ML20039E177
| ML20039E177 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1981 |
| From: | DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039E168 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201060612 | |
| Download: ML20039E177 (150) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:O
'AN ANALYSIS OF HYDR 0 GEN CONTROL MEASURES AT McGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION DUKE POWER COMPANY O
l OCTOBER, 1981 VOL. III i i i.
,4 l-f-
! 8201060612 81123F' PDRADOCKOSOOg9 P _,,,__
. .. _ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . ~ _ . - . _ _ _ . . _ . _ , _ - _ . . . _ . . _ . _ _ . _ . - . _ _ .
l . AN ANALYSIS OF HYDROGEN CONTROL MEASi1RES-AT - 1 r McGUIRE NUCLEAR-STATION-Revision 1-December. 31,1981 t Remove and' insert pages accordfr.g to the following tabulations:
^
Remove these pages- Insert these pages Volume 1 Chapter 2 Taole of Contents Chapter 2 Table of Contents ' 2.5-2 2.5-2 (Insert Tabs Appendix 2A, 28 -2C, 2D)- l Volume 2 (Insert Tabs Ap'endix p 2E, 2F, 2G)
~ ~
Move Appendix 2E & 2F to , LVolume 2 t Appendix 2G (Cover sheet thru page B-43) ] , Volume 3 i
' Move Chapter 3 thru 7 to O - Volume 3 Figure 3.4-6 4.2-1 Figure 3.4-6 4.2-1~
4.6-1 4.6-1 thru 4.6-10 Figure 4.6-1 :thru Figure 4.6-71 5.3-2 5.3-2 5.5 ._, . 5.5-2
-6.2-3 6.2-3 6.2-4 :6.2-4
'7.0 7.0-2 7.0-3 7.0 7.0-8 7.0-8 thru 7.0-8b 7.0-9 7.0-9
'7.0-15 thru 7.0-17 7.0-15 thru 7.0-17d O
Chapter 2 HYDROGEN RESEARCH PROGRAM 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.0 Introduction 2.1 Glow Plug Igniter Performance 2.2 Halon Inerting 2.3 Electromagnetic Interference Study 2.4 Catalytic Combustor Performance
- 2. 5' Effect of Water Fog on Lower Flammability Limit 1 2.6 Combustion Control Studies d 2.7 Igniter Performance 2.8 Combustion Phenomena 2.9 Hydrogen Mixing and Distribution Tables Figures Appendix 2A - Glow Plug Igniter Performance: Phase I Project Report Appendix 2B - Glow Plug Igniter Performance: Phase II Project Report Appendix 2C - Halon Inerting: Ice Condenser Feasibility Study Appendix 2D - Halon Inerting: Stainless Steel Corrosion Test Report Appendix 2E - Electromagnetic Interference Study: Project Report Appendix 2F - Catalytic Combustor Performance: Project Report Appendix 2G - Water Fog Inerting of Hydrogen-Air Mixtures 1 devision 1
This project demonstrated that the effect a water fog has on hydrogen com-bustion is very dependent on the density, droplet size, and temperature of
.the fog. -More specifically it was concluded that:
- 1. Increased fog densities are required to achieve a given level of hydrogen inerting when the fog contains increased droplet sizes.
- 2. Dense water fog at room temperature has a marginal effect on the hydrogen lower flammability limit.
- 3. Increasing water fog temperature causes large increases in the hydrogen lower flammability limit.
Based on the information obtained from this report, water fog conditions were
\ selected for further testing in a larger vessel. See Section 2.6 for informa-tion on the intermediate scale water fog tests.
l 1 l O 2.5-2 Revision 1 Entire Page Revised
l i t i 1 1 1 APPENDIX 2G WATER F0G INERTING OF HYDR 0 GEN-AIR MIXTURES l l l l
WATER FOG INERTING OF HYDROGEN-AIR MIXTURES
/
Final Technical Report, September 1981 EPRI Project RP1932-1 (Task 5) j'.
?
i Prepared by: 8 FACERY MUWAL RESEARCH CORPORATION 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike Norwood, Massachusetts 02062 FMRC Project Manager Robert G. Zalosh .l Principal Investigator Satya N. Bajpai m FMRC J.I. OG2RS.RK 070(A) i i l
, Prepared for:
Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hilfview Avenue Palo Alto, California 94304 ! EPRI Project Manager Ioren Thompson Nuclear Safety and Analysis Department l l f l
. , _ ,~ .,__-...- - ,_..~ ~ _.-. - ....._.,.._..,,-._ - _-.._ _.
n (OI ABSTRACT This report presents an experimental evaluation of the effects of water fog density, e droplet diameter, and temperature on the lower flammable limit (LFL) of hydrogen-air-steam mixtures. The results show that the LFL for hydrogen in air at 20'C is only marginally higher with fog than without. Most of the nozzles tested at 20*C raised the hydrogen LFL fr$m 4.0 vol % to 4.8%, corresponding to dense fogs with volume-average drop size in the range 45-90 microns. The lower flam.ahle limit at 50*C was typically 7.2% corresponding to dense fogs with drop size in the range 25-50 microns. The lower flammable limit at 70*C was typically 7.6%, ranging from 6.8-8.5% depending on nozzle type and pressure. Typical fog concentrations ranged from 0.03-0.09 vol % at 20*C and decreased with increasing fog temperature. The result 9 demonstrate that water fog inerting of hydrogen-air-steam mixtures is more pronounced with reduced droplet sizes and increased temperature, conditions that favor rapid droplet vaporization rates. \^ 1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank the Electric Power Research Institute, Duke Power company, Tennessee Valley Authority and the American Electric Power Company for
, their joint financial support of this program. We acknowledge the encouragement, guidance and support provided by the Program Manager, Dr. Loren Thompson of Electric Power Research Institute. Mr. F. Gregg Hudson of Duke, Mr. J.J. Wilder of TVA and Mr. Kelvin Shiu of AEP also provided valuable suggestions during the program. We also acknowledge the assistance of Mrs. Vicky Hwa of FMRC for con--
ducting the computations of average drop sizes and fog concentrations.
/
~
O 9 l I f) 11 l
. _ - . - - - . _ _ _ . . , _ . . _ . _ . . _ _ , _ - . _ . _ _ , . - . ~ . _ . . . _ - . _ _ - _ _ .. . . . _
I ! l l CONTENTS Section Page 1 INTRODUCTION 11
, 2 TEST APPAPATUS AND EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES 2-1 '
2.1 Hydrogen-Water Fog Inerting Apparatus 2 l 2.2 Droplet Size And Concentration Measurement 2-3 2 .' 3 Hydrogen-Water Fog Inerting-Experimental Procedure 2-6 3 FOG CONCENTRATION AND DROPLET SIZE DATA 3-1 4-1 1 4 FOG INERTING DATA 5 CONCLUSIONS 5-1 REFERENCES 6-1 APPENDIX A
SUMMARY
OF EXPERIMENTAL DATA A-1 APPENDIX B LOG-NORMAL DROP SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS B-1 O 9
\
Lil
l l J ILLUSTRATIONS I' Figure Page 2-1 Hydrogen-Water Fog Inerting Experimental Setup 2-2 2-2 Fog Nozzles Used in Inerting Experiments _2-4 . 3-1 . Drop Size Variation With Pressure And Temperature 3-2 t 4-1 Liquid-Vapor Conversion And Water Vapor Saturation Relationships 4-5 i 4-2 Detonation and Flammability Limits For Air-Hydrogen-Steam Mixtures 4-6 4-3 Fog Concentration As A Function Of Drop Size To Achieve Indicated Inerting Levels 4-8
- 4-4 Fog Concentration Versus Drop Size Requirements For Inerting to 4.76 Hydrogen at 20'C 4-9 t
i .c [' i i I i a 9 l iv-
i > i
+
1-4 4 4 ( l@ TMES i-1- Table *
' Pace i
t
- 4-1 Hydrogen-Water Fog Inerting. Data At 20*C 4-2 ,
4 < 1 4-2 Hydrogen-Water Fog Inerting Data At -50*C 4-3 e i
- 4-3 Hydrogen-Water Fog Inerting Data At ~70*C 4-4 4
4 3 . r e
'J>
f 4 4 l. I ! l i I r I i l i r Y
+
( i _.6 t k I ! v r l 1 l l
( ~)
.V 50101ARY As a result of the Three-Mile Island accident, there is renewed concern about hydro-gen control measures during degraded core accidents. One promising hydrogen control measure is a distributed ignition system to burn the hydrogen at a controlled rate as it is released into the containment building. It has also been suggested that water fog in the containment could further reduce hydrogen combustion temperatures and pressures. On the other hand, there has been some concern that the fog could inert hydrogen-air mixtures and inadvertently prevent controlled combustion. Moti-vated by these concerns, this report addresses the question of hydrogen-air-water vapor mixture flar= ability in the presence of highly concentrated water fogs.
A laboratory-scale fog-inerting apparatus was constructed to acquire pertinent in-erting data. Tests were conducted with gas mixtures containing 4.0 vol 4 to 8.7 vol % hydrogen at temperatures ranging from 20'C to 70*C. Dense water fogs were () generated in the inerting tube by using a series of five different fog nozzles which produced volume-average drop diameters of 20-115 microns at water pressures of 10-40 psig (69-276 kPa) . Tests involved ignition attempts with both spark igniters and glow plug igniters. Successful ignition was monitored by thermocouple response and by actuation of pressure relief discs at the top of the inerting tube. Prior to the inerting tests, fog drop size and concentration data were obtained with a
- hot wire probe located at the igniter position in the inerting tube.
8 Room temperature inerting test results indicated that dense fogs caused only a mar-
. ginal increase in the hydrogen lower flammable limit (LFL) concentration. Specifi-cally, the hydrogen LFL for upward flame propagation was raised from 4.0 vol % for a dry hydrogen-air mixture to 4.4-5.3 vol % with four different hydraulic nozzles at various pressures. An air-driven nozzle, which produced smaller drops than the hydraulic nozzles, increased the LFL to 7.2 vol % at 20'C.
Tests run at h'igher gas / fog temperatures resulted in somewhat greater increases in
-~ the hydrogen LFL. For a. typical hydraulic nozzle, the hydrogen LFL increased.from
(,,) 4.8 vol % at 20*C to 7.6 vol 4 at 70'C. This increased inerting is due in part to water vapor dilution and in part to liquid phase water heat sink effects associated S- 1
wswau - avm w w - _ _ Fog dansities required to achieve a givan level of hydrogan inarting increase with increasing characteristic drop size of the fog. It is difficult to accurately quantify this effect because of uncertainty and scatter in the present fog density data. However, the data do indicate that fog volume mean drop size would have to be well under 20 microns and that fog densities would have to be well above
~
10 g/cc-gas to raise the LFL above 7-8 vol % hydrogen, even at temperatures as high as 70*C.
's l
l f S-2 gri - -
Section 1 ; INTRODUCTdON As a result of the Three-Mile Island accident, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
, requiles operators of certain containment structures to determine and ieplement an effective method for controlling hydrogen evolved during degraded core accidents.
, One of the hydrogen control methods that has been suggested is a water fog system, probably in conjunction with a distributed ignition system. The water fog system would fill the containment volume with a high-density fog prior to and during con-trolled combustion of hydrogen by a distributed ignition system. It has been suggested Q) that heat absorption by the water fog would maintain peak combustion temperatures and pressures within acceprable values as evolved hydrogen is gradually consumed. Adiabatic, complete isochoric combustion calculations of Berman et al Q) ,
which include fog droplet evaporation effects, indicate that fog concentrations on the order of 10~ g-water /cm -gas-mixture can significantly reduce containment pres-sures compared to dry combustion at the same hydrogen concentratien, e-(x) In order for a water fog system and distributed ignition system to be compatible, the fog should not inert or quench flame propagation. Fog inerting or quenching re-quires rapid droplet vaporization. Vaporization rate calculations of Berman et al (1) indicate that droplets with a diameter less than about 8 pm will vaporize en-tirely within the flame zone and, therefore, are capable of inerting. The order-of-magniture of this calculated result is consistent with the experimental data of Sapko et al (2), who observed that droplets smaller than about 10 um diameter sus-
, pended in methane-air mixtures vaporize sufficiently rapidly to provide the same in-erting capability as their equivalent mass of water vapor.
It is important to confirm and further quantify the suspected inerting capability i of water fog suspended in hydrogen-air-steam mixtures. This report describes the
, results of an experimental program in which the effect of water fog density, drop-let size, and temperature on the lower flammab2e limit of hydrogen was studied.
The experimental approach has been similar to that used by Sapko et al for methane-air mixtures. Experimental procedures and equipment are described in Section 2. p i / , U 1-1
1 Section 2 SST APPARATUS AND EXPERIMENTAt PROCEDURES 2.1 HYDROGEN-WATER FOG INERTING APPARATUS A schematic view of the experimental setup is shown in Figure 2-1. The inerting tube (1) is a 15-em i.d. ,1 meter long (19-liter) Plexiglas tube, vertically ori-ented and supported on a Unistrut frame. The tube is equipped with a cap (2) on top which supports the vents and the gas mixture and water supply lines. A poly-propylene Buchner funnel at the bottom, aids in water collection and eliminates air updrafts. The vents are 4-em 1.d. openings, spaced symmetrically on the cap and covered with aluminum disks. With the inerting tube at atmospheric pressure, the vent disks stay in place to prevent hydrogen-air mixture leaks from the top or ad-mission of outside air into the tube. However, the vent disks open to act as a pressure relief devir.o (and to verify combustion) when the hydrogen-air mixture is ignited. Ignition electrodes (6) are located at the center of the inerting tube for most tests. The electrodes are machined from a ~6 mm brass rod to assume the needle-point shape. The electrode body is insulated with a shrink-fit tubing throughout the entire lenoth except at the needle point and the flat ends projecting out of the tube. A spark gap of ~3 mm is allowed between the needle points. During an ig-
- nition attempt, the electrodes are energized by a Donegan Model transformer with accondary coil (i.e. , output) voltage of 8,400 V and current of 20 mA. The calcu-
! lated spark energy is 2.8 Joules / cycle.
In a few tests, the electrodes wers replaced by a glow plug (General Motors Model 7G AC). The glow plug was energized by a 14 V AC transformer. Flame propagation in the inerting tube was monitored by three chromel-alumel thermocouples with a bead diameter of ~0.3 mm. Two thermocouples are located 5 cm above and S em below the ignition electrodes and the third thermocouple is 15 cm above the electrodes. The beads of all three thermocouples are approximately at the centerline of the insrting tube. Thermocouple response signals were fed to an oscillograph to indicate whether
,a or not the hydrogen-air mixture was ignited. That is, if either of the three thermo-j i
%/
couples responded during an ignition attempt, the mixture was considered to be 2-1
O r - ::: 1. Inerting Tube (Plexiglos) 4 g
- 2. Vent 8 Plumbing Support Cop 2L 5-U N >
M ! :! 10 M 3. Fun nel
- 4. Vent Disks ( A total of four )
_I. I
' -~
- 5. Spray Nozzle I g5 f8 6. Electrodes
; j 0
- 7. Thermocouple Probes
/
'f '
'\ 7 l I3 8. Hecling To pe
's Il "r4 9. Flash Arrester
/,' g i I O. Roto meters
' i / i ,i s, r II. Hydrogen-Air Vixer 1 i i t ', 7 I,1 12. Check Volves
/ ,'\ 'i 6
[/
',1 12 12 13. Hot Water Tonk
- 14. Solenoid Valves i* t 7 1 1
' 15. Pressure Regulators s la'll' in 5 40 lo i 88l li' ' i'5 16. Water Collector 14 14 14 l i ','
s iii O :'I,"::,L9:
'esi i 15 15 15 I 'l
,t i I
H2 Air N2
/
A/
- . ; i- -:- 16 f ff.I ! .
l l Figure 2-1, 11ydrogen-Water Fog Inerting Experimental Setup 9 2-2
fltunable*. Wh n vIr th2r2 w20 flame pr pagIticn, th2 prcszura ralief v;nto pro-vid:d ct tha tap cf th2 inarting tube cico fluttorcd, thsrsby providing vitual con-firmation of combustion. s k) The hydrogen and air used in the inerting expe,riments were obtained from Linde with each gas having a minimum purity of 99.95%. Hydrogen and air streams were retered using Matheson flow meters; after passing through check valves the streams meet at the inlet port of the hydrogen-air mixer, which is a 75 em long, 25 mm i.d. stainless
- steel tube packed with glass beads. The mixed hydrogen-air stream at a nominal flow rate of 10-201/ min is fed to the inerting tube arter passing through a flash ar-rester. Water for the fog nozzles was supplied from a 23-liter electrically heated hot water tank (Dayton Midget Watttrie=er) . The tank is pressurized by nitrogen and distilled water is fed to the nozzle after passing through a rotameter. The spray nozzle is located -20 cm below the top of the inerting tube and ~33 cm above the ignition electrodes.
Five different nozzles were used to obtain a range of fog concentrations and drop sizes. The nozzles were: 1) a SPRACO impingement-type nozzle (#2163-7604), 2) a SPRACO hollow cone nozzle (#2020-1704), 3) a SPRACO hollow cone misting nozzle (#1806-1605), 4) a SPRACO impactor type nozzle (#1405-0604) , and 5) a Sonicore f-ws (Model 35H) air-driven fog nozzle **. Figure 2-2 is a photograph of these five
~~ nozzles.
2.2 DROPLET SIZE AND CONCENTRATION MEASwREMENT The droplet size distribution and droplet concentration in the fog nozzles used in this study were determined by means of a KLD Associates (Huntington Station, N.Y.)
- DC-2 Drop Size Measurement Probe. The operation of this KLD Drop Size Measurement Probe is conceptually siedlar to hot-wire-anemometer operation. Local cooling
! caused by droplet attachment to a hot wire changes the electrical resistance of the wire. A portion of wire covered by the droplet is cooled approximately to the drop-let temperature. With a constant electrical currsnt flowing through the'vire, a measurable voltage drop can be sensed between the wire terminals. Thus, the voltage in dry air is reduced by an amount proportional to the droplet diameter when a drop-
' ~ let is attached to it. With appropriate counting electronics, the drop 1et size dis - tribution can be obtained. A more complete discussion of the KLD Drop Size measure-ment technique is provided in a paper by Magnus et al (3). Only the thermocouple above the igniter actually sensed the presence of flames []/ (,, thus, flame propagation was upward only. Hydrogen-air mixture was used as the atomizing medium in these tests. 23
' t . - - . . . . . _
SPRACO SPRACO BPRACO SPAACO So:ueere Hollow Hollow Impingement Impactor 03511 8 Cone Misting Cone and Model 2163 Model 1405-MoJel 18061605 Fine Spray 7604 0604 Model 2020-1704
^
Figure 2-2. Fog Nozzles Used in Inerting Experiments e O 2-4
Dr:p ciza inencurcments using tha proba were mada in both tha insrting tube tnd in en une:nfinsd fcg. In tha inarting tube, tha prebe w2s loc 2tsd ct tha ignition lo-cation, i.e., about 33 cm below the nozzle. In unconfined fogs, the probe was also located about 33 cm directly below the nozzle centerline. O If droplet velocities are known, fog concentrations can also be obtained from the droplet counts and sample collection time. Thus, the droplet number density may be defined as the number of drops counted divided by the sample volume. The drop-a let number density, ng , corresponding to each droplet size interval is calculated by the expressions ii 3 ng = (2-1) v t'i(D 1 + d) , Drops /m where Kg = captive area factor, i.e., small droplet trajectory / velocity deviation caused by wire sensor. The factor is unity for drops >8.7 pm; N g = droplets counted in the ith channel; v = flow velocity (cm/s); t = counting time interval (s)r E = sensor length (0.1 cm): D = average droplet diameter for the ith channel (varies from 1.3 to 366 pu): ty d = sensor wire diameter (5 x 10 cm). Fog mass concentration, C(g/cm ), is related to the number density distribution by C = w/6 p En gD g (2-2) where p is water density and ng is given by Eq. 2-1. Fog volume fraction is cal-
! culated similarly, but without the density factor, in Eq. 2-2.
Fog concentrations computed in this manner are only as accurate as the accuracy of the assumed flow velocity, v, in Eq. 2-1. Two alternative calculation procedures have been used with two different assumed values for v:
- 1. The average gas velocity, v , flowing through the tube was used.
f However, this velocity was only 1-2 cm/s, which is less than the terminal velocity, v , for the larger drops in_the fog.
