. 4TCO VS MK II PARAMET2RS PARAMETER 4TCO MK II RANGE 1. Break Area Per Vent, (ft ) 0.0253 - 0.0796 0.025 - 0.049 2 2. Vent Length, (ft) 45.3 36.75 - 51.0 3. Vent Submergence, (ft) 9.0 - 13.0 9.0 12.33 4. Vent to Pool Bottom Clearance,. (ft) 11.8 Y.0 19.0' i 5. Pool Area / Vent Area Ratio 11.25 14.5 19.4 3 6. Drywell Volume Per Vent, (ft ) 1910 1966 3 2754 . t 7. Wetwell Airspace /Drywell Volume 0.6 0.52 0.73 8. Pool Mass Per Vent, (S lb ) 48000 - 58000 54000 - 90500 I m l l 1 i e e e O

} 'J 2 ~ \\ UU5TY#YCATiON'- "l ftd"5fNdls"t$(( i i i e BASED ON COMPARIS0NS OF SUPPRESSION POOL WALL PRESSURES IN 4TCO AND JAERI AT NEARLY EQUIVALENT BLOWDOWN CONDITIONS 4TC0 WALL PRESSURES BOUND MULTIVENT ~ e VALUES i

-3 e

e e JET 9/80 l

'J i 5UMMAR e TWO CASES FOR MARK II GENERIC CO LOAD HAVE BEEN DEFINED o 4TC0 DATA IS CONSERVATIVE FOR ESTABLISHING THESE LOADS o TEST CONDITIONS BOUND MARK II o TEST GE0 METRY BOUNDING OR REPRESENTATIVE OF MARK II e SINGLE VENT DATA BOUNDS MULTIVENT DATA LOAD DEFINITION BASED ON CONSERVATIVE (BOUNDING) e SELECTION OF 4TCO DATA l O JET 9/80 w

( 'l _y HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE I t 4 e MARK ll PROGRAM MODELS A (DFFR, NEDO-21471, NEDO-21730) e NRC CRITERIA - NUREG-0487 (CRITERIA lil.B.1.a THRU Ill.B.1.f) ~ e LEAD PLANT RESPONSE (ZIMMER DOCKET, DAR) ~ e GENERIC (FOLLOW-ON PLANT) RESPONSE (TASK C.15 DOCUMENT) I i e NRC CRITERIA SUPPLEMENT - NUREG-0487 SU.PPLEMENT 1 (DRAFT) i

ll WHY TASK C.15? ~ TASK C.15 REPRESENTS THE MARK ll ,.i GROUP'S DESIRE TO MAINTAIN A GENERIC RESPONSE TO THE SUBMERGED STRUCTURE l LOAD CRITERIA OF NUREG-0487, OUTSIDE OF ANY INDIVIDUAL MARK ll PLANT'S DESIGN l ~ ASSESSMENT REPORT. i i ) \\

s DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE LEAD PLANT RESPONSE AND THE ~ ~ TASK C.15 DOCUMENT

1. LIFT FORCES ARE NOT CONSIDERED DURING FALLBACK
2. NO CREDIT IS TAKEN FOR THE BUOYANCY FACTOR DURING FALLBACK
3. THE INTERFERENCE EFFECT ON DRAG LOAD CALCULATIONS FOR CYLINDERS OF UNEO.UAL DIAMETER IS MORE DETAILED
4. APPROPRIATE DATA FOR FLAT PLATE LIFT COEFFICIENTS ARE CITED WITH CL =.1.6 RECOMMENDED AS AN UPPER BOUND (PER NUREG-0487 SUPPLEMENT 1)

l ,9 l LIFT FORCES DURING FALLBACK l LIFT ORCES DURING FALLBACK ARE NOT j a e TEST FILMS SHOW THAT A CONTIGUOUS, SOLID SLUG DOES NOT EXIST AFTER BUBBLE BREAK THROUGH (DURING POOL l SWELL) o THE LIFT LOADS DUE TO VORTEX ~ SHEDDING OVER HORIZONTAL STRUCTURES CAN'NOT BE GENERATED o FULL INERTIA AND DRAG LOADS ARE CONSIDERED DURING FALLBACK, AND REPRESENT A CONSERVATIVE APPROACH

BUOYANCY FACTOR DURING FALLBACK NO CREDIT IS TAKEN FOR THE BUOYANCY EFFECT DURING FALLBACK e FOR CYLINDERS, THE INERTIA COEFFICIENT i IS TAKEN TO BE '2.0' FA*C f V Cm = 2.0 FOR m A CYLINDERS (TASK C.15) i FA*CH V CH=Cm - 1.0 A = 2.0 - 1.0 FOR CYLINDERS (LEAD i PLANT RESPONSE) j

d $r %r

?? $po t$5*

/// On h/Y*y /g,$ $hk,? %'D* 4,gNNd IMAGE EVALUATION j TEST TARGET (MT-3) i i 1'0 9 2H Is y m g=E em = l-l b m {0 L l 1.8 1.25 IA I.6 i V MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART l $,%i, /f4% .m o sb w sa,a a,, y 6 O 4 gg# (&

