ML20031H442

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Testimony of TR Mcintyre Re Tx Pirg Addl Contention 6 on Mannings Coefficient.Mannings Friction Factor Does Not Apply to Determining Vent Cleaning Time
ML20031H442
Person / Time
Site: Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date: 09/18/1981
From: Mcintyre T
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20031H319 List:
References
NUDOCS 8110270484
Download: ML20031H442 (8)
v • d • e


Text

S2ptcmbar 18, 1981 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3

In the Matter of 5

4 S

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY S

Docket No. 50-466 5

S (Allens Creek Nu_ lear Generating S

6 Station, Unit 1)

S 7

TESTIMONY OF T.

R. McINTYRE 8

REGARDING TEXPIRG ADDITIONAL CONTENTION 6 - MANNINGS COEFFICIENT 9

10 Q.

Would you please state your name and your position, and describe your educational and employment background?

11 A.

My name is T.

R. McIntyre.

I am currently employed 12 by the General Electric Company as Manager, Containment 13 Methods the Nuclear Power Systems Engineering Department.

a.

4 My educational and employment background is described in 13 Attachment TRMc-1.

16 Q.

TexPirg Additional Contention 6 alleges that the 17 vent clearing time following a LOCA has not been calculated 18 correctly because the cilculation fails to account for the 19 Mannings factor.

Does he Mannings factor have any application 20 to determining vent clearing time?

21 A.

No.

The Mannings friction factor and equation 22 are applicable to gravity flows in sloping, free surface 23 conduits.

In a Mark III pressr e suppression system the 24 vent clearing arr: cess is primarily governed by static 8110270464 810918 PDR ADOCK 05000466 T PDR

1 differential pressure forces, not gravity forces.

2 Q.

Does the GE vent clearing model account for fri tion?

3 A.

The Applicant's vent clearing model is developed 4

in Section 4 of a GE Topical Report, "The General Electric

.3 Mark III Pressure Suppressic.7 Containment System Analytical Model", NEDO-20533, June 1974.

The model includes a control 7

volume for each vent and three control volumes for the weir l

8 area.

The model assenes that wall friction in the weir and 9

vents is negligible.

Friction associated with turning 10 of the flow from the weir to vent pipe, and the head losses 91 associated with water _ penetration into the suppression pool

~

l~'

are considered, hos:ever.

13 Q.

What is the basis for the assumption that wali 14 friction is neglible?

15 A.

This assumption is based on earlier studies reported 16 in another GE Topical Report, "The General Electric Pressure 17 Suppression Containment Analytical Model," NEDO-10320, 18 April 1971, wherein it was determined that the irreversible 1,9 friction losses are in the order of 1% of the pressure difference being applied to the vent water.

This report 20 included the results of calculations of irreversible friction 21 1 sses for the Limerick nuclear plant, reports on vent 22 learing times measured during pressure suppression tests at 3

the Humbolt Bay nuclear plant, and comparisons with

1 experimental data from GE's Pressure Suppression Test 2

Facility (PSTF).

Additional work at the Idaho Nuclear 3

Corporation with the CONTEMPT-PS Code has also proven that the vent clearing transient is not affected by friction 4

1 sses for reasonable values of vent roughness factors 5

(November 1970 Monthly Report of the Nuclear Safety Division 6

of the Idaho Nuclear Corporation Hai-436-70, Page 16).

t Q.

Why is data from Limerick,ihich has a Mark II i

g contsinnent, applicable to the Mark III containment to be used for Allens Creek?

10 A.

The difference in vent system geometry between 11 Mark II and Mark III containments is irrelevent from a fluid friction standpoint.

Fluid friction (pressure drop) is 9^3 generally calculated in terms of a loas coefficient times a 14 velocity head, in the well-known Dircy-Weisbacn equation.

15 PV, Ap=k (1) 16 2gc 17 where the loss coefficient, k, is expressed as a friction 18

factor, f,

times the flow length in pipe diameters.

19 n

k=f (2)

D 20 Examining equations (1) and (2), it may be seen 21 that the triction pressure drop will be similar in two 22 systems as long as the density (p ), the velocity (V), the 23 friction factor (f), and the flow long:h QL) are similar.

D 24

Comparing Mark II and Mark III vent systems, both use water 1

at about the same temperatures so the density condition is 2

satisfied; both systems have peak vent clearing velocities 3

on the order of 50 ft/sec.; and both have steel (or steel 4

lined) vent systems so the friction factors, (f), are similar.

5 For the flow path length, Mark II systems use a 2 ft.

diameter vent and a submergence of about 11 ft., yielding a 7

L of about 5.5.

The top vent of a Mark III as a flow path 8

D which consists of a 27-1/2 in. (2.3 ft.) diameter hori;:antal 9

vent 5 ft. long, plus 7-1/2-ft. of water in the weir annulus 10 with a hydraulic diameter of about 2 ft.