- 2. Therefore, a second calculation procedure was also used in which the droplet velocity in Eq. 2-1 was assumed to be either vg or
, v , depending on which value was larger for a channel of given size.
t ) LJ 2-5
In view of thi une:rtninty involved in u ing th3 DC-2 prob 2 d tc to calculcto fog conczntratien dita, cnsthar indspendtnt method, prsviously unsd by Srpko ct c1 (2) , was used here also. This consisted of simply collecting water for a known interval
/,,N in a Pyrex dish of -14 cm 1.d. inserted into the bottom of the inerting tube such
\ ,) that there was a clearance of -5 mm between the tube and the collector dish. By knowing the rate of water collection and the volumetric flow of the hydrogen-air mixture, the water / gas fJux ratio was calculated. To the extent that the droplet and gas mixture residence times in the tube are comparable, this flux ratio is also 1 a measure of fog concentration.
2.3 HYDROGEN-WATER FOG INERTING-EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE Inerting experiments began by purging the inerting tube with the desired premixed stream of hydrogen and air. At least six inerting tube volume changes were effected to achieve uniform composition throughout the tube. The water spray with desired temperature was turned on 2 min before an ignition attempt and the temperature of the spray and mixture were continuously monitored using chromel-alumel thermocouples. Ignition was attempted by energizing the electrode or glow plug transformer. If , the mixture was flammable, the flame was sensed by chromel-alumel thermocouples and their response recorded on a Honeywell oscillograph. A second indication of the presence of flame war provided by the fluttering motion of the vent disks as they
\s_/ opened to relieve pressure in the inerting tube caused by the flame. Another im-portant visual feature of the experiments in which flame propagation occurred was the appearance of dense steam following flame propagation.
e T
/7 V
2-6
/^~N Section 3 C) f FOG CONCENTRATION AND DROPLET SIZE DATA
- Data from the KLD drop size probe have been processed to determine water fog concen-tration and drop size distributions. Cumulative log-probability picts of the drop size distributions are presented in Appendix B for all five nozzles operated at vari-ous pressuren and temperatures. The linear relationship shown in these plots in-plies (4) that the drop diameters satisfied a log-normal distribution. The " average" diameter in these distributions has been represented by number median diameter, number mean diameter, volume mean diameter, and Sauter mean (volume to surface area ratio) diameter. Tabulated values of these average diameters and the log normal standard deviations for tha "arious test conditions are listed in Appendix A.
For a given pressure and temperature, the five nozzles produced average drop sizes that usually increased in the order: Sonicore (air driven) 35 H, Spraco 2163, Spraco 1806,*Spraco 2020, and Spraco 1405. For example, at a pressure of 2015 psig and a temperature of 4513*C, the volume mean drop diameters for these five nozzles C were 22 pm, 35 km, 43 km, 50 pm, and 92 km, respectively. A comparison of the drop size measurements made in the tube and on unconfined fogs shows that the drop sizes for all Spraco nozzles are larger when the measurement is done in the open than when it is done in the tube. For example, under identical operating conditions of 20 psi and water at ~20'C, the number median drop size for Spraco 2020-1704 nozzle was reduced from 10.411.6 km (measured in open) to 611.7 km (measured inside the tube). This shift.in distribution can be attributed to droplet breakup in striking and rebounding eff the walls of the inerting tube. For a given nozzle, the average drop size decreased with increasing pressure and with increa,-ing temperature. This effect is illustrated for Spraco nozzles 2163 and
, 1806 (two comparable nozzles) in Figure 3-1.
Fog concentrations calculated using the three methods described in Section 2.2 are also tabulated in Appendir A. For the Sonicore air-driven nozzle and the Spraco g-~S 1405 nozzle, concentrations obtained from the KLD probe data (assuming v = vg) agree
\s- fairly well with concentrations based on the water / air flux ratio (called the col-lection method in Appendix A) . For the other three nozzles, the fog concentrations 3-1
O 50 . . . . . ,
, A s Sproco 2163-7604 .
g OfSproco 1806-1605 , 40 - m -
- 1 I
l l 30 - AA - d \ o- \
~
u ^ E a 50*C \ 20*C O 2o -
*\s -
\
s , x s N
- N
- N N
10 -
^\ D-t O
, 20 40 60 80 10 0 12 0 14 0 Vol. Mean Drop Size. Microns Figure 3 1. Drop Size Variation with Pressure and Temperature O 3-2
c 1culct2d from tho probe d:ta with v = v wero g cn crosr of magnituda smallsr thin thoso baccd en flux ratioa. Thic implios th:t th2 gns cnd w tsr drcp rssid2nes times in the tube are comparable for small-drop fogs (Sonicore nozzle) and large-drop spray l'"h (Spraco 1405 nozzle), but the two residence times are quite different for moderate-V drop sizes in the range 30-100 pm. Thus, the water collection technique is not a reliable metho'd for determining concentrations of fogs with drops in this size range. Fog concentration calculation based on probe data with v equal to the larger of f either v gor v were e nsistently at least an order of magnitude smaller than con-t centrations based on the other two techniques. Thus, concentrations based on vg and
~
8 v ranged from 10 to 10" gm water per em of gas while concentrations based on
~4 the other two techniques ranged from 10 to 10" gm/cm .
The discrepancy in fog concentration data is an unfortunate consequence of the in-
- herent inaccuracy in the measurement techniques employed. Other techniques, based on optical attenuation or scattering phenomena (for example, Reference 5) are more ac-curate altnough more complex, and are recommended for future measurements of fog density. Fog concentration data listed in Table 4-1 are based on the probe method (using vg ) since the authors feel this method is the most accurate of the three tech-niques used.
O l , e S l l
'9 i
l I l
~_-
l t 3-3 i , , --
O Cection 4 FOG INERTING DATA Hydrogen lower flammable limit (LFL) data in the presence of wr.ter fog are shown in Tables 4-1 to 4-3 for gas / fog temperatures of 20*C, 50*C, and 70*C. Data are pre-sented for all five nozzles operated at pressures of 10-40 psig. For the Spraco hydraulic nozzles at 20*C, the hydrogen LFL was 4.4-5.3 vol 4 (neglecting any water vapor diluting). These values are only marginally higher than the hydrogen LFL for dry airs i.e. , 4.0 vol %, which was also verified (a value of 4.03% was measured) in the present apparatus using both spark and glow plug igniters. The Sonicore air-driven fog nozzle at 20'C caused the hydrogen LFL to increase to 7.2 vol %. This increase is undoubtedly due to the smaller drops produced by the Sonicore nozzle compared to the Spraco hydraulic nozzles. s At 50*C, hydrogen LFL's in the presence of water fog varied from 5.6 to 7.9 vol % depending on nozzle type and pressure. At 70'C, th'e hydrogen LFL was 6.C-8.5% for the two nozzles tested. Most of the 20'C and 50'C inerting datawere obtained with a spark igniter, but some repeat tests with a glow plug produced almost identical results. The 70*C data were obtained with the glow plug. The observed increase in LFL with increasing temperature is similar to that reported by Sapko et al (2) for water spray inerting/ quenching of methane-air mixtures. It can be attributed to the following effects:
- 1. The hydrogen-air mixture is diluted by additional water vapor, which is presumably present at the satt ration values rhown in Figure'4-1.
~
- 2. As initial droplet temperatures increase closer to the atmospheric pressure boiling point, i.e., 100*C, the droplets can vaperize more rapidly to quench a growing kernel of flan.e.
- 3. The drop size is reduced with increasing tempersture. The smaller, -
drops evaporate more rapidly than larger drops to quench an in-cipient flame. - d The dilution effect is illustrated by plotting the observed LFL values on the~three-S component (hydrogen-air-water vapor) flammability triangle diagran shown in Figure 4-2. Since the LFL data with fog fall within the flamnable envelope in 4 j Figure 4-2, it is clear that water vapor dilution alone is not sufficient to explain ( 4-1
m
.mG A
Q- O
~ - -
y .
, ;1 .
}s-
'.j l ,
Table 4-1 ) *
.- HYDROGEN-WATER FOG INERTING DATA AT 20'C 1 .
3 Spray Vel. cm H O H O Flux Ave. Inerting l 2 2 Press. . Angle . Mean Dia. 'No. Median Conc. Conc. of H Hozzle (psih (Full Angle) Microt. Mi'crcn em Mix cm /cm min (%) f3 , Spraco 10 . - 11.1 9.811.9 8.1x10 0.10 4.42
-4
,2163-7604 20 >60*- -
54.5 4.7il.5 3.8x10 0.36 4.76
, ~60' 25 4d.1 6.411.4 2.7x10 0.25 4.76 30 ~60* 20.6 1.5t1.3 2.8x10~ 0.16 4.76 i-f Spraco 10 61' 139 1312.1 3.6x10" 0.75 4.64
-4 2020-1704 20 86.2 6il.7 8.5x10 0.20 4.76
-4
, 25 58.4 4.811.5 2.9x10 0.20 4.76
~
l b 30 80' 35.7 5.6il.7 1.5x10 'O.23 5.26
~
Spraco - 10 ". 136 13i2 9.4x10 0.18 4.40 ! 1806-1605 20 59.3 511.8 6.0x10 0.22 -4.76
-4 25 66 412 5.7x10 0.16 4.76 30 -40' 47.o 6.411.4 3.2x10~ 0.12 4.65 Spraco 10 136 1412.1 4.5x10~ 1.04 4.64
~
1405-0604 20 110 10il.9 2.2x10 1.17 4.76 !
~
(20-30') 25 114 11 1.8 2.7210 1.04 4.76 30 20' 115 1411.8 3.3x10~ 1.12 5.26
~
Sonicore 20 - 5 .1.1x10 0.104 7.2 03514
- -.,7 ,-.
,i /
4 O ' Table 4-2 HYDROGEN-WATER FOG INERTING DATA AT ~50'C 3 ^ Vol. em H O 2 H2O Flux Ave. Inerting Press. Mean Dia. Conc. of H,
~
P Nozzle No. Median Conc. 1 3 2 ^ (psi) Micron , Micron cm' Mix em /cm min (%) e
~4 Spraco '40 33.1 5.211.2 1.4x10 0.24 7.2
_c 2163-7604 30 21.4 4.211.2 8.1x10 ' O.16 5.6
-4
/ 20 34.5 4.511.4 1.9x10 0.36 5.6 9.3x10" 0.23 Sprach-y 40 24.5 3.8 1.3 7.2
~4 2020-1704 30 27.1 4.211.2 1.1x10 0.23 7.2
~
20 50.3 6.211.5 4.0x10 ' O.20 6.32 Spraco ~ 10 - - - - 4.98 !- 1806-1605~ -20 - - - - 5.44 i
^
< 30 - - - - 5.44
~
(- 40 112 311.06 1.9x10 0.097 5.18 -
~
Sprado 40 '87.8 9.611.7 3.2x10 1.12 5.6
~
1405-0604 30 91.8 / 11.511.7 2.0x10 1.12 5.6 ;
-2 25 115 1411.8 1.7x10 1.04 5.6
~
Sonicore- 25 24 2.4tl.2 1.1x10 0.12 7.93' t 035H 20 24.4 2 8 1.07 1.1x10" 0.11 7.2 25 24.'4 2.311.25 1.1x10" 0.12 7.92 I i 4 i l-
~ r
/
f
-%s 4-3 a ,
I
-- ,d . . , e .,., i , , , - , .-m.-.,,,. ..m...%_, ,, . - - . . .. . . . . . . . . _ . . _ _ . - .
W 4 i i l 1 i - t j i I Table 4-3 HYDROGEN-WATER FOG INERTING DATA AT ~70*C t 3 Vol, em H O H O Flux Ave. Inerting 2 2 Nozzle Press. Mean Dia. No. Median Conc. 3 3 2 2
.(psi) Micron Micron em Mix em /cm min (t)
Spraco 10 - - - - 6.76 2163-7604 20 - - - -' 7.18 30 - - -
~
- 7.62 40 - - - - 8.46 Spraco 10 - - - - 5.88 1405-0604 20- - - - - 6.32 30 - - -- - 7.62' 40 - - - - 7.62 i
Spraco 10 - - . - - 4.98 1806-1605 20 - - - - 5.43 30 - - - - 5.43 40 - - - - 5.43 e 9 1 d 't i 4-4
O Temperature, *C D 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
. 00 , , , , , , , ,
I 90 - 80 - c .' 3
; 70 -
n. e
! 60 -
2
, Liquid-Vapor 6 50 -
Conversion curve h - 3 N B 40 - O E 20 30 - 5 y Water Vapor 20 - g satu ra tion - Curve lO - t i f f I I i t O I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
~4 X 10 , Fog Cone., Cm 3 H2O(g)/ Cm 3Gas Mix Figure 4-1 Liquid-Vapor Conversion and Water Vapor Saturation
.!' Relationships l l 1 0 ! 4-5 l 1
O 100 % AIR OH Inerting at 20 C 2
^
*H 2 Inerting at 50 C t
- 80 20 j
. 4 40 f CO l 7
^"'"~' '
/' 40 /
DETONATION LIMIT e, 60 e LAMMAB LITY LIMIT
,0 / \/ \/ ,,
O / 00 % H 2 80 60 40 20 100 % STE AM PERCENT H2 Figur,e 4-2. Detonation and flammability limits for air-hydrogen-steam mixtures Data Points represent water fog inerting data obtained in this study for nozzles and include water vapor saturation
! concentrations (Curves are from ref. 6) 9 4-6
- - - - . . _ . . - . . _ _ _ _ - - - - , _ . . _ . . _ - - _ _ . . - _ . - . - - - _ - ~ - - - - _ . - - - _ . - _ . - , - , - . . - - , _ - , _
tha cbrerv:d data. Thus, liquid phnco w;tsr mu:t alto be providing a hast cink to contribute to tha inersacsd LFL. > Water fog densities required to achieve a given level of inerting depend on the fog f-~ k ,g) characteristic drop size. This is shown in Figure 4-3, which is a plot of fog densi-ty (based on probe data with v = v g) versus volume mean diameter for inerting to a hydrogen LFL of 4.76% at 20'C, and 7.2% at 50*C. Although the 50*C data in Figure 4-3 refer to smaller drops than the 20*C data, best fit lines through both sets of The data in Figure 4-3 refer data are approximately colinear on the log-log plot. to four nozzles. Data from the fifth nozzle (Spraco 1405) were more scattered than
- for the other four nozzles, but did indicate that the linear relationship in Figure 4-3 could possibly be extrapolated to somewhat larger drop diameters and fog densi-ties, as shown in Figure 4-4.
The trend of the data shown in Figure 4-3 is analogous to that observed by Sapko et al with methane (see Figure 3 of Reference 2) . . However, in view of the uncertain-ty in the fog density data, the results shown here are not sufficiently accurate to generate a quantitative design basis, b ( O Oh 4-7
O s 5 20*C 50*C
- S -
0.10 !
$ 10-3 . i i i , . . . _ o.og i 9 oSproco 2163-7604 /-
i y - 0.08
'g 8 ASproco l806-1605 / -
0.07 '
- u. 7 -
vSproco 2020-1704 / - c 0.06 g OSo.:o; ore 035H / E6 _ A< e 0.05 n. m / E 5 - eh - g /4.76% H2 _ o04 .2 E 74 Non-Flammoble Zone / In Air At _ _
.y ,o 20*C
.E / 0.03 a
2 ,f Flammable _ _ E 3 _ v 3 Zone i 2:
.E /
CD C 5 - 0.02 $ o (2% H 2in Air g m 2 - 7. E At ~ 50' C N c O "E U.. 8 10-4
' yv ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -
_ oog i 10 20 30 40 50 60708090 i Volume mean diameter, microns
! 8 5
o . l , Figure 4-3. Fog Concentration as a Function of Drop Sire to Achieve indicated Inerting Levels i l i
- 9 l
- O 4-8
4 O . . . i . . . . . i .u g . ...iisii .iig ;
= :
S u
- oSproco 2163 :
$ - ASproco 1405-0604 -
OSpraco 2020-1704 0 _
! Iv -
o
, y _
USproco 1806-1605 a _ C O s - . E. O iO - m - e - a a - 3 - 3 _ i m - E - U N O --
-f 10-3 E b o _
O - w O 9 g . g _ o C o e O ~4 t t t t 1 I t tl t i e e t ii! I t I t eii IO 10 0 200 Volume mean diameter, microns Figure 4-4. Fog Concentration versus Drop Size Recuirements for Inerting to 4.76 Hydrogen at 20 C O l 4-9 j
-...__-..,,.~-. ...___ _ ,....- ,_ ..,_..--.__.._. _ ____ _ .__ _ _-_ -..~._,
4 ((h) Section 5 CONCLUSIONS
- 1. Dense water fogs applied to hydrogen-air mixtures cause only a marginal increase in the hydrogen lower flammable limit (LFL) concentration at-room temperature. Four fog nozzles used in this program caused the hydrogen LFL for upward flame propagation to increase from 4.0 vol % to 4,4-5.3 vol t.
; Fog generated from an air-driven nozzle (which generated smaller drops than the hydraulic nozzles) resulted in a hydrogen LFL of 7.2% at 20*C.
- 2. Increasing temperature causes large increases in the hydrogen LFL in.the presence of water fog. For a typical hydraulic type fog nozzle used in the project, the hydrogen LFL increased from 4.8 vol 4 to 7.2 vol t and to 7.6 vol 4 (based on dry hydrogen-air mixture) as initial temperatures This increased inerting is due increased from 20'C to 50*C and to 70*C.
in part to water vapor dilution and in part to liquid phase water heat sink effects associated with rapid vaporization of the smaller drops at g elevated temperatures. a
\_) 3. Fog densities required to e.chieve a given level of hydrogen inerting are.
strongly dependent on the characteristic drop size of the fog. For ex-(from ample, required fog densities increased by an order of magnitude gm/cm -gas to 10" gm/cm -gas) as volume mean drop diameter in-
~
10 creased from about 20 to 100 pm. e 9 e T 9 a 5-1
('~ ,
\
REFERENCES
- l. M. Berman et al. " Analysis of Hydrogen Mitigation for Degraded Core Accidents in the Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant," NUREG/CR-17625 and 80-2714, March 1981.
- 2. M.J. Sapko, A.L. Furno and J.M. Kuchta. " Quenching Methane-Air Ignitions
- . vith Water Sprays,". Bureau of Mines Report RI8214, 1977.
- 3. D.E. Magnus, et al. " Sensing of Droplet' Size and Concentration in Pollution Control Equipment," Proceedings, . 4th Joint Conference on Sensing of Environmental Pollutants, American Chemical Society, 1978.
- 4. J.D. Stockham and E.G. Fochtman, eds., Particle Size Analyses,-
Ann Arbor Science, 1977.
- 5. W.D. Bachalo. " Method for Measuring the Size and Velocity of Spheres by Dual-Beam Light-Scatter Interferometry," Applied Optics, 19,,
- p. 363, 1980.
- 6. H.A. McLain. " Potential Metal-Water' Reaction in Light Water Cooled-Power Reactors," ORNL-liSIC-23, p. 90,1968.
O
~
t . I l i s I 6-1
- , . _ . _ . , _ . ~ . . _ . . _ _ ._ . . _ - - . _ . ~ , - _ - _ _ _ - . , ._ - - - - - - _ .
t i
- APPENDIX A I
SUMMARY
OF EXPERIMENTAL DATA i l o I \ i I I I l e 0 e 8 s 0 9 0
4'. (% *
+- * .