\\\\ g y %(? 4A Rf// Ilf/2 ,y k 3 y IMAGE EVALUATION NN\\ TEST TARGET (MT-3) j i l l.0 5 2 H L23 m EH p*22 N EL% l.1 (( llllM l l.8 l.25 1.4 1.6 ] i 4-gu MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART ,$ A # O*e, $e, <4 es f g/g ///, pf e px

i j j INTERFERENCE EFFECT ON l DRAG LOAD CALCULATIONS ~ I l l TASK C.15 SUGGESTS MAKING ADDITIONAL I COMPARISONS WHEN CONSIDERING A LARGE CYLINDER INTERFERING WITH THE FLOW FIELD OF A SMALL UPSTREAM j CYLINDER. THE CASES CONSIDERED ARE: i o POTENTIAL FLOW: i A m Y, fQ FLOW l DIRECTION l l 0 NO INTERFERENCE ~ I h g FLOW l DIRECTION i

b 4 ~ ~ 1NTERFERENCE EFFECT ON. l DRAG LOAD CALCULATIONS (Cont) l j. O INTERFERENCE WITH BOTH CYLINDERS ll THE SIZE OF THE SMALL CYLINDER

  1. 4 l

FLOW 4 DIRECTION Y ~ l o INTERFERENCE WITH BOTH CYLINDERS l THE SIZE OF THE LARGE CYCLINDER o> ( l FLOW DIRECTION hy 1 t l THE LARGEST LOAD 15 CONSIDERED l

l-LIFT COEFFICIENTS i FOR FLAT PLATES I i TASK C.15 ADOPTED THE NUREG-0487 SUPPLEMENT 1 (DRAFT) POSITION, IE., o CITE APPROPRIATE DATA o OR USE A BOUNDING VALUE OF CL = 1.6 E2 F=CL V t 2

1 L GENERIC RESPONSE TO CRITERION III.B.I.E, BLOCKAGE / INTERFERENCE EFFECTS ON DOWNCOMER BRACING LOAD CALCULATIONS APPENDIX F 0F TASK C.15 WILL BE SUBMITTED e SEPTEMBER 1980 eAPPENDIXFEXCEEDSTHEREQUIREMENTSbFTHE CRITERION REFERENCE PANKHURST & HOLDER e ,,.-,-----w -re---- r * - "' " * ~ ~ ' ' " * " ' ' " ~ ' ' ' ~ ~ '

i CRITERION SUBJECT MUREG-OL!87 SECTION C.15 REPORT POSITION III.B.1(A)- VELOCITY ASYMMETRY III.D.2.A.1 ACCEPTABLE' ~ Ill.B.1(B) UNSTEADY FLOW EFFECTS ON lll.D.2.A.2 APPENDIX -A DRAG COEFFICIENTS l lII.B.1(C) !!ON-UNIFORM FLOW ALGNG lli.D.2.A.3 APPENDICIES B & C STRUCTURES-VELOCITY 9 AVERAGING 1 III.B.l(o) INTERFERENCE EFFECTS Ill.D.2.A.4 APPENDICIES D & E ~$PENDIxF l III.B.l(E) BLOCKAGE Ill.D.2'.A'.5 A l 1II.B.l(F) MODIFICATION OF FORMULA 111.D.2.A.6 ACCEPTABLE ~ - - - -.. - -.. - ~.. i 1

-{ .'^ l; SPECIFIC NEDE-24794-P COMMENTS JULY 29, 1980 .I i 1. IN BOTH REFERENCE TESTS 1 AND 2s ONLY BRACE LOAD DATA ARE AVAILAB(E AND,,IN: THE CASE OF TEST 1, RELATIVELY LITTLE OF THAT. . HON WAS THE' l DYNAMIC' LOAD PERIdD T (AS REPORTED IN FIGS. 5-3 AND 6-3)' DETERMINED (- FROM THE DATA IN THESE REFERENCE TESTS? THE QUOTED PERIODS T ARE r* MUCH SHORTER THAN THE DOMINANT NATURAL PERIOD OF OSCtLLATION OF THE j! RESPECTIVE DOWNCOMERS, ONDER SbCH CONDITIONS,.THE BRACE LOAD SHOULD y DEPEND ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THE.IMPJJ.LSE OF THE DYNAMIC LOAD, INDEFENDENT [ OF ITS PERIOD. HENCE, THE PERIOD OF THE DYt:AMIC LOAD CANNOT BE BACKED h:, 2. OUT ACCURATELY (OR UN100ELYT FROM LOAD BRACE DATA. jij IF INDEED TH'E VALUES OF T CANNOT BE JETERMINED UNIOUELY FRd OF REFERENCE TEST 1 AND 2 TilEN THE EXPERIMENTAL DATA FROM TliESE TESTS SHOULh BE SHOWN NOT AS POINTS, SUT AS tl0RI20NTAL LINES, ON FL,GS. 5-3 AND 5-3. THIS WOulD 'MEAN THAT THE EXPERIMENTAL DATA OF REFERENCE l TEST 1 (FIG. 5-3) LIES SOME 507. ABOVE THE CURVE COMPUTED FROM THE [ GE DLF AT T = 6MSj AND THE DATA 0F REFERENCE TEST 2 (rtG. 6-3) LIES }F: SOME 10% ABOVE THE DLF CURVE AT T = 6MS. f-3. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND CE'TAIN DESCREPANCIES BETWEEN FIGS. 5-3 AND 6-3 R p ON THE ONE HAND, AN6 FIGi 3-1 ON THE OTHER. FIRST, SINCE THE STRUC- ~ ![. TURAL MdDEL IS LINEAR, 'A PARTICULAR BRACE LOAD (FIGS, 5-3 AND 6-3) SHOUL9 BE LINEARLY RELATED TO THE AMPLITUDE A 0F THE CORRESPONDING b APPLI.2 DLF, OTHER THINGS BEING INVAR LENT. WHY THEN IS THE-T = SMs - DATA POINT 'FOR REFERENCE TEST 2 ABOVE THE GE DLF CURVE IN FIG. 6-3, I BUT BELOW IT IN FIG.13-1? -AND WHY IS THE HIGHEST DATA POINT OF REFERENCE TEST 126% ABOVE THE'GE DLF AT T = 3HS IN FIG. 5-3, BUT { ONLY 16% ABOVE IT IN FIG. 3-1. SECONDLY, IN FIG. 3-1, WHERe din THE l. REFERENCE TEST 2 DATA PolNT AT T = 3MS COME FROM? ON FIG, 6-3, T IS h.,: GIVEN AS 5 t 0.3MS FOR REFERENCE TEST 2. I0 4. CERTAIN POINTS ABOVE THE " PAR 5 METRIC NORMALf2ATION":NE5D..' EXPLANATION. .:[f FOR EXAMPLE, WE FIND ON'P. 5-4r "Tns POOL TEMPERATURE DEPENDENCY i PREVIOUSLY REPORTED FOR REFERENCE TEST 1 DOES NOT APPEAR To PERSIST WHEN THE LATTER DATA IS NORMALIZED TO' THE 4 T TEST COND1TIONg." WE DO NOT SEE HOW A DEPENDENCY ON TEMPERATURE CAN -DISAPPEAR'JUST .l BY NORMALIZATION, FURTHERMORE, THE " NORMALIZED" DATA STILL SEEMS . 't TO SHOW A TEMPERATURE EFFECT - COMPARE FIGS. 5-6 AND 5-8, FOR exAMPte