Thus L is equal to D

~1 9

5 ft. divided by 2.3 ft. plus 7-1/2 ft. divided by 2 ft, or 12 an L of about 6.

Thus, when all factors are considered, the D

^3 frictional effect on vent clearing is very similar in Mark 1

14 II and Mark IIIs (the Mark III effect is, perhaps, 10%

15 larger); thus, the Limerick results will be suitably 16 applicable to a Mark III configuration for these purposes.

17 Q.

Why is data from the PSTF applicable to Allens 12 Creek?

19 A.

The PSTF is a very large containment system tran ient test facility which is operated by General Electric 20 at San Jose, California, and has been used for the Mark III 21 Confirmatory Test Program.

Tests have been performed 22 with the PSTF in a variety of configurations, all approxi-mately 1/130 volumetric scale of a Mark III containment 1

system.

From the standpoint of vent clearing, 41 blowdown 2

tests were performed in a single cell configuration of the PSTF in which the weir annulus, vent system, and suppression 3

pool were simulated in full scale.

Differences in configura-4 tion between the PSTF and Allens Creek are minor,. as 5

illustrated by Table 1.

The model data comparisons utilize PSTF geometry and initial conditions, and show that the

-1 model is valid and capable of predicting PSTF response.

8 Since Allens Creek geometry and initial conditions are very 9

close to that of the PSTF, the model can be expected to 10 predict Allens Creek response to a LOCA as well.

11 Q.

With regard to the fourth question in the September 1 12 Order, does the GE calculatior accurately account for the 13 existence of concrete walls, drywell corner weakness, right-14 angle turns and the necessity to clear more than one set of 15 vents?

16 A.

The vent system is steel lined, so with respect to 17 the fluid dynamics of vent clearing, the fact that the drywell 18 is concrete is irrelevant.

The model does account for turning 19 losses as I noted earlier in this testimony, and as explained 20 in Section 4 of the GE Topical Report, "The General Electric Mark III Pressure Suppression Containment System Analytical gy Model", NEDO-20533, June 1974.

Similarly, the model accounts 22 f r clearing of each row of vents, in turn.

This is also 23 described in the referenced topical report.

w.

! ~.

T T_ _A_B L E 1 Comparison of PSTF and Allens Creek Vent System Geometry Parameter PSTF Allens Creek.

Vent Diameter 2'3-1/2" 2'3-1/2" Vent Le.ngth 5 ' '3 "

- 5'0" Cell Size 8*

9' Top Vent Submergence Note 1 7'3" Weir Width 2'4" 2'2" i

Vent to Weir Area Ratio 0.91 0.93 ll 4

Note 1 l

PSTF submergence is variable.

Tests were run over a range of submergence from 2'0" to 12'0".

4 1

i i

m.

m

Attachment TRMc-l~

TERRY R. McINTYRE I am currently Manager, Containment Methods and Testing in the Nue. ear-Power Systems Engineering _ Department of the General Electric ~ Company.

In this position I am-responsible for analytical modeling of pressure suppression system response to Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) and other transient conditions.

I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering Science from San Francisco State University (1969) and.a LMaster of Science in. Mechanical Engineering-from.the University of California at Berkeley (1972).

My Master's thesis was on the subject of horizontal vent' clearing in pressure suppression systems.

I also have completed over 50 units in a post masters' program in Mechanical Engineering at Stanford University on a part-time basis.

My specialty is fluid mechanics.

I have been registered as a professional mechanical

~

engineer in the State of California since 1974.

I have been employed by General Electric Company since 19t9 and have been involved with containment systems modeling and experiments for the past nine years.

Following my masters' degree completion in 1972, I accepted a position as a development engineer in the Containment Experiments Unit at General Electric Company's Nuclear Technology Depart-ment.

In this position I was responsible for analysis of

-data from the Mark III Confirmatory Test Program.

Specific data analyzed included that from te :s of -pool swell and pool swell impact, vent clearing, drywell pressurization, and two phase flow.

t In 1976 I became Technical Leader - ?3TF.Experi-mente, responsible for all experimental work at the Pressure l

Suppression Test Facility.

Specifically, chis included test i

planning, execution, data analysis, and reporting,-and overall responsibility for' completion of the Mark III Confirma-tory Test Program.- During my two yea'.s in this position, testing to determine Mark III condensation dynamic loads and l

pool thermal response were performed.

In 1978 I accepted a position as Technical Leader -

LOCA methods in the Containment Methods Unit of'the Nuclear L

Power Systems Engineering Department.

In this capacity I was responsible for development and maintenance of engineering computer programs to predict pressure suppression containment

~

response to Loss-of-Coolant Accidents.

L

in June 1980 I was appointed Manager of Containment Methods witn overall responsibility for development and maintenance of engineering computer programs to predict containment transient response.

My responsibilities have recently been expanded to further include all cantainment LOCA e:tperiments.

2 --

_

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20031H442&oldid=4595741"