%/
' WATER FOG INERTING OF HYDROCEN-AIR HIXWRES Concentration Diameter (cm H2 0/cm mix)
Ave. Water Water Based on H -Air Flow, Ex- Flux V Based on 2 cluding Wall Spray Number Sauter No. 3 V Based on Mix 2 Flame Water " "" Ternp. Mean Vol. Mean Mean Median Collection Flow Cone Propa9ation Press. Flow .Run-Off (p) cm (min) Method (1/m) (volt) (Yes/No) Nozzle (psi) (cc/ min) (cc/ min) ("C) (cm) (cm) (cm) t
~3 ~3
~3 -2 ~4 10 350 160 20 5.61x10 1.36x10
-2 2.52x10 15 2.1 1.04 1.51x10 4.45x10 8x10 20(air) - -
~4 545 180 20 3.97x10
~
1.1 x10~ 2.24x10~ 1011.9 1.17 5.44x10 2.21x10~ 1.73x10~ 10.42 4.03' No 20 480 160 20 4.37x10~ 1.14x10~ 2.27x10~ 1111.8 1.04 6.6 x10 2.69x10~ 1.54'x10~ 10.42 4.03 . No 25
~3 -2 -2 -4 20 4.76x10 1.15'x10 .2.71x10 14tl.8 1.12 7.97x10 1.69x10~ - 20 - -
30 550 173
~3 -2 7.96x10~ 2.02x10~ 10 SPRACO 30 540 ISO 50 3.59x10 9.10x10 1.88x10 11.511.7 1.17 - - -
I"P*** * ~3 -2 9.621.7 9.74x10-1 1.33x10~3 3.22x10" - 10 -- - 40 540 150 45 2.91x10 8.78x10~ 2.01x10
-3 ~3 --
05 20 540 180 53 3.33x10 9.11x10~ 1.96x10~ 1011.5 1.17 1.15x10 2.80x10' .- 10 -
~3 -2 8.94x10 3.27x10~ 1.66x10~ 10.42 4.03 .. No 30 550 173 20 4.21x10 1.1 x10~ 2.2 x10 1411.8 1.12
-2 ~4 20 545 160 20 3.97x10
~
1.1x10 2.24x10~ 10tl.9 1.17 5.44x10 2.21x10~ 1.72x10~ 10.465 4.44 No
~
25 480 160 20 4.37x10 1.14:10~ 2.27x10~ 1111.8 1.04 6.6 x10~ 2.69x10~ 1.53x10~ 10.465 4.44 No
~$
30 550 173 20 4.21x10
~
1.1 x10~ 2.2 x10~ 1111.8 1.12 8.94x10 3.27x10~ 1.65x10~ 10.465 '4.44 No
~4 -2 20 545 160 20 3.97x10~ 1.1 x10" 2.24x10~ 10tl.9 1.17 5.44x10 2.214 0 1.71x10~ ~10.535 5.07 Yes 25 480 160 20 4.37x10
~
1.14x10~ 2.27x10~ 1111.8 1.04 6.6 x10 2.69x10~ 1.52x10~ 10.535- 5.07 . Yes 30 550 173 20 4.21x10
~
1.1 x10~ 2.2 x10~ 1111.8 1.12 8.74x10~ 3.27x10~ 1.64x10~ 10.535 5.07 No
~3 1.12 8.94x10 3.27x10~ 1.64x10~ ' .10.575 5.44 Yes 30 550 173 20 4.21x10 1.1 x10~ 2.2 x10~ 11
~3 ~3
.30 540 180 42 3.59x10 9.18x10~ 1.88x10~ 11.521.7 1.17 7.96x10 2.02x10~ 1.70x10~ ~ 10.575 5.44 'No 44 1.70x10~ 10.575 5.44 No 30 ~
45 * " " " " " " 1.70x10 10.6 'S.66 Yes 30
~3 ~4 480 160 44 4.76x10 1.15x10
-2 2.21x10~ 14t1.8 1.04 7.97x10 1.69x10~ 1.51x10~ 10.6 5.66 Yes 25
" " -2 25 " " 44 " " " " " 1.51x10 10.575 5.44 No
~
150 39 2.91x10" 8.78x10~ 2.01x10" '9.611.7 9.74 ~ 1.33x10' 3.22x10 1.42x10~ 10.6 5.66 Yes 40 540 ~ 40 " " 47 " * ". " " " 1.42x10 10.575 5.44 No
~# -2 30 520 173 20 4.76x10
-3 1.15x10
-2 2.21x10 14tl.8 1.12 7.97x10 1.69x10 8.65x10 .20(air) -
No 160 20 5.61x10~ 1.36x10~ 2.52x10~ 1522.1 1.04 1.51x10'.4 4.45x10~ 7.64x10~ 20.9'S 4.53 No. 10 350
" " 20 " " " " " " -" 7.62x10~ 21.00 4.76 Ye3 10 70 - - - - - - - -
. 6.1 Yes 10 - - -
70 - -
- - - - 5.66 No 10 - - .- -
70 - - - - - - - 6.54 Yes 20 - - - -
,70 - - - - - - - 6.1 No 20 - - - -
70 - - - - - - - - - 7.83 Yes , 30 - - 70 - - .- - - - - 6.98 No 30 - - - - 70 - . - - - - '-~ - -7.83 Yes 40 - - - -
- - - 7.41 No 40 - - 70 - .- - - - -
4 l^ * [ ( WATER FCO INERTING OF HYD. M -AIR MIMURES (Continued) Concentration Diameter (ca H20/cm mix) Ave. Water Water Based on H2 Wr Flux Vg Based on Flow, Ex-3 V Based on Mix ,2 Flame Water cluding Wall Spray Number Sauter No. Mean Vol. Mean Mean Median Collection Flow Conc Propagation < Run-Off Temp. Only Press. Flow (cm) (u) cm (min) t ggj,) g, gg gy,, Nozzl* (psi) (cc/ min) (cc/ min) ("C) (cm) (cm) 16 20 4.24x10~ 1.11x10~ 2.22x10" 9.821.9 1.04x10 3.74x10~ 8.11x10~ 8x10 20(Air) 10 380 ~3
~3 ~3 -2 ~1 10.42 No 25 515 39 20 1.46x10 4.89x10 1.50x10 2.53x10 3.24x10~ 2.41x10"# 3.7x10 4.0)
~3 ~3 -2 ~1 -5 ~3 6.411.4 2.53x10 3.13x10 2.73x10 3.7x10 10.42 4.03 No SPRACO 25 515 39 20 1.41x10 4.41x10 1.0Bx10
~ -1 -4 4.84x10~ 2.06x10' .8.83x10 1.521.3 2.53x10 1.1 x10 ~ 2.76x10~
- 20(Air) - -
"[' "3,30 550 39 20
~3 ~1 470 55 45 1.11x10" 3.45x10" 8.18x10 4.621.4 3.57x10 2.84x10 1.93x10~ - 10(Air) - -
7604 20
~3 ~1 ~$ ~
10 ( Air) 30 590 24 53
~
8.87x10 ' 2.14x10~3 4.32x10 4.211.2 1.56x10 2.71x10 8.86x10 - - -
~3 ~3 ~3 ~1 -5 ~
40 680 37.5 53 1.09x10 3.31x10 8.63x10 5.211.2 2.43x10 2.72x10 1.38x10 " - 10(Air) - -
~ ~
~3 3.52x10 2.44x10 2.3 x10~ 10.42 4.03 No 30 590 24 20 1.08x10~ 3.65x10 9.59x10~ 3.521.4 1.56x10
-2 ~1 5.3 x10~ 10.42 4.03 No ~
4.7 1.5 3.57x10 3.06x10'$ 3.83x10
~
20 470 55 20 1.74x10 5.45x10~ 1.31x10 ~ ~3 55 20 1.74x10
~3 3 -2 5.45xli 1.31x10 4.721.5 3.57x10'I 3.06x10'$ 3.83x10
- 5.26x10 10.465 4.44 No 20 470
~4 39 20
-2 1.41x10~ 4.41x10~ 1.08x10 6.411.4 2.53x10' 3.13x10 2.73x10 3.73x10~ 10.465 4.44 r4 25 515
~4 24 20 4.84x10~ 2.C6x10' 8.83x10'3 1.511.3 1.56x10' 1.1 x10'* 2.76x10 2.3 x10~ 10.465 4.44 No 30 590 ~3
~3 -3 -2 -5 10.535 5.07 Yes 55 20 1.74x10 5.45x10 1.31x10 4.7tl.5 3.57x10'1 3.06x10 3.83x10 5.22x10 7 20 470 -4 ~3
~1 ~4
" 39 20 1.41x10
~3 4.41x10
~3 1.08x10
-2 6.421.4 2.53x10 3.13x10 2.73x10 3.73x10 10.535 5.07 Yes 25 515 ~ ~
24 20 4.84x10'* 2.06x10~ 8.83x10
~3 1.521.3 1.56x10'1 1.1 x10 " 2.76x10 2.3 x10~ 10.535 5.07 Yes 30 590 ~3
~3 ~3 1.93x10"* 5.2 x10 10.575 5.44 No 20 470 55 50 1.11x10 3.45x10~ 8.18x10 4.621.4 3.57x10~ 2.84x10~
5.19x10'3 10.6 5.66 Yes 20 50
~1 ~3
~4 2.14x10
~3 4.32x10'3 4.221.2 1.56x10 2.71x10' 8.06x10 2.26x10 10.6 5.66 Yes 30 590 24 50 8.87x10
" " 50 * * * * " " " "
10.575 5.44 No 30
~3 3.31x10
~3 8.63x10
-3 5.211.2 2.43x10~ 2.72x10~ 1.?3x10"* 3.54x10~ 10.6 5.66 No 40 680 37.5 51 1.09x10
" No
" " 50 " " " " " " 3.52x10~ 10.650 6.1 40 3.50x10
- 10.7 6.5 No 40
- 50 ~
3.49x10 10.75 6.97 No 40 50 ~ 3.47x10 10.80 7.41 Yes 40
- 50 ~
1.56x10 2.71x10~ 8.06x10 1.14x10~ 21.050 4.99 Yes 30 590 24 20 8.87x10 2.14x10 4.32x10~ 4.2tl.2
" " No
= " " '. =. = " " 20.900 4.31 30 20 9.821.9 1.04x10" 3.74x10" 8.11x10' 7.6 x10 21.050 4.99 Ye1 10 380 16 20 4.24x10~ 1.11x10~ 2.22x10" 10
" " 20 . . = = = " " 7.58x [ 21.100 5.21 Yes
" " 20 " " * * " " "
7.61x10"# 21.00 4.76 Yes 10 ~
" ~* = = " " " "
7.63x10 20.950 4.53 Yes 10 " 20
*
- 20 * " " a = = =
'7.66x10"* 20.000 4.31 No 10 l
9' Q - (m - WATER FOG INERTING OF HYDROGEN-AIR MIXTURES (Continu3d)'
^
Concentration Diameter (cm H2 0/cm mix) Ave,bhter Water Based on # Ilow, Ex- Flux V Based on '"2" Sauter No. 3 V Based on Mix 2 Flame Water cluding Wall Spray Number "" C 11ection Flow Conc ' Propagation-
. Press. Flow Run-Off Temp. Mean Vol. Mean Mean Median cm (min) - t O Y Method (1/m) -(volt) (Yes/No)
(psi) .(cc/ min) (cc/ min) ' ('C) (cm) . (cm) (cm) . (W) Nozzle 6.54 No SPMCO 10 70 imp i ngement 6.98- Yes 70 Nodil 2163 101 6.28 No 7604 20 70 7.41 Yes-20 70 7.41 No 30 70 7.83 Yes 30 70 8.25 No 40 70 8.65 Yes 40 70
~3 1322.1 7.47x10~1 1.11x10"* 3.62x10~ - 20 - -
10 355 115 -20 6.07x10 1.39x10~ 2.46x10"
~1 2.9 x10~ 10.42 4.03 No 30 20 2.58x10
~
8.62x10
~
2.14x10~ 6t1.7 1.95x10 3.3 x10~ 8.45x10 20 360
~3 -2 4.821.5 1.95x10~ 2.44x10~ 2.89x10 2.9 x10~ 10.42 4.03 No SPRAco 25 500 30 20 1.65x10 5.84x10~ 1.67x10 ~
~I 20 34 20 1.22x10
~3 4.2 x10" 1.17x10~ 4.521.3 2.21x10 1.21x10~ 1.1 x10 * - - -
C e and 30 550 ~1
~3 ~3 2.61x10~ 9.33x10 10 - -
Fins Spray 40 635 35 50 8.33x10"$ 2.45x10 5.75x10 3.821.3 2.27x10 -
~
10 7.26x10~ 4.211.2 2.34x10 2.94x10 ' 1.14x10~ 02 % 36 65 8.85x10"*'2.71x10~ 30 555 ~ ~4 ~3 4 3.1 x10 5.02x10 ~ -1.11x10" 6.211.5 2.01x10 ~1 3.6 x10 ' 4 x10 10 - - 20 455 31 50.2 1.72x10 ~3
~3 ~3 5.91x10" 5.621.7 2.34x10~ 2.35x10~ 1.53;;10 3.45x10 10.42- 4.03 - No 30 560 36 20 1.72x10 3.57x10 621.7 1.95x10 3.19x10 '5.11x10~ 2.9'x10~ 10.42 4.03 No 20 460 30 20 2.18x10~ 6.79x10~ .1.68x10" ~# ~
10.465 No 20 460 30 20 2.18x10~ 6.79x10 1.68x10~ 621.7 1.95x10~ 3.19x10"$ 5.11x10 2.87x10 ~ 4.44
~3 -2 ~1 2.87x10 10.465 4.44 ' No -
20 1.65x10 5.84x10~ 1.67x10 4.811.5 1.95x10 2.44x10~ 2.89x10 25 500 30 ~3 3.44x10 10.465 4.44 No 30 560 36 20 1.72x10~ 3.57x10~ 5.71x10'3 5.621.7 2.34x10'I 2.35x10 1.53x10 ~ ~3
-2 621.7 1.95x10~ 3.19x10" 5.11x10
- 2.85x10 10.535 5.07 Yes 20 460 30 20 2.18x10~ 6.79x10~ 1.68x10 ~3
~3 ~3 1.67x10
-2 4.821.5 1.95x10'1 2.44x10" .2.89x10 2.85x10 10.535 5.07 Yes 25 500 30 20 1.65x10 5.84x10
~3
~3 1.53x10 ~3.40x10 l'O.535 5.07 No 30 '560 36 20 '1.72x10 3.57x10~ 5.91x10'3 5.611.7 2.34x10 2.35x10~ ~3
~3 ~1 '1.53x10"* 3.40x10 10.575 5.44 Yes 36 20 1.72x10 3.5.
' 5.91x10'3
- 2.34x1( 2.35x10~
30 560 ~
-5 2.45x10
~3 5.74x10'3'3.8tl.3 2.27x10'I 2.61x10 9.33x10 ' 3'.32x10' 10.535' ~ 5.08 No 40 635 35 47 8.33x10 ~
a * * " " * * " " 3.31x10 10.565 '5.35 No 40 51 ~
- 3.31x10 10'.575 5.44 No 40 -" 53 ~
3.29x10 '10.650 6.10 No i 40 " 51 3.27x10' 10.70 6.54 No ' 40 " 48 - 3.26x10' ' 10.750 6.97 No 40
- 47 3.24x10' 10.800 7.41' Yes %
40 " " ' 51 i
.o
[T
/% ** ** .. ... .
( cAIR MIXTURES (Continued) WATER FOG INERTING OF HYD Concentration (cm H O/cm stix) Diameter Water Based on Ave. Watar Flux V -Based on 2' Flow, Ex- 3 V B'ased on Mix "2 Flame No. Water -cluding Wall Spray Number Sauter " "" Collection Flow Cone Propagation Mean Vol. Mean Mean Median "I Press. Flow Pun-Off Temp. (p) em (min) t Method (1/m) (vo1%) (Yes/Ho) ("C) (cm) (cm) (cm) I Nozzle (psi) (cc/ min) (cc/ min) l 3.33x10~ 10.800 7.41 Yes f 4.221.2 2.34x10~ 2.9 x10 1.14x10 30 555 36 60 '8.85x10~ 2.71x10" 7.26x10~ 10.750 6.97 No SPPACO
* * * " " " " 3.33x10~
8 II"
- 61 ~3 30
~3 -2 -5 ~
x10
- 2.87x10 10.000 7.41 Yes Cone and ~4 1.11x10 6.211.5 2.01x10 3.6x10 4 455 31 40 1.72x10 5.02x10 Fine Spray 20 2.88x10~ 10.750 6.97 Yes e
2020 20 *
- 41 ~
* * " " *
- 2.9 x10 ' 10.70 6.54 Yes
- 43 ~
l l 20
" " " " " "
- 2.91x10 10.650 6.10 No '
* " 52 ~4 ~
20 ~ 1.21x10
~I 1.1 x10 1.7 x10 20(Air) - -
34 20 1.22x10' 4.2 x10 4.2 x10' 5.621.7 2.21x10'I 30 550 ~ 5.49 10~ 20.950 4.53 No
~3 1322.1 1.47x10' 1.11x10
- 3.26x10 10 355 115 20 6.07x10 1.39x10' 2.46x10~ Yes 5.48x10 21.00 4.76
"
- 20 10 I
-2 3.2 x10' 9.4 x10 - 20 -
~3 2.59x10' 1322 -
j 10 20 5.45x10 1.36x10 -5 gg 5.89x10~ 1.33x10~ - - 7.17x10" 9.15x10 20 32 2.09x10~ -5 ~4 to p
~3 -2 2.62x10 3.42x10 5.69x10~ 1.12x10
- 25 32 2.3 x10 ~ ~# 20 SPRACO ~3 -2 1.42x10 1.07x10 N " 20 2.17x10 6.35x10'3 1.52x10 6.421.4 30 * ~$ 1.55x10~ 10
~3 1x10 1.15x10 9.71x10~
20 59 15.5 43 1.5 x10 4.32x10'3 9.83x10" 4.921.7 ~1 -6 ing
~4 ~3 7.77x10 1.64x10~ 10 e 40 6.25x10 1.52x10'3 3.14x10 3.321.13 1.52x10 06 30 76 23.5 10
~4 ~3 2.08x10~ 311.06 9.74x10' 1.34x10~ 1.88x10~
15 47 5.35x10 1.12x10 40 85 1.17x10
~1 3.33x10' 3.16x10 1.73x10~ 10.42 s.03 No 20 2.06x10~ 4.78x10' 9.1 x10~ 6.421.4 ~
30 7J 18 ~ 3.3 x10 10.42 4.03 No 511.8 2.21x10~ 4.61x10" 6.05x10 ' 20 60 34 20 2.04x10~ 5.93x10'3 1.36x10" ~3 10.42 4.03 No 412 1.62x10 3.09x10' 5.72x10'4 2.4 x10 25 73 25 20 2.4 x10~ 6.6 x10' 1.36x10' ~3 No 2.21x10"I 4.61x10 6.05x10' 3.2?x10 10.465 4.44 J4 20 2.04x10" 5.93x10' 1.36x10' '5t1.8 20 60 10.465 4.44 No 20 2.4 x10'3 6.6 x10
~3 1.36x10
-2
- 1.64x10'I 3.09x10' 5.72x10' '2.39x10' 25 73 25 10.465 4.44 No 3.33x10' 3.16x10' 1.72x10' 2.06x10' 4.78x10" 9.1 x10' 6.421.4 1.17x10" 30 73 18 20 -6 Yes 521.8 2.21x10' 4.11x10 6.05x10' 3.23x10'3 10.535 5.07
'60 34 20 2.04x10'3 5.93x10 1.36x10' 20 10.535 5.07 Yes 422 1.62x10' 3.21x10" 5.72x10'4 2.37x10' 25 73 25 20 2.4 x10' 6.6 x10~ 1.36x10' 10.535 5.07 Yes
~3 3.33x10" 3.16x10~ 1.70x10' 30 73 18 20 2.06x10' 4.78x10 9.1 x10' .6.421.4 1.62x10' Yes 20 2.17x10'3 6.35x10
~3 1.52x10
-2 6.411.4 1.69x10'I 1.42x10~ 1.07x1[ 1.23x10'3 21.050 4.99 30 65 26 No
" " " " " " " 1.24x10' 20.90 4.31 30 65 26 20 Yes
~4 -2 2.50x10 -2 1322 1.17x10'I 3.2 x10" 9.4 x10~ 8.55x10'4 21.050 4.99 25 18 20 5.45x10 1.36x10 ~4 10
* * * * *
- 8.61x10 20.90 4.31 No 25 18 20 10 8.57x10 21.00' 4.76 Yes-
-" " 6" 10 25 18 20 '
" " " = = = 0.59x10'4 20.950 4.50 ye.