.... ; w

~.. .. lh h... '. ~ :: ...... $ - $ A T Y. z %..h.r r-,-, e .ma, - - - - -.---.---.--.m- --m,-,- --,-,,,-.._..,,---,,---,,,--r n..w,.,.,-n, .,s

' ~ [ l ~ J\\ -) ANSWERS TO COMMENTS ON NEDE-2494-P .i REPORT JULY 29, 1980 1. TH5 APPLIED DYNAMIC LOAD PERIOD T-WAS DETERMINED FROM THE EXPERIM[ E ,i. DATA Fi A REF, TEST 1 AND 2 IN A MAtiNER IDENTICAL TO THAT USED Ltr THE ' ORIGIN /.IIT LOAD DEFINITION WORK (REF. NEDE-2406-P), THE PROCEDURE. . {. MATHIM.TICALLY SIMULATES THE DOWNCOMER RESPONSE TO TRIAL VALUES OF .[ TIP LOAD AMPLITUDES.AND LOAD APPLICATION PERIODS AND SELECTS TH5 T UNIQUE COMBINATION OF AMPLITUDE AND APPLICATION PERIOD THAT REPRODUCES i.b THE.EXPERIMENTALL.Y OBSERVED MOTION AND' SUPPORT STRESSES. 'THE STRUCTURE 1 j RESPONDS Id A PURELY TRANSIENT. MODE DURING THE RAPID LOAD APPLICATION l: ' ANN !S GOVERNED SOLELY B'Y THE "PARTICULAR SOLUTION" Td THE EQUATION OF MOTION FOR THIS CONTINUOUS SYSTEM. T}iE EFFECTS OF ANY OF Tile l NATURAL PER.iODS OF OSCILLATION ARE VERY SMALL'AND THE' SYSTEMS TIP } RESPONSE IS PRACTICALLY A " FORCE-FOLLOWER" TYPE RESPOMSEr TilAT IS, IT IS LINEAR WITH AMPLIiUDE OF Tile. APPLIED. LOAD AND NONLINEARLY SEN-- i;-[ 31 TIVE TO..GiAtLGES. IM. LOAD APPLICAII.QN..P.E.R,LGl. DUE Td 111E INERTIA jf EFFECT OF THE FREE LENGT}i 0F THE DOWNCOMER AND ITS VIRTUAL FLUID f MASS, THE. BRACING RESPONSE PERIOD ISJ IN GENERAL; SOMEWHAT t.ONGER THAN f. THE APPLICATION PERIOD FOR"T}iE' TYPE OF TRANSIENTS OBSERVED DURING-f5 ' LATERAL LOAD,RESPON'ES. Tif1S BEHAVIOR IS. GOVERNED BY THE FLEXURAL MODE S j, SHAPES EXCITED BY THE APPLIED LOAD AND THEIR NODAL POSITIONS RELATIVE f TO THE LOCATION OF THE B' RACE ATTACHMENT POINT AND ARE, FOR EXAMPLE, l. QUITE DIFFERENT IN REF.' TEST 1 AND 2, x s N 2. IT HAS BeEN SH0wN Ct.EARLY THAT UNIQUE AND SEPARABLE VALUES OF PIITUDE g .[ AND DURATION OF THE APPLIED LOAD CAN BE DETERMINED. FROM EXPERIMENTAt. N TIME HISTORY DATA 0F BOTH TIP AND BRACING RESPONSES.,, THE' ACCURACY OF'. i THE PROCEDURE IS 'PRIMARILY GOVERNED BY THE AVAILABLE ' TIME RESOLUTION ?, IN THE REFERENCE DATA, BUT YIELDS UNIOUE ASSIGNMENT OF BOTH. AMPLITUDE '? " AND. PERIOD OF THE APPLIED LOAD REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THE DISCRETE LATERAL LOAD RESPONSE EVENTS OBSERVED EXPERIMENTALLY. PRESENTATION OF THE j CORRELATED REFERENCE DATA AS HOTIZONTAL LIllES IS. THEREFOREi NOT SUPPORTE: BY THIS INVESTIGATION AND SHOULD REMAIN AS DISCRETE POINTS, PERHAPS; j iHOUGHs WITH~AN INDICATED UNCERTAINTY BAND OF 1 0%. ~ ~1 muA

i[

-i ANSWERS TO COMMENTS ON NEDE-2494-P " ~ T. REPORT JULY 29, 1980 CDRUNUED_. t i 4 I 3. THE STRUCTURAL MODEL IS LINEAR AND RESP 003 LINEARLY AS STATS 0 BY THE REVIEWER. THE DATA SHOWN IN FIGURES 5-1 AND 6-3 ARE EXPERIMENTALLY [5 OBSERVED RflP.D.N.SE VALUES IN TERMS 'OF BRACE' LOAD VECTOR AND ITS RES20NSE h: PERIOD. Tile' DATA SHOWN. IN FIGURE 3.-1 IS IN 1ERMS OF APPr rFD i O(( [y AMPL1TLDE AND PERIOD. p.1 ~ i IT ALSQ APPEARS THAT THE REVIEWERS CONCERN IS CAUSED BY A POSSIBLE M AMBIGUITY IN IDENTIFYING CORRESPONDING RhW TEST DATA IN FIGURES 5-3 U AND 6-3 WITH THE CORRELATED SOMMARY LOADS.IN FIGURE 3-1. TO FURTH5R CLARIFY THIS ITEM, FIGURES 5-3 AND 6-3 HAVE BEET [ RELABELED TO INCLUDE THE WORD " RESPONSE." ALSos THE CORRESPONDING BOUNDING RESEDNSES AND BOUNDING APELIED. LOADS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED BY (1) AND };., (2) ON FIG. 3-1,.5-3, AND 6-3. 11 T. I h THE 5. MSEC DATA i OINT IN FIG. 3-1, (NOW MARKED (3)) Is 60T SHOWN IN FTGURE 6-3. THIS OAS ONLY ONE OF MANY SIMILAR, LOWER AMPLITUDE RES90NS: SEl'ECTED TO DEMONSTRATE.THAT REFERENCE TEST 2 SHOWS SIMILAR FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIP' BETWEEN. APPL,IED LOAD AMPLITUDE AND PERIOD AS FOUND, IN THE t. NT TEST RESULTS. '4. ' REFERENCE 1EST 1 WAS A SET OF CONSTANT MASS FLUX, VARIABLE POOL' TEMPERA-l TURE TESTS FROM.WHICH COMPARISONS WITH 4T COULD BE MADE dT FIXED MASS i,, F.UXES AND INSTANTANEOUS AVERAGE POOL TEMPERATtJRES. WHEN THESE "EQUIV-N ' AL ENT" CONDITIONS WERE INVESTIGATED, NO APPARENT TEMPERATURE EFFECT WAS !.1 FOUND IN REFERENCE 1. p i [. FIGURES 5-6 AND 5-8 SHOW INCREASE IN BOUNDIh.G LOAD ONLY AND NO STAT TREND TOWARDS HIGHER LATERAL LOAD WITH TEMPERATURE IS~ EVIDENT.* A SINGLE l INCIDENT OF HIGHER LOAD SHOULD NOT SE MADE CHARACTERtSTIC OF A PARAMETR I! DEPENDENCY. I! I j REFERENCE TEST 2 WHICH WAS A 4T COMPATIBLE ELOWDOWN TEST SHOWS NO TENDE: j' FOR THE MAXIMUM -l.0 ADS

  • To OCCUR TOMARDS HIGHER POOL TEMPERATURES.

"W'e 'r !n'a AV -9'r%8 % ak.+5se 44-6 e hWe, a mer e r% s r t iMRK II Ot!!!ERS/ilRC FLEETING BETHESDA,iiD. SEPTEi1BER 5,1980 BUR!!S a R0E PRESEi!TATIO!! 0F PHASE II 0F RIi!G VORTEX il0 DEL (TASK A,5.7) I e SUiTiARY OF PHASE I EFFORT e ADDITIO!!AL TOPICS e MODEL EXTEilSIO!I It!TO POST-!iATER CLEAR e B00HDARY PRESSURE CALC'JLATI0il ~~ II e POST-MATER CLEAR TEST OBSERVATI0f!S & [10 DEL / DATA C0f1 PARIS 0l1S e 300i!DARY PRESSURES TEST OBSERVATI0i1S a (40 DEL / DATA C0!4 PARIS 0ilS l e TYPICAL FLOU FIELDS'& LOAD CALCULATI0il PROCEDURES ~ -.

I. -SU.91ARY OF PHASE I EFFORT o RING VORTEX MODEL DEVELOPED o VALIDATED AGAINST EPRI TEST DATA USING VEHT EXIT VELOCITY UP TO MEASURED VENT CLEARING TIME o NON-DIMENSIONAL JET GROWTH (PENETRATION AND WIDTH) STUDIED FOR EPRI, 4T, WPPSS-NP 2, LA SALLE, SHOREHAM, USING ANALYTICALLY OBTAI.' LED VENT EXIT VELOCITY o RESULTS SHOW JET GROWTH INSEilSITIVE TO B0Vi1DARIES WITHIN MARK II BOUNDARY PARAMETER RANGES o RESULTS SHOW STRONG DEPENDAi1CE OF JET GROWTH ON VENT EXIT VELOCITY TIME HISTORY l l