10 25 18 20
9 r D)
\J
(% WATER FOG INERTING OF HYDROCEN-AIR MIXTURES (Concludtd) Concentration Diameter (cm Hy O/cm mix) Ave. Water Water Based on Flow, Ex- Flux V Based on + HW2 . Water cluding Wall spray Number Sauter No. 3 V Based on Mix 2 Flame Press. Flow Run-Off To;T. Mean Vol. Mean Mean Median y Collection Flow Conc Propagation Nozzle (psi) (cc/ min) (cc/ min) (*C) (cm) (cm) (cm) (p) cm (min) t Method (1/m) (volt) (Yes/No) SPRACO 10 50 5.21 Yes 10 50 4.76 No Misting 20 50 5.21 No
~ 20 50 5.66 Yes 1605 30 50 5.21 No 30 50 5.66 Yes 40 50 4.76 No 40 5, 5.60 Yes
~ ~4 20 175 16 45 6.39x10
- 2.2 x10~ 6.87x10~ 2.321.5 1.04x10~ 3.21x10 1.08x10~ 10 20 175 16 52 5.99x10 2.44x10~ 9.64x10" 2.821.07
- 3.18x10~ 1.1 x10~ 10
-4 ~3 ~4 ~
25 - - 53 6.2 x10 2.4 x10 9.03x10~ 2.421'.2
- 3.34x10 1.1 x10 10
* ~3
) SONICORE 20 175 16 20 1.48x10 10.8 7.41 tes 35H * "
~
20 175 16 20 1.49x10 10.750 6.97 No 25 210 18 45 6.2 x10~ 2.4 x10~ 9.03x10~ 2.421.2 1.17x10~ 3.34x10~ 1.1 x10~ 1.73x10~ 10.420 4.03 No
~4 25 210 18 . 44 6.2 x10 2.4 x10~ 9.03x10~ " "
3.3 x10 ~ 1.1 x10~ 1.86x10" 9.70 7.2 No
~4 ~3 ~4 ~3 25 210 18 45 6.2 x10 2.4 x10
-3 9.03x10 = "
3.3 x10 1.1 x10 ~3 1.84x10 9.80 8.16 Yes
~4 ~3 ~3 ~4 ~3 ~3 25 210 18 - 44 6.2 x10 2.4 x10 9.03x10 " "
3.3 x10 1.1 x10 1.85x10 9.750 7.69 No 20 160 17 52 5.99x10 2.44x10~ 9.64x10~ 2.821.07 1.10x10~ 3.18x10~ 1.1 x10~ 1.56x10~ 10.750 6.97 No 20 160 17 52 5.99x10~ 2.44x10" 9.64x10~ " " 3.18x10~ 1.1 x10~ 1.57x10~ 10.000 7.41 Yes
~3 ~1 -3 ~3 25 210 18 52 .6.2 x10 2.44x10 9.03x10~ 2.421 07 1.17x10 3.34x10 1.1 x10 1.84x10 ' 9.8 8.16 Yes
~4 25 210 18 52 6.2 x10 2.44x10~ 9.03x10" * "
3.34x10 ~ 1.1 x10~ 1.85x10' 9.750 7.69 No l l l l l
l 4 h APPENDIX B i e i e LOG-NORMAL DROP SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS i l . e e i. 4 4 f J d 'i l .I .I l j 1 i
- e e
e e e e e j 9 3
- , . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ , _ _ . , _ . - _ ~ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . - - .. _ .. ,- ,,-
3 10 _ i i i i i i i I. I i i I I _ Nozzle: Spraco 2163-7604 _ Nozzle Pressure: 20 psi Spray Temp: ~20 C Probe Location: 35.5 cm below Nozzle Centerline ] inside the Inerting Tube l 1 2 10 _ _
-e l
1 1 1 _ i l m l z - l E
- D O'
i 10
- 9 m
i - 6 l
. t
~
l muum 9 e i l I i I I I I I I I I I g 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 Cumulative Percent Probability F.- 1
3 a i i 10 _ i i i : : : : _ Nozzle: Spraco 2163-7604 _ Nozzle Pressure: 25 psi _ Spray Temp: a20 C Probe location: 35.5 cm below Nozzle Centerline inside the Inerting Tube !
.E 2
10 _ _; i i e ' 2 _ m I E e D ~ J O
- i 10 i
* . j
~
l I 9
't I I I I I I I I I I I I g
5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 Cumulative Percent Probability B-2
3 i i i 1. 10 _ i i i i i i i i I _ Nozzle: Spraco 2020-1704 _ Nozzle Pressure: 20 psi - Spray Temp: ~20 C
- Probe Iocation: :33 cm below Nozzle Centerline q -
inside the Inerting Tube l
.r 2 _
_I , 10 . y 1 l
- e '
- 2 u I e -
4 E o O5 i i ! -l l ' l go _
.J a
- I
- l 1 * .-
( _ l' I I I I I I I I I I I 1 g 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 l O Cumulative Percent Probability
, E-3
3 i i i i i i i i 10 _ i i i i i _ Nozzle: Spraco 2020-1704 _ O Nozzle Pressure: 25 Psi _ Spray Temp: ~20 C Probe location: 33 cm below Nozzle Centerline
- . inside the Inerting Tube l!
I I I i l 2 q iO _
= ]
- . j s l 2 _
l E 8 O - a o _
-l l 10 - d,
_J J t
.I I I I I I I I I -l I I I y
5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 Cumulative Percent Probability B-4
'3 i i 10 _ i i i i i i i i i. : i _
]
Nozzle: Spra co 1806-1605 O Nozzle Pressure: 20 psi Spray Temp: ~20 C Probe k cation: 33 cm below Nozzle _ Centerline inside the Inerting Tub e l 2 _ 10 I
~ l
- . -i f I
e i 5 - e I g _ E l O - a o a - 10
-
- d
. eum e -
O O e 9 e i I I I I I I I I I I I g 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 Cumulative Percent Probability B-5
. - - _ _ , _ _ . . _ . . , . . . _ . . - . . . _.. _ -- .. - _.~._ - _ . _._ ,. _ .___ _.. _ __ . _ _ ._..-. _-_ _. ~ .--_ _. _ .._._- _ _ ____.-_-____-_ . _ -
3 i i i i 10 i i i i i i i i _
~
~
Nozzle: Spraco 1806-1605 _
< Nozzle Pressure: 25 psi a l
~
Spray Temp: ~20 C 1 _ Probe k cation: 33 cm below Nozzle Centerline q
- r inside the Inerting Tube l 4
J 2 10 _ * -l
- . d
.J I
E a _
- I m
. i
. l i
E O? c _ e l 10 - i a _I
- I l
l a l e
'l 1 I I I I I I I I I I 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 Cumulative Percent Probability l B- 6 l
I . - . - -
3 i i 10 i i i i i i i i i i i _ Nozzle: Spraco 1405-0604 Nozzle Pressure: 25 psi , Spray Temp: a20 C Probe b eation: 33 cm below Nozzle Centerline i inside the Inerting Tube .; e i d 2 _ 10
. 4
*='=
m-
. mum e
J, I E _ i . E 2 . O l I I iO - r _ -:
- l
,i l
a .
. . l 9
i e I I I I I I I I I I I I 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 Cumulative Percent Probability B-7
3 I 10 _ i i i i i i i I I I I I -
] Nozzle: Spraco 1405-0604 Nozzle Pressure: 20 psi j
i Spray Temp: ~20 C Probe k cation: 33 cm below Nor:1e Centerline inside the Inerting Tube !
. I I
2 _ 10 e - 1 e E - a - d _ E Oe - i 10 - k
~_
]
t
-l
- i
~
- l
. I T
l e
*1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 Cumulative Percent Probability l
i Iw8 .
. . - . _ _ _ . . ~ . ._._.-. - ____...,-.. , _ ___ _
3 i i i i i i 10 i i i i i i _
- l Nozzle: Spraco 2163-7604 Nozzle Pressure: 30 psi Spray Temp: ~20 C Probe Location: 33 cm below Nozzle Centerline ,_
i inside the Inerting Tube j 10 2 _
-)
J Ai 2 _
, l-e O -
- ga _
I " l
- t l
' 10 - O 9 g S I W g 9
'l I I I I I I I i 1 1 I 98 l
5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 Cumulative Percent Probability B- 9
3 i i i i i i i 10 - i i i i i i _ Nozzle: Spraco 1405-0604 Nozzle Pressure: 30 psi Spray Temp: ~20 C _ Probe Location: 33 cm below Nozzle Centerline _ inside the Inerting Tube
.I 2 _
10 _ _ ' J, 3 a a _ i _ E l O
- i 5 -
~
- 1 10 - . ,
"t .
l I l l t . - _ le l i i I I I I I I 1 1 1 I i g 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 Cumulative Percent Probability B- 10 E
c 6 3 i i 10 i i i i i i i i i . i ,
~
Nozzle: Spraco 2020-1704
~
~
Nozzle Pressure: 30 psi j q i o - Spray Temp: ~20 C Probe Location: 33 cm below Nozzle Cen::erline - r inside the Inerting Tube 1 i
- e
_ l .
- m. . -
'\ v 2 m.
to d
~.
)
s
- , - t - ,'1 .
4 e 1 2 _ s g
* ._..i .
e _
- ,, r;
~- ' % i E m .
- - p ~,.
o .
. t! (. , - ;
o - , 3- ' -- a
,\ 3 i F ,'* ; 4, .
h, , br# s x
^ !;
[ ,-
., 2
!, w_
^
l0 - ', , 1 4
,c -
~
% l '
1;- %, s s .
]
. sg
+-
- q V ,
x v. v., ~., '/ +, \ .
,s , _m. .
.1 -
C.- s* , s , JW +% % I k \' \ ~' j
-~
j s 's ,
= -
. y g,
*%[ ' x L' a~ % r,.
7 , ' i 2- q s, t 7 x\ A < s
~
,, s x s y'
.I I l l 1 1 I I c" ! ! O _ l 1 1 l-I 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60s ~70 80 85 f)O 95 98 -
Cumulative Percent Probability .s s i at l E-11 , . .1 L , 3,' 7 *:
.< ~ " s, l ,
'Q y ,
, -. 'u., .
- . - - - . . . , , , , .m,_.,- ,,-~,-,,,-,.,-,,_,..,n.-n.-,n.,a.,,mn,.,,,_,._,,-,, s,,.n,,,,,,t.,,,,m.., ,e.n,.e_. . a s.,.----, .e--..- . - -- A' he"-
.g
, , ~
3 i i - 10 i _ i... i ; -i i i i i i i _ s r E9 sale: Spraco 1806-1605
~
~ '
Nozzle Pressure: 30 Psi
~
' Spray' Temp: ~20 C
_ _ Probe 'Incation: 33 3 cm below Nozzle Centerline - s . .
^ inside the Inerting Tube sa s g
i
~
s . y
'%., u.
- e xs
\ ~
Q~- % m w
..s .
w - , N
, xg .
s - - 2 's _q 4.\v-10 > e ,
\ -
' . ,- .s g's ? -- . q ,
s 2% _. . - - .
, c. - ~~. ,, s ,y _
w , v. v;- _j
.< . _.. -7
-3'4 a ' ,
_J
, m .
,ta s.
.. s +,..
s . ., s- s
, ;u e y ;. ' '" 's x;
- v. -
.c ,
. s
. s.
- 5: .. ,_
'. ~
.s . ,
\
m
,,?
, ," 1 o , .
** i 'g , g
- , s >> .<
-- eq ,
= .
.,. ~ . , .
J.
G si; f._ , s
-g-
.s s s .
~
_i m's. -
~
J
,.-~
. . 3. . ,
t
. - ~ m- ,
,.~ --
m .r, ~K: % l 3.
.-e
- :~ . .o e _
',d,
~ ,
-r
* ~U, , a .F'i -' ,#
; ~,.
3 m't ^'
..1 ' - -
, m.q. j- ., ; s, 3 # _ i i i i i i ; i i i I ' 95 98
% .N5 -lON 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 s, . .n ,
Cumulative Percent Probability
% > 'If -'s 7 3
o o rA s
.. s , n . '
Ng4
,I '*
9 .J 1 15 12 s y' . G.,. t
** m s. ~ - - - - .
<- + , _ -__ , , . . , , _ . . . , , _ ,.
.. ._ . ~ . - - - - - = . - __ _ . - .- . .
J 3 i i i i i i i 10 i i i i i i i _ Nozzle: Spraco 1405-0604 _ Nozzle Pressure: 20 psi
-4 Spray Temp: ~530C Probe k cation: 33 'em below Nortle Centerline __
l inside the Inerting Tube . 5 2 _ 10 _ a l 2 _' - J a> E Oe~ :
, t 10 3 ,
J.
- I 1
I
?
. .I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1
5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98. Cumulative Percent Probability 4' B-13
. - -.. . . . . . . - , - . . . . - . - . - . . . ~ . _ - - . _ . . _ - . . - . . . - . - . - , , . - _ , _
3 i i i i i i ' 10 _ i i i i i i _
~
Nortle: Spraco 1405-0604 O
~
Nortle Pressure: 40 psi ; Spray Temp: ~ 450C Probe Iecation: 33 cm below Nortle Centerline _ inside the Inerting Tube _ I f . 2 _ _1 10 ,
~
J
)
I e _.c a _ l d a E O 5 _I 10 _ J l l e s _
. _ l . 1 I
I I I I I I I I
-1 1 I I y
10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98
.5
'k Cumulative Percent Probability E-14
-,.------,~ms, .______....,.,-,...,__,_,,-,_.._.,,_,,.--~,._,-9.,_y. , . ~ , _ , , _ , , - . _ , , , , , , - , ~ , . ,
,-s ,., _._,_%, _.,,.y
, .._%,e,.-- .w.
_ _ _ __ _. _m - _-- _ _ __ ___ - . _ _ _ _ _ .- .. _ _ 3 10 _ i i i i i i i i i i i i _ j Nozzle: Spraco 1405-0604
~ -
Nozzle Pressure: 30 psi . Spray Temp: ~ 500C l Probe kcation: .33 cm below Nozzle Centerline j
. fuside the Inerting Tabe *I l l
2 _ F 10 , q s . a _ d
' l E
o 1
'd i 10 ,
J J 9 l l g
'l i I I I I 1 I I I ~I I I i 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 Cumulative Percent Probability 1
0 3-15 .
3 10 _ i i i i i i i i i i i i _ Nozzle: Spraco 2163-7604 O Nozzle Pressure: 40 psi l
~
d Spray Temp: ~ 530C f Probe location: 33 cm below Nozzle Centerline ._ i I inside the Inerting Tube j j 2 _ 10 _
- i
_l I a ' a _
- i
_~ i E i O : e
. I 10 -
g _i i _
- e j 6 , e 9
g
'l l I I I I I I I I I I 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 O Cumulative Percent Probability.
~
B- 16
i c i i i i 10 _ i i i i
~
Nozzle: Spraco 2163-7601 - Nozzle Pressure: 30 psi O ~ Spray Temp: ~53 C Probe location: 33 cm below Nozzle centerline inside the Inerting Tube _! i I , ~ 2 _ 10 '
- -i a
~
- /
Zi ~- lt E 0 I 8 - o
~
10 _.i,
' l l
O
* . O _
I I I I I I 1 l l i I I I I g 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 5 10 Cumulative Percent Probability B- l /
3 10 i i 1. 1 i i i i i i i i I _ Nozzle: Spraco 2163-7604 _
~
Nozzle Preasure: 20 psi
~
Spray Temp: ~ 45'c _ Probe Incation: 33 cm below Nozzle centerline _. inside the Inerting Tube
.I 2 _
10 , e e t E
.o o -
10 -
.J J
een
. ansu 9
9 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 Cumulative Percent Probability Ik LU
M i i i i i i i IO _ i i i i _ I
~
Nozzle: Spraco 1806-1605 - Nozzle Pressure: 30 psi O - Spray Tetnp: u400C Probe Iocation: 33 cm below Nozzle Centerline _ i
' inside the Inerting Tube
'I J
~
l 2 _ _) 10 - _I 1 e i E - I E
.9 O _
O l
- i 10 -
meus J J I. e I I I I I I I I I i 1 I g 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 5 10 Cumulative Percent Probability 11- t 9 i
-. , , . , _ - _,.,,. .., ~.,., , ..~,__,. ____ _ .,_-_ ...... , _,,_..._. ,,-....- . .
3 i 10 i i i i i i i i i i i i
~ ""
Nozzle: Spraco 1806-1605 O ~ Nozzle Pressure: 40 psi Spray Temp: ~390C _ Prebe location: 33 cm below Norale Centerline .,_
, inside the Inerting Tube l 1
o 2 _ _ 10
- G
- W
- GI 2 -.
W E
- I O
10 -
- e.=
- e.g.
G
= -
g I I i i l i I i l i I I I , 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 Cumulative Percent Probability B-20
3 i i i i i 10 i _i i i i i i I _ ; Nortle: Spraco 1096-1605 _ j O i Nozzle Pressure: 20 psi
~
l Spray Teicp: ~43 C
- Probe location: 33 cm below Nortie Centerline ]
. inside the Inerting Tube I s l
; -l
- l 2 -
10
,J.
t
. i e -
a _
- l u '
~
e . E
.9 O _
O. e -. 10 -
~
_i 1 J
-i
~
9 . I I I I I I I I j l I I 'l g 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 5 10 Cumulative Percent Probability B- 21 l
I
; , I I I I I I I I I I I I _
_ i Nostle: Spraeo 2020-1704 - i 0 ~ Nostle Pressure: 20 psi Spray Temp: ~50'c
- Probe location: 33 cm below Nozzle Centerline I inside the Inerting Tube l
~
.J e
t
- t e
2 a 10 A l
-l l
E _
- l a
3 _
- l E e O
l 5 ' O 10 _J I
- e g e M em e
l
. . em e
9 I I i i i i 1 1 1 I I I I I 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 5 10 15 20 Cumulative Percent Probability B-22
. _ . . - - . . - _ _ . . . - _ _ . . ~ . ,_......._...m... .____,,,_,__,,.,,,.m._,_.._._..__,.,-__,.m,....._..-,,-_,,,__.,-.,.._.
i 3 i i i i i , , , , 10 _ i i i _ Nozzle: Spraco 2020-1704 O Nozzle Pressure: 30 psi _
~
Spray Temp: u65'C Probe Iocation: 33 cm below Nozzle Centerline , l inside the Inerting Tube l l I 5 2 _ - 10 _
- i 7 %
W l G a _ l E o 10 i _ I J _J l - l I I I I 1 i I I I i 1 1 98 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 g 5 10 l l O Cumulative Percent Probability l l t B-23 I
3 I I I 3 3 ' 10 _ i i i i i I 3 j Nozzle: Spraco 2020-1704 _ Nozzle Pressure: 40 Psi y i Spray Temp: ~70 C Probe location: 33 .cm below Nozzle Centerline , inside the Inerting Tube
, l
-1 2 _ j 10
_ 1 1
)
q _
- ,i 2 _ m i
, E i
.9 l o -
O e e J 10 - -,'
- e
- i
~]
i j e 9 l l 1 I I I I I I i 1 I I 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 Cumulative Percent Probability
,E-24
3 I I I 10 i i i i i I I I I - Nozzle: Sonieore 035H , Nozzle Pressure: 20 psi _j Spray Temp: ~45 C
~
t
- Probe I,ocation: 33 cm below Nozzle Centerline l
. inside the Inerting Tube l J
4 2 - 10 _ - t _ ~, e - i a _ I - i E l O 5 _
\
l 10 _ . _I
- . l l
I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 Cumulative Percent Probability B-25
i 3 i i i i i i i i 10 i i i i i _
~
8*88I': Sonieore 035H Nozzle Pressure: 25 psi ~ Spray Temp: ~53 C i Probe location: 33 cm below Nozzle Centerline
~
s inside the Inerting Tube l l . 2 f 10 i
] ,
.J k'
i es T> .I E . : D I
.O _
- ~
10 -
- i
?_
l _ ' _ e 9 I l I i I I I i I i I
-l l I I 98 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95
- g 5 10 15 20 Cumulative Percent Probability E-26
~ y,,-we- - y.--....-,,-,--%e v .,,,-y, , , , - - . . -yw. - . - -,-..,.e,~ , .--+,,----,,w-, - , - . , , . -m---,.--- , , . - - - - .r-- - - - - - - - + - - -
gg 3 i g g l l 1 1 I I I I I I ' -
~
Nozzle: Sonicore 035H Norrie Pressure: 20 psi _ Spray Temp: ~.52 C l Probe Location: 33 _ cm below Nozzle Centerline I inside the Inerting Tube l* J I
.i i
l 1 2 _ 10 _ j
~ i
-i q ,
w I i a ~
- a _
- i -
I e
.9 .
i o _ I l I I
~
- i 10 - . '
e I l. i
. e
. J I I I I I I I I I
10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98
- Cumulative Percent Probability B.27
3 i 10 i i i i i i I i i I I _ Norale: Spraco 2163-7604 Nozzle Pressure: 30 psi O- . Spray Temp: ~20 C Probe location: 33 cm below Nozzle Centerline
~
l r-
. inside the Inerting Tube J.