L, h i H RING VORTEX MODEL INPUT: a, R, D, U (t) U(t) = VENT EXIT VELOCITY T = VENT CLEARING TIME X(t) = f,' U(t)dt = MENISCUS; X(T) = H 'r a a i d PARAMETERS FOR SENSITIVITY ANALYSES y " FOOT" UNITS w CELL H D a R R*/a 8 D/a EPRI-10" 2.82 .667 .0729 .333l 20.9 9.15 4T-Run 22 11.2 12.0 .802 3.44 18.4 14.96 D WNP-28 11.67 9.09 1.135 3.4 '8.97 8.01 i SHOREHAM 8.95 9.0 .969 4.06 '17.64 9.29 LA SALLE - 12.98 14.49 .98 5.67 33.5 14.79 M K ll* 8.8 8.3 .969 3.4 12.0 8.57 RANGES 13.5 18.0 1.135 4.37 20.0 15.86 l R: 'FROM REFERENCE S I tFOR w/a vs X/a SEE FIGURE 8 f FOR d/a vs X/a SEE FIGURE 9 ,r RING VORTEX MODEL INP'UT DESCRIPTION AND PARAMETERS FOR SENSITIVITY ANALYSES FIGURE 7

t 5.0 - - C L c3 W 4.0 - - e C us 2 C 5 C a T $3.0-R W-3 L 3 LEGEND: 9 s W WPPSS - NP2 3 3 EPRI 10" TEST 387 $2.0-T 4T-22 C EPRI CONST. U S SHOREHAM L LaSALLE l 1.0 - - i I f 9 9 a i 6 i 2.0 4.0. 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 MENISCUS X (t)NENT RADIUS a l l s l RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSES - JET WlDTH FIGURE 8 1 I l

. :. -- = PC = 5.00 P3 = 2.58 i'g = 2.6 P P.T = 2.52 w = 2.52 P3 = 2.53 (@ 9.55) Y = 3.00 C P3 = 1.83 .l PT = 1.70 C IW = 1.73 4,0 - - l ' - = 1.81 jg' = 1.75 a C O LT

  • 3.0 3

H b Z y C s N' q b Z S 9- + y 2.0-g C

  • s*

s = g o u 1.0 - - gy 1 3 0 l l l. 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 MENISCUS X (t)/ VENT RADIUS a LEGEND: W WPPSS - NP2 3 EPRI - 10" TEST 387 T 4T-RUN 22 C EPRI CONST. U S SHCREHAM t f 1/2 U* (t) di L LaSALLE T = DIMENSIONLESS CIRCULATION = J & U(t) t ~ 1 RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANdLYSES - JET PENETRATION' FIGURE 9 {

l. V g t = 0.647 SEC. (BEFORE VENT CLEAR) for WPPSS-WNP2 V'z. NORMALIZED TO 68.45 FT/SEC 1.0 .8 .6 .4 POSITION OF MUSHROOM TIP / v E!y .2 I 5 l P i t I t 0 5 10 15 20 25 H E

  1. OF GRID PTS FROM

[ VENT EXIT 2 (GRID WIDTH =.202 FT) TYPICAL VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION ALONG VENT AXIS FIGURE B1

t = 0.647 SEC (BEFORE VENT CLEAR) FOR WPPSS-WNP2 1 1 A IN FT/SEC2 3 g 1 400 200 POSITION OF MUSHROOM TIP VENT AXIS VENT EXIT { 0 5 10 15 20 25

  1. OF GRID PTS FROM VENT EXIT GRID WIDTH = 0.202 F7.

-200 -400 -600 l -800 TYPICAL ACCELERATION OlSTRIBUTION ALONG VENT AXIS FIGURE B2 y -e ---p-- 9 r-y<y*e -ww -ww-ww a-m yye yg-g yq-y+-m.g. yow.--,7 y--eer,y.- -yw -y%m, p-r..-,gw,- g .ey--+qg4 -- yy y--We-y-me-,-,,-we-y -e -ea - + - -

g. ,4 4 B A s C 9 C l B A, V g UNIF. FLOW B.C. AT B B - - -- - UNIF. FLOW B.C. AT A A 10 g 5 / / - / 0 -- Z VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON CONTINUOUS VS FIGURE B3 DISCONTINUOUS GRADIENT AT EXIT PLANE

M //////////// //////////// A ~ B /j / / U --=- VORTICITY ~ L = 7 PER UNIT LENGTH u / // / // / / / / / / / / / ////////////// e L/B >>1, VORTEX SHEET INFINITESIMAL THICKNESS: u=U T7 for Y O 2 u(y) 6 / a / INFINITESIMAL / / SHEET / / O / SHEET WITH THICKNESS U=4 / s.1 m-

r. -

/ / 11 y / NUMERICAL SOLUTION O / s E f

  • ii

/ /c O C C 2 / / // /, 7 '/ // / / 0 - 8/2 B/2 SAMPLE VORTEX SHEET PROBLEM FIGURE B4

V d g 1 V z = m x = 68.4 FPS 5.1 r " E 8_ 1Z A-A A a 0 \\ /% r 8 8 1 C l C N B-B D D 1 E O 1

Ur C-C Vr max = 29.7 FPS EE 1

D-D 0 Y - r l t =.647 SEC (BEFORE VENT CLEAR) FOR WPPSS WNP 2 I y Z TYPICAL VELOCITY DISTRIBUTIONS IN MUSHROOM VORTEX FIGURE B5 ,i y- ,9 -..p.---,.e,p .----9 &y.y- .---..,.g,--9, y,.--p,--,,..,...y,-----,,,,-,,y%- y,p7.w--m.--, y9--- 9,-,-,-y.g.,, .g m.w-y

30 xw C W E z O E> m H 20 2g x wx > w y w l 10 7 / l / O 1/4 1/2 3/4 e 1 r/a l NEARLY SPHERICAL VORTEX N = FORMATION OF HILL'S VORTEX FIGURE 96 4 --e--e ---,g---g*-.- g 9-w-m-wge---. m -- --w---+-e..ww -- - - - -- - ---yeei,-mm,9--.gw---w-rem-q-S v-e -e yi r-e r ge-wgyw---wm--w-ga-------ggu--y e--.y---3---.y--.wqv-, e.c-eg-ge gw m-y--

FLOW DURING AlR CHARGING TEST OBSERVATI0ilS $A) EPRI TESTS: 10" SUBMERGENCE SCM 435A36 12" SUBMERGENCE SCM 437A38 o INITIALLY AIR CHARGES INTO JET o JET CONTINUES TO GROW Id SIZE o JET DIFFUSES AT TIME LESS THAN 1.15 x VENT CLEARING TIME o JET DIFFUSION DISTANCE ABOUT 1.3 x PENETRATION AT VENT CLEARING '~^

f I i k POSI t l . '40 4 VENT I TION ms FREE SURFACE l - h-i 1-I i f 2 j. 3 1' O 3

d..

hs [ ~ ...L 2 64 "4 3 83 4 103 l TEST TANK I i 5 129 i -. 3~~ 6 134 4 _... !_st 7 167 i' 8 179 9 192 ,.___w g. C l 6 gg 199 3 I ), 204 s

sg i

7 '.. i 11 213 l 1 9 12 222 85 . 18 13 231 P.. 7 14 242 s ..10h 4.. .J, 16 259 J l 77 -i 15 252 I _x s ~4-i 17 267 i . g' gg( k, _.9..J 18 279 ! e-O I M31 19 290 7, ti l.a L-l- VENT EXIT L, 20 303 l iTO 9*)W, 1 3 *. }3 N z ::1' l ...s. a.'.....a. f i s _1 -.a -n-' .,/ L. _i _12 - l 13 __ .s l 34 _. .... 4 __ g. . 18 1 ..t.... _.... 1g. ,.. _. i 2 -.. _..:_......... .... w -...- F. _,.. :..,.....~..--.- . ~.. _______.,i.....,. I i =. .l 4 I s i w f l i l EPRI MOVIE STILLS - TEST SCM-435 - 10" SUBMERGENCE FIGURE 2 p p D D D f s of l .. _ a

ga. .i N i i -' I VENT ' POSI t 1 FREE SURFACE j TION ms ]... .i 1 0 m 1 .. _ '..i s 2 75 2 i 3 98 TEST TANK 3._..I 4 123 5 137 __ ~.. 5 7....._4 1. 6 153 r-3 7 168 4- ~ 8 180 } 9 192 . - 5.. 34 _. .W, _ _j ;. 10 204 11 216 .. - g.>.. 12 229 _.. i.. m T'.- _ _.~ 1.5.. 13 240

3. 3 -

- ~~ 14 253 ~. r...l c.. 15 265 ._ __7.. 12.. - 16 283 s. . r.. .i .. 33 11.. r. ... 9 _ _. _ u. ,... 10.. .. go ....j o VENT EXIT 2 ~ 16 ,, 9 w / W.. :. 6- . > 3.._... s 2 3 4. 6 .__.,q .t,.._.. .r. 7......_ m_......_._..._.. i P __ .a ] a. I__ l .... L.. 12._.... ..a....._.I._ ...s s 13 14 o 15 ...... r.. 16.... - i. 1 _.1.._ .....L. i. 1 a .....l. ..l g I g EPRI MOVIE STILLS - TEST SCM-436 - 10 SUBMERGENCE FIGURE 3

M FREE SURFACE .. A.__.. y VENT u 1 POSI t TION ms T._.-- j 14 ~ Q 14 1 0 3 2 105 TEST TANK t i 3 131 .g. ..3. ..t 4 158

  • 3

. _C 5 182 6 200 ..i.. 13._., 7 213 . 12 -- - - - - - -, - - -. -- t. 8 222 s ._. 4 i. _.. 9 234 t.

i. 11 -

12.. 10 246 c. 33.. 11 260 12 270 13 280 .._.5,_. ...t_...... 14 2 34 so ___ c.. ._._2. ... _ i .a. < 10.. 1 g ._i ...a.,..,.. , \\ .l......., .... I _._., g.. _ . 9..... t._. 1, g. l _1 1 .. __.___.__i 8 _._. ....3... 7 ..._. 1. j. . r... .y VENT EXIT g t ~ 2 a. .T. s > i... i ....... g .w.... 4....._.. ,- w.- ._.w ..._....,. f,. _.. .. x...,..........._.._..t..1_... 1 q j .i A. ~. ) i ) .~- - 1 3 /o I ._._.s

10. L.

?. 11. I2 l .g. 1 .f. .f . l f l l .___..-...,r. .i i . l .t 1 i I t .t EPRI MOVIE ST4 LS - TEST SCM.437 - 12" SUBMERGENCE FIGURE 4 1 l l

~ c FREE SURFACE p VENT POSI t 3 -. - - --

j..

TION ms

  1. U j

0 i 7 _ _. j ..3 ~ .i 3 95 4 110 i

  • 73 5

126 TEST TANK 4 i -l19.._ _ .. _. _._ _. 'i, 6 138 =__ 7 152 .( 5! '! ~ 8 161 i g 373 .'.3s.._. v I ra - 10 176 ..- 6 ' 11 184 . L _./A _... _ '. _. i.. 12 193 [ i

.e _ :...

u mi 11 17.. 13 203 l-7:... 15 229 14 215 ._..S_._,.,.. .. a.: \\-l 16 241 3 ...g 68 rg.._.. .g ..._a.. .- c.r g.