4 e 10 2 _ g I E _ {E m O
'5 -
O e 10 _ e - l _ O
.I I I I I I I I I I I I g
5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 Cumulative Percent Probability B 28
l 3 10 i i i i i i i i i i i i i _ i 1 Nozzle: Spra co 2020-1704 Nozzle Pressure: 30 psi Spray Temp: ~20 C 1 Probe location: 33 cm below Nozzle Centerline i I inside the Inerting Tube 2 _ _) 10 I 5 j 1 _ 6 - E
- D O^ -
-l l
10 -
- . y I
I o i I I I I I I I I I I I g 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 O Cumulative Percent Probability B- 29
3 10 i i i i i i i i i i i i _ Nozzle: Spraco 1403-0604 Nozzle Pressure: 30 psi .
. Spray Temp: ~20 C _
- Probe k cation: 33 cm below Norrie Centerline ..h inside the Inerting Tube _j 2 _
10 - g e m _ _I m. Oi - I 10 -
-) .
.J I
. e 9
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
' 98 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 Cumulative Percent Probability B-30
3 i i i i i i i i i i 1 3 1 - 10 1 _ l Nozzle: Spraco 1806-1605 O Nozzle Pressure: 30 psi Spray Temp: ~20 C Probe Incation: 33 cm below Nozzle Centerline ~ s inside the Inerting Tube l
.1 _
2 .D 10 _J
~
N I e _: 2 - i J I, e ' E + O O 1 r to - a J s i 9 I I I I I I I I I
-1 1 1 I 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 Cumulative Percent Probability B-31
,y*wv- we-ms en-m-- pq- pgwa----y,-y,w,w.-y,,4rw-m m m,p,.,,,m,we,ve.,,, , on -e
3 10 _ i i i i i i i i i i i i _ Nozzle: Spraco 1806- 1605 O - Nozzle Pressure: 10 psi Spray Temp: ~20*C
~
_ Probe Location: 33 cm below Nozzle Centerline q
. inside the Inerting Tube e
8 2 _ _ 10 . _ E , a - u e e E
.L' .
Q - O M J i .- _
=
l _ _ g
-l I I I I I I I I I I I g
5 10 15 20- 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 Cumulative Percent Probability B- 32
3 - 10 _ i i i i i i i i i I i i i _ 4 t
~ -
Nozzle: Spraco 2163-7604
~ ~
Nozzle Pressure: 10 psi ;
~ o .
Spray Temp: u20 C , _ Probe Locstion: 33 cm below Not:1e Centerline 7 inside the Inerting Tube j l
)-
. 3 j > ,
i 1
- j l 2 lo _
i i
~
l E a _ 1, m E D i B _ i 'i i
- 10 g
i . _ 5 'l , - e
- i 3
4 4 I I i 1 1 1 I I I I I I I
.l
< 5 10 65 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 ' i Cumulative Percent Probability , B-33 t J
.-----',-m.-~, , , . . - - . ~ _ ..,_.-_...--...-.__#_-,..__,,,,,_..,.,-..,_ , _ . _ , , , _ _ _ _ , _ _ . . , , , , . , , , , _ , , _ _ , _ , , _ _ , . , . _ _ _ _ , _ _ ,
3 i i i i i i i i 10 _ i i i i i _ 1 l _ Nozzle: Spraco 1405-0604 O - Nozzle Pressure: 10 psi e
~
Spray Temp: ~20 C _ Probe location: 33 cm below Nozzle Centerline q inside the Inerting Tube , j
)
2 _ 10 _ J e __I m _ e
- a. _
E O oa _ a 10 _ , e -
' e e
I I I I I
'l 1 I I I I I 98 g
15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 5 10 Cumulative Percent Probability B- 34
. - - . . . . - - . . - - _ . ~ . - - . . - _ . . . - . . - - . - . , . - . . . .
. _ _ , _ = .. - . _ . . . -
3 10 _ i i i i i i i i, i i i i _ Nozzle: Spraco 2020-1704 Nozzle Pressure: 10 psi
] =
0 Spray Temp: ~20 C
~ ~
Probe location: 33 cm below Nozzle Centerline _ inside the Inerting Tube _ 4 ' 2 _ _ 10 e _ I e 1 2 _ .- J . es E O 5 _ 10 - j ,
- ~'
i 1 . _ l l v e
'l I I I I I I I I I I I l' I
5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 O Cumulative Percent Probability E-35
3 i i i 10 i i i i i i i i i i _ O
~
' Nozzle: Spraco 2020-1704 Nozzle Pressure: 20 psi Spray Temp.w 20 C _,
Probe Location: 30.5 cm below nor:1e centerline i in open _ s 2 _ , 10 _ a i e a _ J
.e .
O _
]'
10 - . . I l . t _ 9 i i 0 I 1 5 1 10 I I 15 20 I I -l 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 I I I I I I 95 98 l Cumulative Percent Probability L ! l l _ _ _ . . _ .. _ _ . _ . _ - . . - _ _ , _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . ~ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ -.______-.___._._.__
. .- = - . . . - . . - - . . - . .
3 i i 10 i i i i i i i i i i i _
~
~
1
- Nozzle: Spraco 2020-1704 Nozzle Pressure: 25 psi Spray Temp ~20 C _
Probe Location: 30.5 cm below nozzle centerline in open _ t 2 _ 10 _ ,
-i .
I s _! a _ I _ E 9 . l Q _ l 10 - . M,
- m l
l l
.I I I I I I I I i i i l 1 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95- 98 Cumulative Percent Probability B-37
3 i i i i i i i i i _ 10 _ i , i i i
- Nozzle: Spraco 1806-1605
- Nozzle Pressure: 20 psi Spray Temp.sv20 C _
Probe Location: 30.5 cm below nozzle centerline . in open _ 2 _ e-10 _
~
l , E _ a l E e
.9 O
l e 10 _ ,
= _
e _ . 9 I I 1 1 I I I I l I ! I 98 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 5 10 Cumulative Percent Probability B-38 l l t
----,-._m_, , , - _ _ _ , _ . _ . . , _ , , _ , , .
._s,
\- '
- t i,
-' M\ ~:( :_:. . .
i 10 _ i i i i. i . ,, 3 1 1 i i -
-!., I i i .o ,,y ,;}',.
m
".,+ ms 3 --
-a ,, ,
b -
,4 b a . ,
bf 4
. i . s :,
, , d_.. ".
s (*
- s . .. ~ - .
,~
s
._,\,, e
- Nozzle: Spraco' 1806-1605 '
. x . . , y' , {. <
- ' ~
4 Nozzle Pressure: 25 psi -
-s o
Spray Temp. u20 C Probe Location: 30.5 cm b'elow nozzle centerline . - s - '
' , ,7
~'-
'in open ', ,- ;s - .m. - _.
i W '%
/4
- 1 s s
- y. ,,
s
., m. ws 2,., - s
, 1
. f-2 , .
10 *
*% . 'b p i* ,, ,
,. l
_ ,s . ._
.a ;,,a 0 .,, o
--l n .c -
4
-w-., _ s r..
N A . jw , *4 e s - ws,.. , ,
- s. * * * / -k ,, ==== 1
- .~ .*
Q -n. p s . _ N,'
\Ve-J i
E
'"r"
.o_ s,,, ,#
.s,-s _
s o _
. v-3 4
- l' c, . . , s -
1sv1
,wm %. ~
.,g. A
- J. .
_ .,s, , 4 10- . x .y , a y, e ,
"'u -
t
=,
4 1
- .~-. ~
_A c.s ~ , }a . e --~ ~ -
.sn w g, ;. - s-s'.
,. s a .
.e -
x 1.
.. y 9
t I. I l l I I 1 I I l l I I i 5 10 15 20 30 40 .50 60 70 80 85 '90 95 98 Cumulative Percent Probability B .~4 9 i r
' s) ;
_ , . , . _ . . - - . . . . , , . _ - , _ . . . _ . , _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ , . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . . _.._-._.._..-____...____t . _ . . . _
, - , . . ,-..s_.- ., . _ _ _ , -
..+t ,
~ . _
L -. s ,
,h "X %.s Q~:'
] y'10
]' r2 ,-.
.,N.
c j'
,s
., i - l- i i i i 1. i i i i i i,. >
[';i Q., , < 1. w ; .- _
+p 4
~~
~~
'N
~
[ Nozzle: Spra co 2163-7604 - > ~.. -,' . -
,,S. s,,. - - ^ Nozzle Pressure: 20 psi ~
f h
< L- $p r/ ^ay Temp.w20 c -
. ~ ,
, Probe Location:
.. . , - i r"
30.5 cm below nozzle centerline i \ *, , 4 W ,e ; 'R S T, h& {O f
- 6, L' ,. g
,* g
* , g. , , ,
=4 a
, ( .
- 4 g
" , s i <
(0 t
- ,N.s a< "#
, se%- M t.
^# .%
} , -
~ N'w
#., i .h
?, # - O n' $ \
i r muse
#e.= N 1 g %
y EJ ss . .1 w , _ s m s, . . - - Q
% 6
~.p ^. s
~
4 ) g g
~
':. . , , e, , -
t
-' O e
b **"'
% \w\ # e.
f
, , ', 1 ',
\
, ,o .,% A i \
s' [ km, s
- , , s .. - ,
ig e' 4.- J-
~. !V _
$'.,\- % w g n' = (' M, '\ i e -
- , a ,
N .. r <a m t ' t, .. ' - i,
~ _
u
'v., , s ,
s '- c %:: ' s '. .;,
' u*
ene
= g : ., 1
. .- s
- ~ .. . .
[+ , _ _ m., y/, o -- -
, , s. S mg
- . y N
, .s
,.g.
y-
. \N -
m
,- 'l
. ~u.,. s 4
.- s c - e, s
- i. ..- a .
I I I I I I
. ' 7. . . ;' I I I I I I I 95 98 .' ' J
o 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90
'c .
Cumulative Percent Probability k B- 40
.s,.
r n , - , - -- , . , -- - . . . - -
.,g, 4
.3 10 i i i i i i i i i i ; i i
.c 1
- .r 1 _
*% , +- ..
j ' Nozzle: Spraco 2163-7604 Nozzle Pressure: 25 psi -
- Spray Tenp.a20 C -
_ i - 4
.- Probe Location: 30.5 cm below nozzle centerline in open f
- a , t * > 2 _ 10 _ 6 N _ M E 3 - - w e E, oa O A i
- 10 -
1 4 q i ,
- f. < _ _
j 2 mem - 4 _ 9 l 4 l' I I I I I I I I I I I I i I
, 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 95 98 Cumulative Percent Probability B-41 f
- . _ , ~ . - - - , . . _ , , - - _ . . . _-._.._.-._ - ,_,_ , - ,..__,.-. .-._- .. ....-_..,- _.,,..- - -
- , . . _ - . . ~ - , - - - - - _ _ . _ , _ . . _ .
. . _ m . = . . . _ _ _ . _ . . . . _ _ ._. .___ _ . _.
l 3 10 _. i i i ; i i _i i i i i i i _
' Nozzle : Spraco 1405-0604 -
- Nozzle Pressure: 20 psi -
Spray Temp.u 20 C
, Probe Location: 30.5 cm below nozzle centerline .
in open
- a
- 2 _ , _
10 _ e
- 1 _
~
u e e E
.9 .
O _ _ e f i 10 - . - , _ _ i a ,- L e _ l-w I I I I I I I I I I I I I r 1 5 10 15 20 30 40- 50 60 70- 80 85 90 95 98 Cumulative Percent Probability B-42
. .... - . . .. .- - . . . . - _ . ~ . . .. . - .. . . .
3 i i 10 i i l- i i i i i 1 1 _ O -
' Nozzle: Spraco 1405-0604 Nozzle Pressure: 25 psi
-Spray Temp.w20 C 30.5 cm below nozzle centarline i 4 Probe Location:
in open - t 2 _ . 10 -- i _ , E - j a _ e
- J e -
; E
.O- ,
3, i, O a _ ! 10 _ . 4 _ , 4 _ 1, 5 e i I 1 I I e I I I -.I i I I g 5- 10 -15 20 30 40 50 60 70 CO 85 90 95 98 O 4 Cumulative Percent Probability 4-B-41 t 1 3 y er-- w t-e*' -
-r--ee+wg
> . .. - . . - _ . . .- .. . . . . . .. - . . _ - - _._ __.- .. = ~. . . . _. _..
A , J i-J A ' EHMTD-59 1EHMTB-57 0 0 0 -0 1EHMTB-60 IEHMTB-58 1 i EHMTB-62 lEHMTB 56 0 0 O O IEHMTB- 61 IEHMTS-55 O 1 L t I i Figure 3.4-6 i McGuire Containment - Section at EL 890 O t-Revision'I' d
't' T- "'#-' G m w' vg4ww www W y wygg y f y Dr Mg w -p tv-+ w q ywt e gf e 9 vs 9 ? ggg4 yy a 3wyp w y- gy.=+ , f g n -t-p w M 4mpry p,e--- e g ..m n3 pae +--
4.2 SELECTION OF BASE CASE ANALYSIS CONDITIONS . O On October 2, 1980, NRC issued for comment a set of interim requirements related to hydrogen control for nuclear' stations. This proposed interim rule notes that following a loss of coolant accident with degradation of the reactor core and hydrogen production from core cladding oxidation, it must be
~
established tnat uncontrolled hydrogen-oxygen recombination'will not occur in containment. The given characteristics of hydrogen release from such an acci-
. dent are eight hours duration and hydrogen quantity equal to that produced by oxidation of 75% of the reactor cladding mass. Accordingly, an accident sequence was selected for McGuire based on a small opening in the reactor coolant pressure boundary (less than a two inch diameter) with inoperable 1
emergency core cooling. -This accident sequence is similar to an S2D sequence as identified in WASH-1400 terminology. The MARCH computer code, developed by Battelle-Columbus, was used t'o predict the water and hydrogen mass flow and energy release rates as a function of. time. Whereas it was recognized that. MARCH was not intended by its authors to be used for determination of.speci-fic licensing criteria, it was believed that a starting point for establishing the basic characteristics of hydrogen and steam release could be obtained from 4 MARCH. In order to use the MARCH results to predict ice condenser containment response and the performance of the Hydrogen Mitigation System, the computer code CLASIX was used. CLASIX is fully described in OPS-07A35 (to be issued : by Offshore Power Systems). In order to analyze the containment response 4-
- O 4.2-1 Revision-1
4.6 . SENSITIVITY STUDIES b To assess the effect of changes in the user-supplied input parameters on the 4 results of containment response as predicted by CLASIX, a number of analyses have been performed using the latest version of CLASIX. In these analyses, the effects of the following parameter changes were determined:
- 1. Changes in the number of operating trains of the Engineered Safeguard Systems associated with containment pressure mitigation. These systems are Containment Spray, Containment Air Return Fans, and Hydrogen Skimmer Fans.
- 2. Variation in the rate of hydrogen release to the containment. The amount 2 of hydrogen to be released was unchanged (1500 lbm) because that amount of hydrogen represents a 75% metal / water reaction.
- 3. Effects of failure to ignite hydrogen in the lower containment or in the ice condenser upper plenum. Pending the results of the analysis of the.
potential for inerting of a containment compartment due to a fog formation, it was deemed prudent to ensure that containment response was within allowable limits should a compartment become inerted.
- 4. Effects of the amount of ice remaining at the onset of hydrogen release.
Because it would be very difficult to trace all mass and energy release rate possibilities prior to the onset of hydrogen release, the amount of ice available during hydrogen burning was examined to determine whether it had a significant effect. 4.6-1 ' Revision 1 New Page
. 4. 6.1 Selection nf the Reference Case b
v The base case analyses discussed in Section 4.4 were considered for use as reference cases for sensitivity work, and it was noted that these earlier analyses had two disadvantages. The first is that a constant flow rate was assumed for the Air Return Fans and Hydrogen Skimmer Fans. It was concluded-that for the sensitivity analysis to be performed, in order to ensure that it was done conservatively, the actual fan head / flow curves should be used. These curves are found in the McGuire FSAR, Figures 6.6.2-2 and 6.6.2-3. The second disadvantage of the earlier analysis work W s that neither flame speed selected previously was conridered to be an adequate pa'rameter for further work. At the request of the ice condenser utilities, Dr. Bernard Lewis reexamined the flame-speed issue. Using the actual conditions believed to be present in the ice q condenser containment at the time of hydrogen burning, including the volume percentages of hydrogen, water vapor, and air, the limiting flame speed is predici.ed to be 1.4 feet /second. Thus the value of six feet /second used for earlier work is unrealistically. conservative and would significantly overpredict the rate of hydrogen consumption and energy release. The previously used flame speed of one foot /second, while still considered to be valuable for equipment survivability analysis, may be slightly too low and therefore underpredict energy release rates. Accordirgly, it was decided that a flame speed of two feet /second would be used for analysis during the sensitivity studies. The
,- geometric input data was reviewed to ensure its correctness. Hydrogen burn parameters were identical to those used for the analysis discussed in Section
, 4.4. Justification for the selection of these parameters is contained in Section 4.2. O V 4.6-2 Revision 1 New Page
4.6.2 Results of Analysis for the Reference Case O V The results of the reference case analysis are shown in Figures 4.6-1 through 4.6-13. Hydrogen burning occurs in the lower compartment and and ice condenser upper plenum, with five hydrogen burns in the lower compartment and sixteen burns in the ice condenser upper plenum. No hydrogen burning occurs in either the upper compartment or the dead-ended areas. The temperature responses for the five containment compartments are shown in Figures 4.6-1 through 4.6-5. Note that the temperature' profile in the lower compartment is bounded by the profile selected in Section 5.3 for analysis of lower containment equipment survivability; therefore, the conclusions reached in Section 5.7 for lower
-containment equipment survivability are valid for this reference case.
Figures 4.6-6 through 4.6-10 show the pressure response of the containment during the transient. All containment pressures are less than 28 psia, with 30 psia being containment design pressure. Additional insight into the safety margin available in this case may be found in Figures 4.6-11 through 4.6-14. Figures 4.6-11 and 4.6-12 show the volume fraction of oxygen available in the lower compartment and ice condenser upper plenum, respectively. Note that at all times oxygen concentration is well above the 5% by volume required for ignition. Thus there is no tendency to inert by oxygen depletion where hydrogen l ignition occurs. Figure 4.6-13 shows the hydrogen concentration in the upper compartment during the transient. Note that the highest concentration achieved is approximately 7% by volume, below the downward propagation limit. Thus no propagating flames will be present in the upper compartment at any time. [ \ (V ) l Revision 1 4.6-3 New Page
4.6.3 Sensitivity Case 1 - Minimum Safeguards D b The~first effect to be examined is the minimum safeguards case, labeled Case 1 on the associated figures. In this analysis, all of the input parameters-were the same as the reference case except that the number of operating Containment Spray Trains, Air Return Fans, and Hydrogen Skimmer Fans was reduced from two to one. This is accomplished by halving the flow rates associated with each of these components in the input data. The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 4.6-14 through 4.6-26. Hydrogen burning occurs in the lower compartment and ice condenser upper plenum, with seven propagating flames in the lower compartment and ten propagating flames in the ice condenser upper plenum. No hydrogen ignition occurs in either the upper compartment or the dead-ended volumes. Figures 4.6-14 through 4.6-18 show the temperature response of the five containment volumes, and Figures 4.6-19 through 4.6-23 show the pressure V re ponse of the five volumes. The peak pressure in the containment is less than than 28 psia, compared to the containment-design pressure of 30 psia. Though there is one additional flame in the lower conpartment beyond that considered in Section 5.3, there is more time between flames throughout the transient. It is concluded that the overall temperature response will be close to the results of Section 5.7 because of the offsetting effects of one additional flame but greater time between flames. Accordingly, the survivability of lower containment equipment is not adversely.affected by minimum safeguard availability. Figure 4.6-24 illustrates the oxygen concentration in the lower compartment during the transient. Note that during each hydrogen burn, the oxygen concentra-tion drops below that required for ignition, but recovers within a few seconds following the cessation of burning such that hydrogen ignition in the lower tQ
%.J compartment is never prevented by insufficient oxygen. Figures 4.6-25 and 4.6-4 Revision 1 New Page
. . = . - - . , . -- - = - - . - . - . - ~ - . . .- . .