-)

II: -r-. 20 296 8. 3 3. t. - - - rs -- --- ...j . !.- @... '. c 12 Tv...:. .,l .' 13' VENT EXIT ~ 1*2-1 'WN 8):- ~. w_ 3 -.. \\ ',. 4 N 5-7, - 8

j..... g.

j . i 11 / \\i 12 / ...-. 3 4.- ._i e-g 15 - _ 16' 18-39 l i 20 I .l~. j.. EPRI MOV4E STILLS - TEST SCM-438 - 12

  • SUBMERGENCE FIGURE 5 i

- l

TEST OBSERVATIO!iS (CONTINUED) CONCLUSIONS o VENT DYNAMICS A COMPLEX PROCESS o CLEARLY 11EFINEij TRAilSITION FROM WATER CLEARING TO AIR CHARGING NOT POSSIBLE o AIR BEGINS CHARGING IllTO THE WATER JET BEFORE ALL WATER IS CLEARED FROM THE VEiiT WATER JET PROPAGATES AND GROWS DURIi5-AIR o CHARGING o WATER JET DIFFUSES A SHORT DURATION AFTER AIR CHARGlilG BEGIllS, THE DURATION ESTIMATED AS 15% OF THE TIME TO INITIATION OF AIR CHARGING CALLED HENCEFORTH AS VENT CLEARING TIME l 8 -g-- -wrm - ~.--, .,,c,, -g n-e

i j ~. q' YT PIC I T O s TL O e\\ 0 EE 0 JV 2 Y g s T C b

  • I O

L E V b b T 5 I 7/ X 7 E 1 TN g E /-@ V m 0 f 5 1 / 5 m. 2 1 )C E S ( EM I e T 0 m . 0 1 D ET A 6 5 L 3 3 [B. U4 4 5 CTT 70 L S S AE E CTT 3@ 0 5 0 ~ - 5 20 O 5 0 5 0 5 2 0 7 5 2 1 1 o${ ,ED <O'D m(QmhrOcEdO?$3 O > OO3j3u s u0iLI b ]-o ygo$Om~<$d a<mFO q<- 3oE"," n c u u q a9 s rO h <- l i' !i 4 l .!1

e Y

2. i T

b PI e C I T O / TL EE JV ) C \\ E + S ( d E / M _. A A I T _ / b A T Y Q I XT I E C A / 5: TO 1 NL / / EE VV / A g e e g b e 1 D ETA 8 7 L 3 3 g U4 4 CT T L S S AE E CT T A@ 5 d@

0. a

~ 5 0 5 0 5 5 o 7 5 2 0 7 6 2 1 1 1 1 @EW 3zo <odq bO ogocC4Hh2 O>N oo(>202 u o E b~.

  • n k EmEyom

'<E m( <m oo3 > l.m ? N4 45 < OM lt ,I 'll

i i i{

4.0 EPRI MEASUREMENTS e a o MODEL PREDICTIONS EPRI-10 3.5 4] ~ e e 4 I 3.0 9 { ^ 4a 'at $2.5 [ j E a \\ e E ee* e 8 a' 2.0 BOTTOM / sf a s 3/4" BELOW DOWNCOMER EXIT PLANE a# c 1.5 2 c 4" ABOVE VENT EXIT PLANE C a l 1.0 t vc =.1725 / J I t t .05 .10 .15 .20 TIME (SEC) R:NG VORTEX MCDEL CALCULATf 0N/EPRI DATA COMPARI' SON - FIGURE 16 SCM 94; BOUNDARY PRESSURES

e i 1 LOCA JET ROUNDARY PRESSURE COMPARISONS oA-N -t m l2 E -t o 5< 11 >ls oo MODEL PREDICTION: FLEXIBLE TANK 4

  • q p

E" s-I l it 8 z ) '1ly g $$ o 1 0 RIGID TANK I l i mm a o r-g Co g zu o a Og l l mc l 8 d{ c l v, m 4 m8 b i mz w ms cc E$ mo m r-8 m "N E yo 4-TEST DATA -q o -1 E oi o j g> m.. 3 d g m I mzO i -t z i mg 3 i j p_- - - 8. ss V o N O e s i 3 0.00 0.09 0.18 0.27 0.36 OAS 0.54 0.63 0.72 4 TIME (SEC) l

APPLICATION OF THE METHOD OBTAIN PLANT UNIQUE FLOW FIELD USING THE RING VORTEX MODEL o IN SINGLE RIGID CELL. AREA = POOL AREA / NUMBER OF VENTS o WITH THE PLANT UNIQUE VENT EXIT VELOCITY AS INPUT o UP T0 VENT CLEARING BY INJECTING VORTICES o BEYOND VENT CLEARING INJECTING WATER WITHOUT.. VORTICES o TERMINATING CALCULATION SLIGHTLY BEYOND THE INSTANT OF MAXIMUM JET VELOCITY (FIGURE 20) 1 { l i i

t-i ( 1 i i a (- 1 2.50 1 .i s. -t j -4 i 2.00 x mr-1 jy V'ENT EXIT VELOCITY "U" "i,i u, d FROM DRYWELL PRESSURE HISTORY I g6 O i.50 {-

' g Q

t Eh b JET TIF ? VELOCITY gy I l

g 5

i.00 I 20 r-O O 2 W 7 O 1 -4 ~ o m i k t .50 10 = \\ i 1 I I I i I j 0 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 m '662 TIME (SEC) O VENT CLEARING C m TIME m

r b FRE2 SURFACE g ~.802'- - VENT T h h R = 3.44' VENT EXIT ) 'tW I n

  1. T u

T =.662 SEC 1.85' JET BOUNDARY 7 t *.7447 SEC w 2.04' .277 .267 / ,' N f 'l 1 / 3 r/a 4 N U N[U A 2 z U A y ^2 1-- +.1 U*3[ \\ A \\ u j g \\ 2- +.2 A* / i T A U i A z z .228 at t =.f447 SEC 3 - +.3 .239 I U = 66.97 FT/SEC 4.U A z z z A = 132.s.4 FT/SEC, U A at T =.662 SEC a VENT CLEARING TIME 4T TANK FLOW FIELD -- VERTICAL FLOW. SPATIAL VARIATICNS FIGURE 21 ,,.. - - _,. ~ --._..,-,-,-w