2 l-l l , '4.6-26 show the hydrogen concentration in the upper containment and dead-ended l comparments, respectively. The hydrogen concentration in both volumes remains j below that required for downward propagation, thus precluding hydrogen burning , in either compartment. 4.6.4 Case 2 - Increased Hydrogen Release Rates 4 Of concern has been whether the hydrogen mitigation-system would. perform as , l wel1 if hydrogen were released to containment at a rate substantially faster-I than that used for previous analysis. The rate use'd earlier was based on a
- small-break LOCA with no safety injection (an 5 20 sequence) as predicted by
(. MARCH. In order to assess whether an increased rate of hydrogen release would' create difficulties in containment response, the reference case'was reanalyzed l with the hydrogen release rate increased by a. tactor of four. The total amount i
.of hydrogen released to containment was kept the same by a suitable reduction in time scale. Figure 4.6-27 illustrates the increased hydrogen release rate ,
- r i
on the same graph as that used in the reference analysis. -As can be seen from the graph, this case represents a considerably worse transient from a hydrogen release standpoint, and hydrogen consumption occurs at a much greater rate than 3-for the reference case. Because the metal / water reaction is diffusion limited , _in rate and may be further limited by unavailability.of steam (hy'rogen inerted),
- substantially greater hydrogen release rates than those predicted by MARCH for an S2 D sequence do not appear to be physically.possible. Therefore, the enhanced
- . hydrogen release rate in Figure 4.6-27 is used for sensitivity analysis only
! - and -is not believed to be representative of any particular accident sequence. ) 1 Figures'4.6-28 through 4.6-39 illustrate the containment response to the increased hydrogen release rate. In the lower containment, there is-a series L 1 [ -4.6-5 Revision 1 New Page
of nine closely-spaced hydrogen flames during the time of peak release, then two more flames during the later part of the transient. In the ice condenser upper plenum, there are 22 flames spread over about one hour. There is a single flame which propagates from the lower compartment into the ice condenser lower plenum. No hydrogen burning occurs in either the upper containment or the dead-ended volume. Figures 4.6-28 through 4.6-32'show the temperature response in the five containment volumes. In Figures 4.6-33 through 4.6-37, the pressure response in the various compartments is shown. Note again that pressure in all compartments remains below design pressure for the containment. Another concern in the case'of rapid hydrogen release is whether or not the mitigation
~
system can cause hydrogen to burn fast enough to prevent the occurrence of a detonable concentration in any of the containment volumes. Figure 4.6-38 shows the hydrogen concentration in the lower compartment as a function of time during the transient. The highest concentration reached in this volume is less-n v' than 12" by volume, which is also the highest concentration anywhere in the containment for the transient. Because this concentration is below the generally accepted detonation limit for hydrogen in dry air, detonation in the containment is precluded, even for these extremely high rates of hydrogen release. Figure 4.6-39 shows the oxygen concentration in the lower containment for the transient. Note that this concentration drops below the concentration required for ignition repeatedly during that portion of the transient while hydrogen is being consumed rapidly. It is apparent that the rate of oxygen resupply to the lower containment is controlling the rate of hydrogen consumption. However, because the hydrogen concentration remains below the detonable limit for the duration of the transient, this momentary oxygen inerting of the lower compartment has no adverse effect on the response of the containment to the hydrogen burning transient. . O v 4.6-6 Revision 1 New Page
4.6.5 Case 3 - Ice Depletion Prior to Hydrogen Release O As noted previously, the forcing functions for the reference analysis co;ne from a MARCH analysis of an S 2 0 accident seauence in an ice containment plant. A second uncertainty in the use of these forcing functions, in addition to the uncertainty in hydrogen release rate, is uncertainty in the mass and energy release rates of water. While it is generally conceded that significant hydrogen release due to metal / water reaction occurs much later in the LOCA than significant steam / water release, particularly for small break sizes, the containment initial conditions at the onset of hydrogen release will depend on the earlier steam release rate and may have important effects on the nature of containment response to hydrogen burning. Accordingly, a case was established to determine the effect on containment response if the onset of hydrogen release occurred after all ice had been melted in the ice condenser. This case was expected to fulfill several purposes. It would remove the conditions which cause the upper ice condenser plenum to be a site for significant hydrogen consumption, namely, the steam stripping of flow from the lower to the upper containment through the ice condenser. It was expected to bound the initial conditions of earlier steam / water mass and energy release rates because no design basis event analyzed in the McGuire FSAR causes short term meltout of the total ice mass. Finally, it was expected to remove one of the containment [ pressure mitigation systems during hydrogen burning, thus rendering the subsequent analysis of containment response ever,more conservative. Figures 4.6-40 through 4.6-49 show the results of Case 3 with an empty ice condenser at the j start of the hydrogen release period. There are seven propagating flames in the lower compartment and a single large burn in the upper compartment. No
- burning occurs in the ice condenser upper plenum or the dead-ended compartments.
4.6-7 Revision 1 New Page l
Figures 4.6-40 th' rough 4.6-44 show the temperature response of the various-contai.nment compartments during the transient. Figures 4.6-45 through 4.6-49 show the pressure' response. Note that in this case, because of an upper compartment flame, the containment pressure rises above design pressure of 30 psia to approximately 35 psia. .This pressure is. considerable below .ontainment failure pressure, and the pressure remains above the design value less than one minute. There are several other short duration pressure excursions to slightly above 30 psia which last only a few seconds, corresponding to the lower compart-- ment burns. 4.6.6 Case 4 - Inerted Lower Compartment There has been some speculation that burning might be precluded in the lower-containment compartment because of water vapor concentration above the inarting s - limit, formation of a fog. or by lack of available oxygen. It was concluded
.that a case should be analyzed wherein hydrogen ignition and burn propagation was precluded in the lower containment. - This was accomplished by setting the-oxygen and hydrogen concentrations required for ignition and propagation to 50%
by volume. Figures 4.6-50 through 4.6-60 show the results of this analysis. Hydrogen is consumed through a series of fifteen flames in the ice condenser upper plenum and two flames in the dead-ended compartment. As expected, no burning occurred in the lower compartment. Also, hydrogen concentration remained below the ignition level in the upper containment; therefore, there were no flames in the upper containment. Figures 4.6-50 through 4.6-54 show the temperature resoonse and Figures 4.6-55 through 4.6-59 the pressure response for this transient. As can be noted from Figure 4.6-60, which shows the O hydrogen concentration in the (inerted) lower containment during the transient, C/ 4.6-8 Revision 1 New Page
.-%,-.-,,w...,,_ -w,-, ..,-,m e.,..# . ,-,.w- .y., 4 4 - . , - . ----e w v -- - - , - - -. - - . -
. - , - - , , sr,--.-, . , , .r- + + . -
i hydrogen concentration remains lower than 10% by volume throughout the transient, thus formation of a detonable mixture is precluded. 4.6.7 Case 5 - Inerted Ice Condenser Upper Plenum Recent Westinghouse research concerning the probability of inerting a containment compartment due to fog formation points to the ice condenser upper plenum as being the most likely location of a fog. Though it does not appear that this fog will interfere with hydrogen ignition at the downward propagation limit of i 8-8.5% by volume, it was considered prudent to investigate the effects on containment response if burning were precluded in the ice condenser upper plenum. Inerting of this compartment was accomplished by the same method as for the lower compartment in Case 4. Figures 4.6-61 through 4.6-71 show the results of this analysis. Hydrogen is consumed by eight propagating flames in O b the lower compartment and a single burn in the upper compartment. Figures 4.6-61 through 4.6-65 show the compartment temperatures, and Figures 4.6-66 through 4.6-70 show the resulting compartment pressures. Note that despite a single upper compartment flame, pressure in all containment compartments remains below 29 psia and thus below design pressure of 30 psia. Figure 4.6-71 shows the hydrogen concentration in the (inerted) upper plenum during the transient. j Note that this hydrogen concentration, which is the highest hydrogen concentra-I tion anywhere in the containment, remains below 11% by volume, thus precluding i l formation of a detonable mixture. I l lO i l 4.6-9 Revision 1 l New Page l l
- . _ . . _ ,. - ~ _ _ . - _ ., , . . , . _ _ , , . _ . _ . _ .. ._. - - _ _ _
^
1 4.6.8 Conclusions The purpose of this-extensive exercising of the CLASIX Code was to determine whether-the. hydrogen mitigation system would function satisfactorily to mitigate
.the effects of hydrogen release and consumption by burning in the McGuire.
containment. To that end, the following conclusions may be drawn:
- 1. The hydrogen mitigation system performs its function when only a minimum number of containment pressure suppression engineered safeguards systems are available. Indeed, the results of the Case 1 analysis show very little effect on overall containment-response whether one or both trains of this equipment are available.
- 2. The hydrogen mitigation system provides for hydrogen combustion at low
- O concentrations even when the hydrogen release rate is substantially above
.that which would be expected from the physics of core degradation by metal / water reaction.
l
- 3. The hydrogen mitigation system functions satisfactorily even under severe assumptions concerning the initial conditions prior to hydrogen release.
With the ice condenser empty at the start of the hydrogen release portion of the accident sequence, the pressure rise is only slightly above contain-ment design pressure and well below failure pressure. . '4. Conclusions 2 and 3 taken together show that the hydrogen mitigation system is effective for a range of accident sequences and is not restricted
/7 to an S 2D sequence. Note that melting out the ice condenser prior to O
4.6-10 Revision 1 New Page
r hydrogen release anticipates the worst LOCA condition which could be postulated as far as establishing initial conditions for hydrogen burning is concerned. Despite the lack of ice, the total additional pressure rise in the containment due to hydrogen burning is only 15 psi. Thus it is . shown that the hydrogen mitigation system prevents hydrogen combustion in containment from causing a potentially unsafe pressure rise in the contain-ment building regardless of the accident sequence prior to hydrogen release. The safety margin available in the hydrogen mitigation system is further illustrated by its ability of handle hydrogen release rates substan-tially greater than those from an 5 0 2sequence as predicted by MARCH for an ice condenser plant. Because of the physics of core degradation by metal / water reaction, it is considered likely that the hydrogen release I rate used in Case 2 represents an unrealistically conservative rate. The general conclusion is that the hydrogen mitigation system will handle a variety of accident sequences.with adequate safety margin. l 5. The hydrogen mitigation system will perform its function satisfactorily l even if ignition and propagation of hydrogen are precluded in certain compartments of the containment. Specifically, should formation of a fog, 4 steam concentration above the inerting limit, lack of oxygen, or even some electrical failure cause combustion to b' e impossible in either the lower f containment or in the upper plenum'of the ice condenser, containment response will be within design limits. Because the hydrogen concentration in all containment compartments remains below 12% by volume, a detonable ! mixture will not be formed at any time, even when burning is precluded in a large section of the containment. O 4.6-11 Revision 1 New Page f e,u . - , - -,- - - - ,,..,--..-,,,.-m.-,-.-,,%,,,,,,w,,., w.%,w,,w.-,.%,,,,-,,,..-.,-,,,,.-.,-,,,,e..,w,,mw,%,,....w-a-.e,,-,,...,,,..,~.we
t - 4
.~ r _. . i l >
t i
- - c. -
s, p . 4 i
- j. REFERENCE CASE c LOWER CONTAINMENT TEMPERATURE c
. c. 4 1
,N
.c '
a
-ac y- i
- j. ,, >- ;
.'A l ,
l- 5-k ' j td g-t l \
=
1 t &~ I : e i i (x . '
- i. c ( ,. (x ~,
j l_ _
. . . - . ~ _ . -
~...,_
l 3 l (,, - 1 l - , , .c c Ce ' .
.i ~i ;
0.00 6.00 1E.00 24.00 32.00 yh.00 _ yE. og s'E. 00 di. 00 7'2.00 Ye. . T I MEu, ,EC1 x 10 ' I - !_ FIGURE'4.6-1. -Revisiorrl'
- . _ - . . _ _ _ . - __ . . . . , . _.N@w P h ____ __ _ _
s cl 1 f. w. _ 1 1. g _ REFERENCE CASE l d ICE CONDENSER LOWER PLENUM TEMPERATURE j- f( i' i i c c , 1 . 4 c 4 c. ! *t. .. _ .__ _ _ _ . . . ,
' ~
. . *y V ~~
- c j c r J -c-
! ti ~
E L1J C 7 4 d- , i i c
?
c . n = n l I) c c ci-
=r c -
c . i i i i i i i i 0.00 F 00' .'E.00
] 24.00 :-i . 00 40.00 4E.00 .5E. 00 E4.00 72.00 E0 TIMEiSEC) x 10
- FIGURE 4.6-2 Revision 1 New Page
)
b~ c c j N- REFERENCE CASE ICE CONDENSER UPPER PLENUM TEMPERATURE e c } c5_
.v N
O
- w. gc x .
c_ u - C c__ C
- E u.J -:v_
c c
$~
e c d-e -.
\\ -
. \, \. \. (, L( l. k. s(,
L N c 6 s , i,4.00 C.00 S.00 1E.00 '2. 00 - 4O.00 4E.00 5'C . 00 'E4.00
-7'2 00 c'c
~
2,T I ME ( SEC) x]O
- Revision 1 FIGURE 4.6-3
._ New Pa m __
Ei 7:- c - c
.s M' REFERENCE CASE UPPER CONTAINMENT TEMPERATURE c
c
'.5 37 I
c
. ,=._
u_ - C-- A k _u N N __ _-_ L* '\LLk((
=l d-i _C i
s l i L 1 c c p-c _ c G. i . i i i i i i i i-0.00 F.00 E.DC ' 24.00 cc.00 40.00 98.00 SE.00 E4.00 72.00 SC iIMEiSEC) x 10 ' l FIGURE 4.6-4 Revision 1 New Page
_ . _ . . . _ . . .-.,_....._.__._.._.__._-_._._..y. 5 c c
;c _
l 'N~ . REFERENCE. CASE j DEAD ENDED VOLUME TEMPERATURE c c. 5 4 l W , i
, C .
c l
'd ;
- - =r _ .7 uN a-. !
.E l-E_-- !
~. !
c-c_ N 1 NL L,.)bd k QLLLtw c . C f
- c. I c_
i c .: , 9 e ;I c 7
.N. ,
'[
c ,
' "U' .
i .i i i - i i . i
' EE,00 i,, . .t O.00 F.00 IE.00-- 24.DO h. DO . 40.00' tlE . 00 -
E4:00 - 72.00. EP. ; TIME (SEC): :x10 "
- '?
-I Revision 1~ .I FIGURE 4.6-5. New Page '
c, j , fd-i 1
, c 4 c l, - d_
ta i REFERENCE CASE j LOWER CONTAINHENT PRESSURE C l c -
, :r_
- u l
.- c c L' \k CE W_ V k(s
.-- cv //r r-LO G- l
/
?,} '
\
i 1 2. (\ \.s\I 4
, s C ci.
N (A d 5-9
=_
I e , c i-4 c - c i i i 6 i i 6 1 3 0'.00 S.00 1C.00 24.00 de.00 40.00 p. 00 EC.00 C4.00 72.00 50.'1 TIMEiSEC) x 10 ' FIGURE 4.6-6 -Revision 1 New Page
l i. a i e r 4 1 l l i- f - 1 -c; REFERENCE CASE a . .i i : _. ICE CONDENSER LOWER PLENUM PRESSURE 4 l-i 3 c
. c.
I
!i
~5 ,
t
/
# h. .'
/
\
N ((( ( l Mc \
- C._'al <
c n- ! 's(A ' ) l i ! 1
=l f ,
j =, e I
- o f.. ,
E
. i.f-
. ,l b
'.=
c W. I i. 6 i i ' 0.00 P.00 IE.00 24.00 Yt.00 40.00: N . 00 EE,00 e'y,00 /2,pg /p, ! TIME (SEC) x!O ' Revision 1
. FIGURE 4.6 New Page
s, V,a ( fr 1 i 1 E REFERENCE CASE N- ICE CONDENSER UPPER PLENUM PRESSURE i 1 4 .c h l'; rlo- ? ! 4 C i - -c i
. T ;]' ,' i rN 7 -f%
v j }" / \ .~f
- /
.. .n . A ! . ' s_l N N k s k, i ( t
- \(
3 e c e x. .- l a s C
- i. 5,-
j- { s, P 1 c t C ! h ' [y.00 gj,pp C.00 .00 1C.00 y'O. 00 yL 00 4
-g c'4 0 s
72.c0 i ee. i 2 TIME NEC) 510 l FIGURE 4.6-8 Revision 1 i New Page
c c 4
- (
!- c l
'u d_ REFERENCE CASE l i UPPER CONTAINMENT PRESSURE i
i t i' .C , c .
, .a 4
. ..--.E-L, ' W. ( i - < 2 g. 3 l i
~ EY s
L-V
/qf&<r ~
'd ( .
t . , .
%N / s
) '___ C4 c D/ '
. s,(d
- s (
j
' ci_ N s( i '
'3 \
? ', - 4 i 1 x-1 E . 1 i, l' c 4 . , i c_ , t j i l, c
; o 4
l L. 4 i i i i i i i . .. 2 0.00 6.00 !E.00 24.00 .22.00 40.00 44.00 EE.00 E4.00 72.00 N i i TIMEiSEC) x 10 ' Revision 1
- FIGURE 4.6-9 New Page i _
i
- 5. - O V
g ' .4 i i c i 2 REFERENCE CASE
- s i' OEAD ENDED VOLUME PRESSURE i
t o c . a
- r_ 9 d
e 1 i c i
.- c L $(s ,g(s a .;_
'. -~
- .7
- r. _ .r rr V
1 Q_ . j \kk j '; ~
,/ \
2 ( EE s( A < i ,
,\ (,'x(
a c_ W c._' , J t i
; e i c i :
- =- !
,1
- i. c
! c u!_ ] . i 1 ' i I - ! c c . ( , i 7
-. ' -' i '
C.00 i h.00- }c*00 J i z'r e i l '4 00 cc.00 40.00 41,00 og c" ', "U 72 00 Y a j T I ME [.EEC) x 10 ' FIGURE 4.6-10 Revision 1 l New Page
4
% g 5-4 l1 l i !
I l _l' REFERENCE CASE j ci] VOLUME FRACTION OF OXYGEN LOWER CONTAINMENT
?
i s-1 I i i , f-i :.- ! Z ~,
'c 1
j
,.r \,
~ ch x-
/ g i f ~ ~ . . - - - -
f t ;
. f <
i 4
} ._...-
( - t j i ~j; f I : 1 -
' t
/
i 01i 1 4 i - 1 i \ l ? - ! I i i 1 ', _-1 i .i 3 I'
=. , ,
4 0.00 E.co le.ee n.ee f.co q'e. ee q!. pe it,gg gy,g, 4, g ,_
~
l ,. TIMEtatC) < 10 ' j Revision 1 i FIGURE 4,6-11 New Page /
.. - . - . . . . - . . . _ - . - . . .. . - - . - . - - . = . . . - - - - - - -. . - . . - . - . - . . . . . . . - - - . .-.. ..
~
l ;g s 8 u d' l s i
- - . , ~ , _ . . . _ _ . _ - -
c .._.__,_._~~. $ ~ 1 M ! g- N ,
.N
\ '
REFERENCE CASE
\
VOLUME FRACTION OF OXYGEN i a:
' - ICE CONDENSER UPPER PLENUM
( i d' i , ) w .i _C d- ! CC ] c s ! u i > i ;- l / l d- / , j l ; l l i , l ' l 1 I k f f' d-j- 1 f
' i i f f f
}
i-4 c
- l 1
i d-1 l 1 i C
, 1
+-
- c. i i. > > i i i . , i
! C.PO F.00 !C.00 'c4. 00 1c.00 40.00 45.00 5E.00 E4.00 72.00 EP. r; TIMECSEC) .* 1 0 ' 4 Revision 1 FIGURE 4.6-12 New Page
i
=-
A
- a 2- REFERENCE CASE VOLUME FRACTION OF HYDROGEN
< UPPER CONTAINMENT c__ d-r.
=
z-c s
#~*
l t V i j 2.l J f ?
= j
/
,/ .
O i r.
- i. -
( ! / 4
; I \
! =
-d~ /
1 i ,.
- i l
/ ,
- c. .
t
- _s- }
=- i i i i
4,re a s, ee 4 f, g7 4
- .00 5.0c 2r.cc a. ee :c.ee ae.co y3.co 3 T I ME i ..EC ) x]D ' -
' Revision 1 FIGURE 4.6-13 New Page
e
- l. E i.. -
i C. c !' W, CASE 1 l LOWER CONTAINMENT TEMPERATURE
- c c
?-
i . i
- o
-C l -
xE , t Cl - EE
'.G g-l I
- i. l
! 5-
~
1
= i' 4
i (s s ' ' ;
} ,
; (. -
s : s ~ c ' - C-
,/* _ _
--- y- -
i f c c . j c. i . . . i i i i . . 0.00 E.00 1E.00 E4.00 24.00 .n- .40.00 T .0 SE. 00 E4.00 72.00 5 0. : I .; Mr t .. t c, J .Y.Li n - Revision l
- New Page
i 5.-
- .i d
.7 a
3 4 4 e i E I d j g- CASE I lCE CONDENSER LOWER PLENUM TEMPERATURE { c c d S-
/y/g/'t--- .
{"'F g-- m C-. h I f ' l =g i d.N _ i i 1 I ' I 1
) t h
c c i . C-t 7 ; c, r I ~ I j i C-di i a i * ' i * ' l 0.00 E.00 !E.00 24.00 32.00 40.00 4S.00 56.00 E'4.00 7'2.00 50. :: I!ME(IEC) 10.' Revision 1 '!
. . . . , _ _ _ _ _ FIGURE 4.6 _15__ New Page
1 N 5-t 0-n . ! c, i 1 5-2- CASE I i f t ICE CONDENSER UPPER PLENUM TEMPERATURE l- c 1, c . s o. a 1 4 ) J t-c c ! u.
- E' .
i i .-- l 1
* ~
- i ,
2 - . / :E 7 ) tu N l-1 l 1 1 I l c t I i, 1, W
! d- ' '
} t
- i r..
\ \ \' \ v ( ( i i
_c _
- c. > > > .
se.co c'4, cp 7'2.00 tP. C.T F.00 !#.00 14.00- . -c.00 40.00 4:.00 TIMEiEEC) x 10 ' - Revision 1 New Page 2 FIGURE 4.6-16 g- 7-. -..w - c- % e. -rr e
c. c. c c_ tv . Y A r
~
e_ > C i c. i.~ CASE 1 UPPER CONTAINHENT TEMPERATURE
= ,
c .
._. -r c.
t t E I d tr ~. E f =--=^ r^' N ('._lN l
~k
- d. /
c N. '
-p 4
/ r C.
C. I ! t
- I t c !
\ c i 8 c_ 4 t 1
. t 1
l ,
- e. .
a .
-t
~
i , ! c c t . 1 g 1 u . i i i i i .. . . . . > 3
; 0.00
- 00
. 15.00 24.00 40.00 9 00 ~C 00. E4.00 72.cc :-P f h;DO,-....,C).
i ! Mt u:t v.10 , l FIGURE 4.6-17 Revision 1 .
- New Page- j
& w. qu . _ _m. 2 = =--.u-. 4-.a 4. ._m....s.. <4_u ,u-._ 1 w....a.r.4 4. m _#___.u a.4 a _su-~i_.. .w. . m _s i _4 m u . , m, -4 4, ._ u aar..A_ a _i___
d . _C JJ ; ! 1 A' f [ F i e. tv (% c-e! o og - l .=e= rU i j M C1. i
..c. .
k
= zi i '
o (, a i
~h
/ .
) J l 4 o
.6$
e> {
- e i
i
.} -
m. G
.OJ
- 7. 4 7 . o W
co' Q ~
-%w (4
_o . 7*% ** L1J . m W O) 3 0
.a -
e-
@ 2~. ;
s M H .. i)' W E 3
>- O
( E L W 7 th. LJ E w
>=
w E D J O O G Q A e.c
=
- w W 'O 4/5 (
( u o w C C.*
\, i t
. N.,
I o.: u I
.oa ov oo oc g
oo Je g, , . g,. go.g; gg .gg. gg.g U)JW3!
- - - - - - . - - - - - . . - - _ . - _ . - . . - . ~ .
I
! s
) ,. t i c.
- c. -
g# CASE I
- l J4' t
LOWER CONTAINMENT PRESSURE I l c
.i y-
.s
+
, Y.
=. ~
(
--- C.
er . - . f
# , ,.,g W V mN s w
~ p e
i T -' / - N _s N - F-.
+-
/ QN i
*:. s. .' [ .
(
- t, C_t r, I
*% q
, t i ,
I 4 1 5- j . l ? I.
.I . .
l-T
- = h E!
5-Ji .l _. i 1 . .. . . i i i . >r..:
- .!: '.00 ! c. 00 24.00 h. 00.. 40.00 . 5 .00 55.00 #4.00 72.00 .
. . . - ' 90.,!
l.T ME t e tC s. x 10 . - FIGURE.4.6-19 Revision'1 !
- New Page. -
_ - . . .._._-. ___. ~ . . . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - _ . _ _ _ . . . . . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . , - _ . _ _ _ . - _ . . . _ . _ . ~ _
_ - _ . . . - - -. . - . _ - .. . . _ . .._~ _. .- _- 4
, - s
- E i .I j 2r I
i \ . ) ] :- CASE I i :; _ ? ICE CONDENSER LOWER PLENUM PRESSURE t 2 i b E-1 - i : . { Tc l hY l fd \ ,
- . )
l~ ,I W J f !E f .*
/. d. (\
N l
, N i
! & =- ,
\
C- . i
- s j 1
i i I < c i G l *- l l t . 1 e c #
.. I
- ,f t -
i = i C 1 - 7, . i a a a 6 & I 6 4 a ( D.DD ' D0 2r.DD 24.DD 2c.DD -! P. D0 4. 25. D0. #4.D0 72.D0 SD.T x.jn .' 0D y
.. I 31. 1. ( :.. c r. J
. m p'VI .SION
'l
! FIGURE 4.6-20 New Page
. . _ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ . _ . _ , . _ _ _ . . . . . . , . - _ _ _ _ _ . _ , _ - _ . . _ . _ . _ _ . . _ . . . - . . . _ . . _ . _ _ _ ~ _ .
i-a G O
' l.
E . F. a-CASE I a ICE CONDENSER UPPER PP.ENUM PRESSURE G c m -i i l W 6. ( (i
-c c
/ [ \
, .. ,7
/ k. ,
i C- ' k,
- ./ . 1
/ q
\.
a- . ( ; uc C-
~- ;
I k 5_- t J
.l t
h j C. t i ,- - i 1
~
l t
=
c
. a
< -- . 6 i s - i .i .i i . . ..- t C.00 E CO ! E. 00 14.00 2c.00 - . - , . 40 .92.00 5f.00 E4.00 72.00 E0. !
,}Mt R CC. 00'- x10 I J FIGURE 4.6-21 Revision 1 i
__ __._. ~ , . . . _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . -. - - - - _ . . _ . _ ___ . _ . . _ . _ . . _ . - _ . , _ ..__ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ -_.___ __ __New Page _-.. . __
. _ _ _ . _ . - _. . . . . _ _ ___ .__ _ ~ ._
i l' i c c. b-4 1 5 i c. CASE I .
- =.
- d. UPPER CONTAINMENT PRESSURE
.V r c
c 4 c
!L O(
c .
/pa)r , j l
l q \ ct M., / 1 ~ .~ / ( (( ! = C_
\,
( i u.; CZ E a- ' i W I 4
- - I E l '
- I
} ! \ j l j j :-
, - t i d.
i _ , 3 i E i :. . . . . . . i i i . i i . 1 0.00 8.00 1E.00 24.00 . h. 00 40.00 95.00 E0. 00 E 4. C C+ 72.00 tr x!D ' I! met'EC)
. Revision 1 FIGURE 4.6-22 New Page i
.+
.-_ ..._.,_..._y.._._,
. - 1 j' :**
I- . _ , I
~
='
~ '
CASE 1 i
. t
.' i t DEAD ENDED VOLUME PRESSURE .
t
# h
,l'
% 't I w . ,
- a i
Lu (.. s . -
"~~ f I t - , _ . ,, N f ,
CC s' - N]
~~ \ N p [^g.w-t \ U c~N . - ~
s i i i CL. i .. i, (,. . ' r e
- w : -
7 l L _. i , . *- , j
- w. . >
eN , e -- - j
' t 6
s
~
.l
,v**'
= ,
. j l I I
e i!
'h E
I e 1 5 3 g C I2 E 00 3C.00 24.00 .:c. 00 40.00 t[! , pp :. : [g,pp rg,pp 7'p , pp. .- , _i --
, 1 T M . t r.m_e_r3
.Revisfoa 1-' '
FIGURE 4.6 __ _ _New Page__ i
t j S 4 i i
.A
~
s 1 4 _.
'. CASE I
- =.-
VOLUME FRACTION OF OXYGEN i LOWER CONTAINMENT ,e i
?
I ~ ll !* n I~ln C e x '
- 1 N,I,
- i y- ___
{ ,- - 1 1 i
- s t
" p ' ,-
; t r-iG
( ] '
' ( l l i / .
, j
,i
, _,-. /
i i, , j t f'
-t
- d. . , ' ' . ,
0.00 E.00 ir pg .,
'4 CD c'c y'4.00 ! -- ec.DO 40.00 2'" p g y, --.g0 . 72,pg gg,7 4
i ,T q (, 7 r 3 y)g Revision 1
! , FIGURE 4.6-24 New Page ,
c, j c. S-
, L.-
.~.
. (.
_ t' E d- CASE 1 VOLUME FRACTION OF HYDROGEN UPPER CONTAINMENT s
/
C
=.
J
- s C ,I j
w _~"_._ .
- l
=.
- ,/
. e
- )
$ 5:-
c. 2. 2
/
I
- /
_:- j
/
e e'
~
{ j s. > > > . t 0.00 F.PD : E. 00 24.00 3<. 00 ~ 0. 00 4 9:.r0 EE. re E4. . D 72.00 -0. TIMEiSEr)
- - - 10 '
Revision 1 FIGURE 4.6-25 New Page
. . , . . , ._ . , - , ~ . -- -
)
i ._ I d' I i i 2 ,-
-l CASE 1 i
j VOLUME FRACTION OF HYDROGEN l DEAD ENDED VOLUME t _ } d' i i i I E M-
< . ,s*
- /
\ /
1 i t ,- Q, j / 1 4
)
-l
.,b
/\ / q/
4
, pc
- I l
=!
i fu t t 7
; :r
=1
/
l 1 / i i - / s i 6 + i i i i i i i i , 4 C.C '
- c. 00 !?.00 24.00 bc.00 40.00 9': . 00 EE.00 54.C0 72.00 50. r !
) _
TIME.i:EC) x!D ' Revision 1 l FIGURE 4.6-26 New Page _
i i j ) I Oli M ?, &Till'f..'<"f"/.1. . P "' ' '
-) 46 0782 ) )
i _,. - _. - + . .. _ ~ -
} '
i ! I
+ . . ,
1 - - . .. , ,, , j i , i i
) _ . _ _. . ..____.d' .
. _ . _ . . _ - . _ .__ 1 . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ .
I I FIGURE 4.6-27 - 1 - l HYDROGEN RELEASE' RATES FOR j . - - . . _ . . . . . .
- j. ! : ,
.j l _
I t l l i i l MC.GUIRE CONTAINr.ENT - ANALYS}:lS- > i _ I i t t ' _ca 5.0 -
-I-- .- _ - l - -- _ _ _ _ -
L ..__d_.__ _ _. _ d. . . _ . _ W '! 1 , f N I Jg _ . _ . _ _ _ __..L,_, _ f l
! . I ..
2 a , t t t l 1 w. ' ' } h, . - _ . . - _ _ . .
. - . - - -. -. u-.~~.. . . . - . n- .
- E '
I ! ! w t . I i , ! = l
<w
~ i7 4, s ~ 'li ' RELEASE RATE llSED l ,
w I i , 1 1
- IN SENSITIVITY STUDY ,
j )53.a ---
,- 4----
-- d - '
l- - --- - - - - - ! 8 i j i i ! E I j I l jg _ _ _ _ _ q , i i f j i , i 2.0-- $ t 1
----- - t --- --M l
----I- -b i--- l' - - - - - - - - --
i : 1 l i ! l . I ;
' i !
i,q - {j m.___. _ _ . . _ . .. -. BASE. CASE. ANALYS!S
- i .~
'f _
l , i
' ' RELEASE RATE i FROM MARCH ; l
, - r
' FOR S D; i i
e 2 ' _.___.___m.. , --. ; l- - . . .
, i l, i
I
' i 1 ,
I j ' l' t ! 3200 3660 4000 ~ 4700 L ~'~4800 5200 5600
~~~
o
^
6400L _~ ~ 6 86'o~ ~~ ~ 7 2'00 l TIME AFTER ACCIDENT START (SEC) y
1 C i, - 4 l E- N } i i
~C i.
- v_
CASE 2 li LOWER CONTAINMENT TEMPERATURE 1 - 1 C i . I c_ 4
~
C - uce'~ l
=
i e ,
'A f
4
- N p
a r .* , 1 EE La 1l j ' g-1 i 3 xs 1 O l 7 _- 'N. N.
,- x s.
~
i N ~ i C
--%.. ... N. [
4 m g- - 1 1 1
) c -
i c
- c. . i i i i i i . . .
! 0.00 E.00- 16.00 24.00 3i.00 40.00- 43.00 56.00 E4.00 72.00 5.
4 TIMEC3EC) x10 ' Revi ion 1 j FIGURE 4.6-28 .New age i __. , _ , . - - - - . - . __ _. . . _ - - - _
- - - , _ . ~ . _ _ . _ . . . . _ . _ , . . . _ ~ _ , . ,
c u- ",
.}
C , d
# CASE 2 ICE CONDENSER LOWER PLENUM ;
c TEMPERATURE- -7 c ! d ' c_ 7 t
,l i
i l c . c d m v. tL
~
.I l
n_- ;
- E '
'd c .
c , 3 cv hl
- p .l '
l ,
"m _ _
~
-fgrn . . - _
[ [
^~ ' -
pg*r " EE.
/
.. f c
c d_ a
-:~
I l l
~
! c .
- c. i i i i i i , , . . '!
- 0. DO E DO IC.DO' 14.D0 le.00 40.00 45.DO IE. PC Ci.f 0 172;00- EI i TIMEiSECi: x 10 ' 't FIGURE 4.6-29 Revision 1 1 flew-Page 1
,,,,a~., c.,-, --,,,,,-r ,, .- - . -, , ,, - a.,n..n, e ,wr,-,..wwn- - , .- . - . , - , , - , , . . +,--,+-.,-..,-->.n.r- -
. . - , . .,. . ,,-v -
+
4 c % /m'- /"~N c i_
- a
\ (
3
; E-t ! d_
ca CASE 2 ICE CONDENSER UPPER PLENUM TEMPERATURE 1 1 c 4 c . ,i 9-t J 1
.e C ,
i
-E M .
i c. ! i i .,
- 'A
'E E .
- LU N_.
) w~ 4 i. I c c i-I I c : c
=.'
t i. c;.
._. _ . _ _ _ - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~
\
\: s N\ \,\ '. N I,!N l
Q s (( s. (. s (s ( ; i c. ; , C 00 E 00 ? E. 00 N. 00 [i,pp y'O.00 y- 00 /r
~ ~ ' pg /" ' i 7' N 'D-x10'
~
TIMEi:ECi e on 1 FIGURE 4.6-30 New Page
E 3' f c c CASE 2 a..
~
UPPER CONTAINMENT TEMPERATURE' .. c c d w.. g g c c d r. ex-gg ~ * -- w g,p q L"'s s ' N 5 % %% gg 'f\- WL c c 9 c. c c 2 Z-c 9 E. i i i i .i i i i C.00 5.00 i IE 00 24.00 3< 00. 40.00 yh.00- EE.00 E4.00 72.00 E0. TIME (5Er.) *!O* aevision i FIGURE 4.6-31 New Page
46 J$ _d, p.-.esa-.. s'--Amag Jied ,+ 44 -@- F-wswe.-+e 44*4e 4A S -Mh.4* w AL.--44-AW AA A-b-4 -----#E4W6EA-AEF-AhJ bi--4 *b.bdeA.,sA4a,*F-JJ*At 4- s wS#4--- 4-LA44 gh 444- **--J4 war i r
.t )
h I- .l l' !-~ ! L 2 o o :
- b."
J 'c Gi
.O CD ,.
7 I
- m t
, ,h Q. !. , 4
>2:
{'. GG' s n c Cr: 2: i i ' [ i. iss i 1
T 4
I _J a r i C + _ u, r g- "' _ ; _1 .u J' i. ( t k : L- o : C ( . l .os . 2.M i o ni ' i
.l .
y o- N 7 C C 2.- e : O ~'t*[ W a
@ .LL2
. tr.eg wi s.a y i
ld C b .E E
.'M$-
i
't 9-W c:
3
>- O 4 O z L9 w
H I, K I 3 J Q Q
> c .
Q . .W i w m O l E N w w o r In 4 ; 4w EJ Q O Y C J> f 4 w_ , ^[ I., f -[- = _ k .0 if(l
- o,#)' gg)
- s ,
- 00 on- . na o:,i no .o.. , ~ In' .d' *,o
(.3}dW.l[ r i
~------ - - _ _ = _ _ _ . , _ _ ,
c c. b S-9
}-
' CASE 2 LOWER CONTAINMENT PRESSURE E
a T I ' F, E Eh- N A- ri. L > <\\
^
=_ $L '
'\\ i\
m_ ae C ._- / i
'\sL\
U~ / \k 'A l d( x el E' 1 , 1 E I i-j ! 9 f ~. i =-
. t i i i i e i i i i
! 0.00 ;.0D IE.00 24.00 32.00 40.00 95.00 SE.00 E4.00 71.00 H. ! T!ME EEC) x 1.0 ' aeyision i ! FIGURE 4.6-33 New Page
l i c 9 [
\
f f5-i i S e'. N . CASE 2 ICE CONDENSER LOWER PLENUM PRESSURE ! 4 l 8 e i 4 c t =-
.s l
c 1l !l
! t. -- c '
i f
~
Y N r ~ ..
% ,\ ,
i:r ,
- C4 E O((
'd i
! ' ci_ 4 a sk. ,l
'N, i \
i 'J i c 1 i f-i
, i 1
n c c;, i 1
; c.
s l c 4 c
~
= i i i i i i i i i 72.00 i
i ~ 0'. 00 :.00 15.00 24.00' 'n.. r0 40.00 95.00 EE.CC E4.DO 50. 4 i!MEiSECi x 10 ' Revision 1 i FIGURE 4.6-34'
! New Page
.__ _ _ ._..____ _ ____. __ - ___-__ ____-. . _ . _ _ .. . _ .. - . - - . . - _ . . . -. . . - _ . . . . . , - - _ ~ _ .
E d_
^
w4 E g- CASE 2
- v lCE CONDENSER UPPER PLENUM PRESSURE E
i-(fl .-. c c i I. i, f
, o N' '
(,fe-m s ~ 1
, t[\\ \
q\ss = Wp / . m\ \ E3 '
\ I !.
M- \'\(
^ \
... {
c. d-c c t
~
E L* 6 i i 0.P0 '
.00 i i .
i IC.00 24.00 h. 00 40.00 _ 4: 00 .EC,00 4 E.g. cc 72,00 p'p, IIME(FICi x!O ' _pevision i FIGURE.4.6-35 New Page
_ . _ . _ . . __ _ ___ ~-__.-_..--___.. _ ._-_ _ .___...._ _ .. . . . _ . . . - . . _ - - . _ . _ . - - _ _ = . _ . . . _ . . . _ _ . _ . . _ _ c > 5 -! 1 c_ * ! CASE 2 1 UPPER CONTAINMENT PRESSURE < c c 1 h
=- I
-/ N'i' (\k Q
.__ fi-r__- ,
-/ g%f. ,.cs.,N N __~j
( N < t
,s s
\, s t
7 ' ' g ( __ / \
'(
CL E b C- , K- i \.
\,((
e l c. l.- c g_.
.e
~
' ' i i i i . i i i
~[. ce E.00 lS.00 24.00. h . 00-. .4'0.00 M 00 EE 00'. E4 00 72 ID- FO '
..t I Mt t > E C ;
- 10 . - Revision 1 flGURE 4.6-36 New Page
E r
- 4' c.
d_ a CASE 2 DEAD ENDED VOLUME PRESSURE c C J T: 1.J c i! j
'f 1 - c. \ .t l i~ b ynfr- ! f(1 N\
c e f W b NL
\g\s EE t .
'\ .
R- ;.1(N I t
=-
~
l. c E- i r s r . - . i i i i . i . i i i 3. i 0.00 E 00 IE.00 24.00 h . 00 40.00 % . 00 EE.00 ' E i. 00 - 72.P0 FC' l i!MEi EC) x!O ' . Revision 1
'i l FIGURE 4.6-37 New Page: !
- . , - . . . . . - ~ - . . - - . . . - . . . . - _ . _ - . . - _ . . . - ,
( k 1 d' s n g4 CASE 2 VOLUME FRACTION OF HYDROGEN
, LOWER CONTAINMENT d' !
lb i 6 i m .ir. e L ,
- e. . i " ,u
+
i s-t 903 .* j
- ( .p h{. .
n.