's '.o oo I ci 9 R~ $ s. -4 N FOR POINT LOCATED ALONG VENT AXIS 2 JUST BELOW JET TIP SHOWN IN FIGUHE 21 x oo A o o P O n-ui 5 A Z hf n ~ o l 9 f 8 9 "~ " n. 1 t~ ? Oo wo ~ y W( m 1 I I O b N-8E m' k us I N 1 3 8 g_ e a u2 4 mo m 9o m i y 0 00 0.09 0.18 0.27 0.36 0.45 0.54 0.63 0.72 TIME (SEC) t M

a =.802' l p VENT a w-Ur Ar .1 0 +1 f } -1 g yCELL BOUNDARY VENT EXIT e a 0- - l + a a to 1- - W = 1.85* [ M at t =.7447 SEC ~ / z H A w g

2..

ei rs W = 2.04' g t ' 3--\\ \\ T =.662 JET BOUNDARY \\ t=.744 at t =.7447 SEC 4 / 5- - ria = 2.75 at T =.622 SEC, U = 66.97 FT/SEC 6- - VENT CLEARING TIME, A = 1324.4 FT/SEC' o Z/a 4T TANK FLOW FIELD - RADIAL FLOW. SPATIAL VARIATIONS FIGURE 23 ~

b. o ..s Ur \\ g-N N Ar h \\ \\ \\\\ ,. 5 \\ 1 l !d .4 E w2p .3 r/a = 2.75, z/a = 3.0 -.2 ..1 I I I l I l 5.0 2.5 Ur FT/S) -2.5 200 100 Ar (FT/S2) -100 -200 4T TANK FLOW FIELD - RADIAL FLOW, TIME HISTORIES FIGURE 24 G s -,e---.,,.,..n,-- --.,---,-,n...

.D a =.802! VENT / v) h. 7 -10 [ .5 1.0 ] a ] \\ @ t =.7447 SEC VENT EXIT

  1. +

N CELL BOUNDARY T /l 7 f 1-'-j ( t d JET ~~ BOUNDARY

  • 2 e

at t =.7447 SEC J l W t l 2.04-3-j 4I l s Ar - @ t =.7447 SEC LI S[ R = 3.44' .l.( r/a = 1.5 at T =.662 SEC, U = 66.97 FT/SEC 9 g, VENT CLEARING, A = 1324.4 FT/SEC2 l l 4T TANK FLOW INSIDE JET - RADIAL FLCW, SPATIAL VARIATICN ^ FIGURE 25 l l l . ~.- - --

. -----~ ~ "-~~~~ ~^ ~~

~

t .8 Ar \\ j Ur g ,s# C- % \\ \\ .6 \\ \\ .5 I r/a = 1.5, z/t = 2.5 ~ \\ G i Wb u .4 g .3 l .2 .1 l l 1 20 10 Ur (FT/S) -10 -20 1000 500 A r (FT/S2) -500 -1000 4T TANK FLOW INSIDE JET - RADIAL FLOW, TIME HISTORIES FIGURE 26

a l 12"4 VERTICAL STRUCTURE a =.802' @ JET 4 VENT BOUNDARY a b d I 2 DYNAMIC VENT EXIT / PRESSURE _[ DISTRIBUTION g a l } l =' W y = 1.85* y ~ F I u 4 [ CELL l l BOUNDARY z W t = 2.04* /~ <r /L ~ T =.677 PSI l ~ JET BOUNDARY t=.7447 \\ h I g' a a a -./. I \\ 10.25 P!; r 12"4 HORl7,0NTAL STRUCTURE 'r @ JET BOUNDARY j, DYNAMIC PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD DISTRIBUTION - SAMPLE PROBLEM FIGURE 27

y.. +

1., MARK II POSITION FOR FATIGUE EVALUATION OF DOWNCOMERS AND S/RV LINES IN WETWELL 9 A. THE DESIGN BASIS FOR THESE LINES ON THE VARIOUS PLANTS IS DEFINED IN THE APPROPRIATE FSAR DOCUMENTS. THIS DESIGN BASIS WILL NOT BE CHANG'ED. MARK II OWNERS FEEL THAT THIS IS A CONSERVATIVE AND APPROPRIATE DESIGN BASIS. B. ~IN RESPONSE TO THE NRC CONCERNS ON BY-PASS CAPABILITY' AND CYCLIC LOADING ON DOWNCOMERS AND SRV LINES THE MARK II-OWNERS WILL ADDRESS THE FATIGUE ANALYSIS OF THESE LINES.. C. IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE THE ANALYSIS PROCESS, THE MARK II'S i WILL USE THE ASME CLASS I FATIGUE RULES FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES. D. AS REQUIRED MILL CERTIFICATION TEST RESULTS MAY BE USED IN ORDER TO DEFINE BETTER ALLOWABLE STRESSES. I E. THE FATIGUE EVALUATION WILL INCLUDE ALL CYCLIC EFFECTS DUE TO THE HYDR 0 DYNAMIC LOADS INCLUDING SRV ACTUATION, CO, CHUGGING, ETC. F. THE RESULTS OF THESE PLANT UNIQUE EVALUATIONS WILL BE l INCLUDED IN THE APPROPRIATE FSAR AND DAR DOCUMENTS. l l o l aw.. L .}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19338E763&oldid=4734466"