;q. v.
, 12 e ,-
..1
~. ,s - m ,
.e n ,
W ,
#h [ :
,I I
! f f J
-:- I ,
1 l c.'
, i 1 -
}-
c.
._,, .i i i i
, i i .
- i. i ,-
0.00 :.00 M . 00 24.00 E4. C0 - 4 0. OC '4 : 00- ? ~. c: G. CO 72.00 *
'I j,ME t d EC i .5 ) O ' .
. Revision 1 FIGURE.4.6-38 ' .New Page
CASE 2 r
'I- VOLUME FRACTION OF OXYGEN c1 LOWER CONTAINMENT c
1 d-C I, g. u N d' -- ,. - c ,
~
l l l l l .. . . , ..
\ l /
\, l ,\ .
_-. ! f
=
c- i i l' f 1 t _.I a O C$*a 6 6 6
-I 6 6 6 a i 6 0.00 5.0C !c.00 24.CC c.00 - - - - .
4I.IC 45.00 Er.?C 4.CC 7;.^C -T 2: 3, yq'C'FiddRf4.6-15t
' - Revision 1 New Page
s Z c c . :r_ t - t i o
- c l :v_ '
! CASE 3 I
- LOWER CONTAINMENT TEMPERATURE u
! c c c_ 1 1 1
- a L C ,
1 e ! ! nc ! d-1 i
- m i u_
1 _ _ . _ 1 Ecl 1 u.; e._' m 4 i a } ' t i e 4 E
.: &~'
(, k l ( ~ _ \ x.
- .y /. ~ . - - _
/..-
f i: 4 l !
~ ! c i =
C.CC 6 5.00 I 1 E. 00 I 24.00 I ye.00 i 40, c0 a ye.00 i Ec,00 g q , pg 7i,og 'l j :_ , , 1 TIMEf5EC) .vl 0 ' . i
! FIGURE 4.6-40 Revision 1 ' ; New Page ,
i , _ . _ . . _ __ _ .. . _ _ _ __ . _ _ _
l
=.
- =
h $ _
'l. t
's E .
' CASE 3'
~
'S_
a ICE CONDENSER LOWER PLENUM TEMPERATURE _3. ___,_ _ 1 c c .
.c
~ W :.
/w 'Ir ..__-__ _. ,
I , _e i 1
+
c c- f 9
'a
.-=I u_ .
1
=g .. t
/
c / u- i
/
t / i' ,5
/
c'l 1 s-,I . ;
~
i
,g t
I c. c . E
- c_
e 2, e
=; . . ., , ,
7kco; el ,j 0.00 S.00 16.00 14.00 32.0c 40.00- yh.ee I'c.co . N, re 3
- ' TIME (SEC) .x;1 0 '
. FIGURE 4.6 ~
Revision 1 j_,_._.._... ,- . _ - . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
. New P_ age
E- \ M i c 5- I E- CASE 3 h_ ICE CONDENSER UPPER PLENUM TEMPERATURE
- n L ' s _ ___ __ _
c C' L
=
C,
.u m e c
c. .2 c. n c.
! t1 ~
' C I E p c. c. ci m_ i 4 l 1 c , c. 1 1 .. l ww- - r L i ~ W a / ! ,Ars l y -
,/
t i e c. , d7 i r i i i i i i i i 0.00 E.00 !E.00 24.00 22.00 40.00 95.00 EE.00 E4.00 72.00 EC TJMEiSEC) x 10 ' gevision i FIGURE 4.6-42 New Page
V k' l =s
-a l .-
l r' t
- i i
l i !. E_ s i l _i CASE 3 ,
-t r
- i
' l UPPER CONTAINMENT TEMPERATURE ( c r -- , i i i i
=,
=1 vi .
._ ?q '
1 C.-- r
- 1.
Ji i r ,i i i i i ( i, I i r j Ol L l- Q , c, Oi ./
~i
= t
~
?
i, i . , _i 1 2 ,
, '.f , _- - a i i i i i j C.PO E.00 JE.00 24.00 32.00 40.00 43.00 i
EE.00 i i. i E4.00 72.00- '
-i I TIMECSECi x 10 ' . .
i Revision 1 FIGURE 4.6-43 v_=2_ _ _ -
6 . s o 1 i ;j- 1 i 1 i c i 9 c. CASE 3 l i n DEAD ENDED VOLUME TEMPERATURE l @- %(4 % . N - t
~
s. l g 7 C n-9 d
'W L
E
-E d
9 r
=* t ill 2 m, \'
l ll
!i i-c
=
5
=~
i
~
=-
~.
=
~- i i i i i i i i i i 2.T' F.00 1E.P0 24.00 3i.00 40.00 4'.00 EE.00 E4.00 72.70
T]MEi5EC) 41 0 ' Revision 1 FIGURE 4.6-44 New Page
~ ~ " ' - ' ^ ~ ' - - -
r ~~ ~ [ .a j e e L i. e' 1 i j;- : i M c - 1. c . CASE 3:
. i
. t .
{ 5- LOWER CONTAINMENT PRESSURE I a I l. c-c - ; [ d- ] y i
-tns-( ((
a_ _ -t
'.,Q
-..'9)_ _ _ c.
- a_ ; l ,
W
- t. i
-v%e .
e _ c l .j
.d.
N i k ' -c c i t d. j { ' i c . 5 a c , q ..m -! p ~ o'.00. .iq.co j; s' 00 ls.co /2.00 . . TIME (SEC) y'o. co
*10" y's.co isco- .
e'q . co. '7'2.00 x!
-i Revision'1 l
FIGURE.4.6-45~ New Page I t 4-m~_..... .,v.. .. ..-..m. -
...__..-_.___.,.-,,;4...,..,....,,_..11_.-,.-,m.__ ...._.._.,,i_,..a..L,., ~...._.-.....,.........,4.. ,-
ll, 1i l :ll,I l!!' ) ;l i
' S 0
0
,2 1 7 '
ne N og i a N sP
\ 0 0 RN i
vw ee
,4 E
'4 k 0 0
.E 5
l N ( ,,, L
.0 0
iS 9'
.0 J 1
x
- 0. 6 0 4 0
i4) -6 C4
. E E
.SR U
( G 1 EI
.0 MF E
.0. I R i2 3 T
U S S E R P M 0 U 0 N . E i4 L 2 P R E W O L - R 0 E 0 S - N i5 1 n E D f. N 3 O C E S E A C C I 0 0 i5
- j/
0
.. 0
- . . -O E' d= nE E. ec Ar. cc fcu ':: r= = dW cc 2. . . -E -'
E- ou2CL C L
.lt l t ,ll!l!I l!t1 l( 1lli' ll
1 c
- c
! cI ! :rl 1
1 4 I 1 c CASE 3
- C j d_
m ICE CONDENSER UPPER PLENUM PRESSURE I
! c
- c j
- N_
i . 4 4 1 l i t c
; . c
- l. C d_
mm L
- O Q_
V k i . . \~ \ C "d O c Q - r_ i N
- - x l l 'p ,W# --
c , . s_
" /
.i
/
$ 1 i / i, c c / I f d_f
-~
( i
- C I C l
i i i i i . . . . ! 0.00 E.00 1E.00 24.00 22.00 40.U0 98.00 EE.00 E4.00 72.00 50. l IIMEiEEC'J .V } 0 ' Revision 1 l FIGURE 4.6-47 flew Page
'-~ - - - * ' - - ' - ' - - - - ~ - -- - ---
r--- - ; f: 'g" f [
. EI , ,
3:-
.g. - .
- , r
'c CASE 3: .!,
-c -
I, - c' ' UPPER CONTAINHf5T PRESSURE-
. . -.I
[-
- l 4
,c
-c ~
l s 3.'- ll, i
. i 3
- nc .
T-xd. LY : t
.*A.
'a - Ls .
.:t
.c_.,
.' f
' E E. t
[ - t T v ._ .
.y
-Q_.,/ -r,u~.~ -- '
.t c ;
= .,
5, ^! s , j {
.).
4
<t - c !
! .c- ; e ,:, t [i , j i- . 4 - k 1 5 j .- -
.)
-t >
- l . .c 'i i ,~.- f. .,
~N.-.. .,
= =
- 4 .t .t 6 . i, s .3 .
3 l" ' 0.C0 'E.00 15.00 24.00 22.00 . 4S;00 56.00' e4.r0 7'2,00 io. f:' LTIME(SEC)40.00 - .* 1 0 ' ' . 1
-FIGURE'4,6-48_
,- Revision 1 <-
- . ,__ 'N+w Page-
- Itt,!! i ,t ti,Wti i f ti!! y,!
- h;I{,,: tt!t!uLr rI t $ 5 t 3It:!! s; it.
1 3ii*t f ). , .
.t-7 .. 0 .-
-, t .2
- 0. ' ..
71l -
. ee
.y ne og .
s N ia
.s P
.i
.v w 0 ee RN 0
4 iE s . N 7 - (e 0 . (.. 0 E iE
-( .
-k
, P C~ C . / l 5 ~ 9' . . 0 _ - 1 . x . - 0' - . 0 9 .
. 4 .
0 - i4 T 6 C 4 _ E 9 ] 0 S E ( EG R U 0 MIF
.I
_ i 2T 1 - 0 E
.E
.P R
U S S R w +4 0 1 E M. U L. ~- D
.C O .
V . iL ! D 3 E E D E D N #- .- A.A S. C D E. w 4 0 0 5 A e
/
/ . 0 j/./
. I 0 f . .
sh _ c =.'.' e,2 z; 9~.m~'. c m?. Oc s . _ = ;< .
;~
~
. - Z _ ZL . .d ~ .
- I 1Ii:y!! [' i iiIt 1.!:' .l.i .iji
~
)' -i i- O O O 1 i fa ! c . I l , ._.' i CASE'4- ') O.'~ S LOWER CONTAINMENT TEMPERATURE. i i .i i
= i:
1 c 4 i
'i 1 9 '
.g-1 .,
l t j , .. c t c
., __c .i e
x te .j
.s t t
4
\
,j . \
w \ a e\ M~ f ,
)
i [ k
, i
/ (. . ,
r s ,. I c kl \ \ c \ \ k\
- .~ \
'- kJ-((q t
}
i
,c c
ci
.t t
r .t i l . 4
= - ^t c =
i l ,- c.. i -
.i i i. .... . i. t , ,..t 0.00
[ S.00 10.00 . '2i4.00 2 <. 00 40.00 .9 EE.00- 4.00 72.00
.- Ec. ,'
IMttdEC.r x 10 S.:00 ! i FIGURE 4.6-50 Revision 1 !. New Page
_ . . . . . _ . , . _ . - . _ . _ . . _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . ~ . . _ - _ . _ - - - 4 2 h 4
- 4 I-2 CASE 4 - '
' ICE CONDENSER LOWER PLENUM TEMPERATURE i-i 1 .c
! c
.I I~
l
')*
C
- \
, y .;
. w 3 .
j . .- - , l k _ i rE,
- u> , . .. t l i C
IYkP . - pm-. .. _ _ _ - -_
.w rr 7 IT }
J i
,s -
c _/ i c -- l I 1 .;
.. : {
- c. i . .
> 4 i . . . .
i i C.00 E.00 I r. 00 24.00 k 00 40.00 45.00- SE ro 4.00 72.00
. 50.
.I .i Mtt e t C .) x .
FIGURE.4.6-51 Regision 1. 1 {. -.New Page
- m- - - - - . ,,- . , , , . _ . - - - - . . . , . . , . . , , . , _ ,, , _ ~ -- 5 .-. . , . . , . . - _ . ....-e. -,s..-, .- - - - . , , , .-
ll \ 4lll ,i1 1,
,t S
0 C o' '2 1 7 ner o g im sP
., i Ik vs ev
. '( 0 0
RN
,4 k c
(. 0 0 Q ,E
~
s.
' (
l. 0 0
!. ,3
\ 4' 0
_ 1 x 0 2 0 5
,0 6
_ 4)4 C EER
+ .
. EU G E EI F R 0 M U 0 T . . . I A ,aT R 3 E
P _- M E T - M _ U 0 N _ 0 E . L P - ,1 4 - R E P _ P U R 0 E 0 S . N ,E E 1 D N 4 O C E S E _. A C C I 0 _ 0
,S
/ . _ 0
.. _ 0
- _ - - _ ' ~ - .0 ca .il cc. da cc da cc*E E :: -CU ge
- v C M.
- .~ C"_r.N C ;H u
~
t ,l ilIj1lif
y,_____._...__.._..._._._._.__ _ _ . . _ . . . . _ _ _ _ , _ _ , _ _ _ . _ _ _ - . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ - . . . _ . - . _ . . . . _ . - . . _ . - _ . . _ . _ . . _ ~ _ . _ . . ~ . . _ _ . . . _ . a 4 c c, ..~ 9 . 4 1-i - t l . , _ CASE 4
.=.
?- UPPER CONTAINMENT. TEMPERATURE c
a:. _ 1 l l i c - c
- c I i
- - i-i J 4
5:- 1
..c
- r_
u-i ) , w _ _.-fe^ -- Nk h j
. s
._ e ,
i c i ev_ , j I a ~ e f .
. .t
, i
- = t
- t. ,_._
i,
- / .;
t I c + c_ l =
' b
- - .E-' t
, d , o
, ... . . i - i h[
i. i ' 0'. 0 0 h.00 !E,00 24.00' ec.00 40.00 . 9E 00 E IO "A PD 71 00' ! I '
' I T M ~ L' .-r t . ') -*in'.c L .
Revision 1 1
._....]I@ RE 4.6-Sp - ,-- , - _ _ _ , , , _ , , .
New Page_ _ _ ._ . I
,.g-,~- .-- . - . - , _ - . , - _ .. -. - - ,_ _ - . - . - ..._ ~ - .-. .- -. - .-,--_ - - - _ -~ - -.. _ - - i e t 3 . i-9- O 1
'1
- - CASE 4 c.
~'
; ,} _ DEAD ENDED VOLUME TEMPERATURE. . _
'l L t
.c c -
- c. ->
t _s. -; i C
"c M c. -
i I- ,
- i i
, i u ..
t L-- c. : Ec i 1 I y ;,_ t r i 9 i,
.c -i c .
.i
. t 1 .. 3 i l -t c . c.. y
--_ L ~ . _ _ ._ [ . - ~ ~ ._. . _ .
.....e
...p
-i ,
.c .l
.c O.00' ' t . 00' - [C ' 00 -
. Y4.00 Yi. 00'
'4 C . 0. .ib x 1 0 . .N.. ~.
00--- L
?C.
00
. [4; PO-- '7h OC.' - '- i
.T I Mt. t .'. t ):
Revision 11 FIGURE 4.6 ' New Page- .i i - . . _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ . . . - . _ . . _ . . . . . .. ._.____.._.a. .._._ _ u_:__.-_-_. _._ _ ____-__ - . _ _ . , _ _ . . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ . , _ >
.. . . _ _ _ - _ _ _ . . _ . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ . . . . . _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ ~ . . . _ _ _ . . . . _ _
C c CASE.,4 t.J. LOWER CONTAINMENT PRESSURE cv i r
'C c
. 1 7.9- ,
.i e
i
.- c.
c a v (( f' & fan v- i
\k :
2C
# ( .
r.L. c._ t CV
, ' \, ( --
v c ' C Z~ : C + c u.
.c -
c +
;: i i O 00' F.00 10.00 [4.00 ,pg y'p, pp -- q'g. g7- _i __
.,,-_.t,,- ,i 4._00
- 7 c, , c n
~. ..
l ._, . i
. n.
- i. 4.C . - . t. ' t. . J!x 10.' .f FIGURE'4.6-55 .' Revision.1 j ?New Page L----- . . . _ . _ _ - _ . _ _ . . . _ . . . _ , _
i i i
.c i -c j .-
t: 4
- s 1.
I j _ CASE 4 ' m
'.c _l ICE CONDENSER LOWER PLENUM PRESSURE f
i A C l '. i 7 - l . i t } i i b (x ' ( i 7 E , 1 cc . - " \ \'
- :-:- , ,neve --
'.(-(-
un i i n. ,/ / ,
,/ \ s ( s(
EE
' A j ;i_
(,
- f '
I 3 i
. (s ;
i [ t 1 1 k'
.._ l.
.j' 1 -
i e I t ?_I [ m .
~* ' , , i.- i 2 '
u..g s' pc 3s CD d4.DO :E. 00 '4 0. PO P 00 MU N N- --
-."# J' I T I ME C '~:gr i x 10 '
1 { FIGURE 4.6-56 Revision 1
.New Page .. -
.. _ _ . _ _ .. - - , _ ._ ___ _ . __....._ . _._.._.. ..._-_.._ .... ......~....... _ _._.._ ..,_ _ . _._..___._ ...._. .
a i c
.J.._
i. l. l '. .c- ' CASE 4L. ! C
- t. C_ ICE CONDENSER UPPER PLENUM PRESSURE j' .c 4
c . i .4 i t. c ,
.- C ,
j 'y~__,, v%c3 l $& a-
\,
i Us . q (.r i - e . a U C. - f j. a_ g . u p\ ' a N ( .
'\
1-(N ,. i j I c e-! ! I ? . J. s l^
- j. i
. c c f-i. c,_ i 4 g .i
=
.c
(
- 0.00 5.?O 20.00 - 24. 00. - h.00
- . 40.00 ir: . 00 EE .- 00 cq:pc 7;.00 g
- ing c:sEri- '
< 10 '
Revision 1 FIGURE 4.6-57 i New.Page- !
.. . .--. _.-,_ _ 2. ., ,_ ,.- _ .. _ ...- _. . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _
l c c W .;
' I I
,,, CASE 4 r
~
UPPER CONTAINMENT-PRESSI:RE i
- t. _
.9 c
c , J t W > i i l (
.E , u\' k Cr J~ / . sN ,
O# \' 's
&* j
/
sb,s/ky-v m %, -m ', t (-
-{
/ .
\ g.
1 v_ , - ue
\. i i C._ e '.N( .\i t
'M- .
( j. ! [
, ( ,
- I !
l 'j c i n, ! 8 !
- l. .
t . k-! !i i i
. g. -
k { p S-- 2.77 i 9.00 i.
! . 0 0 '
i 24.00 i cc.00 i 40.00-p . 00 i EE.r? i E4,00
. . .I 3; ;
- , - 72.00 x l tg .
4
]
-i.7 M t ( c. t g J . i j
Revision 1
. FIGURE 4.6-58 j ,New Page
1-r c G ' t.^ . ( .- )- 2 N- CASE 4 } DEAD ENDED VOLUME PRESSURE , i 1 i i e c.
- r_
,e .;
n l c
.- c. L\ \ \ (t Y'
/hrerr d N- -
N, c_
/ 's ( .,
1
\,
i .. ! ui 's ( ~ - , c_ c9 '(: j s l
'\ .s I
] l 5-t e
- c. ,
u. i t c I c f a
~-
l i -i i i. i . . 0.00 ' 00 c,00 24.00 ' 26.00 . 4 49.00 Ee.Tc eq.00 71,0p <c~'
,_ g.0.00 .
.l . . C. t 0 t . J . X}
Revision'l FIGURE 4.6 -New Page_
~.
1 d' I N CASE 4 1 & VOLUME FRACTION OF HYDROGEN 4 LOWER CONTAINMENT i c g.. i
-f~~-/ ~
, ~..
{W C j
'~._
. /
l e
- c ,
l & t i i /
- I t
,1 i ;
i I i & I I
~
l c. l - e l E-
- d. '-
6 i i i i i 0.00 E.00 15.00 24.00 2c.00 40.r0 i 45.00 EE,00 i 5.; . 00 72,00 ep, T ! ME i .~EC ) x]O ' FIGURE 4.6-60 Revision 1
e 6
~
i @ . 1 > r I, - I C , 3-
.c CASE-5 r N- LOWER CONTAINMENT TEMPERATURE-
- F l t
. 1 i
e : c ,
. 3 c_
i r* t
- c 4
xc t I i-1
..'- t I
~
t t
' L.
t__ c - rc w ._
-m e >
i ; t
) l. :
}. . l ! ' 1 1 , 1. - , ; . e :~ i r j C i I
)
s- , i { i. i4
-s 1., i i
I- t t _ c. C-
. ., . - _ _ / - ~..
/r. -
1 r c.
,c' t
=. .
0.00
- - ra
- c.ee 24.00
..4.00 i.
40.cc. a:.cc
-Er.cc-.
ca.cc
, o
- n. ce. +:
T!ME UEC) .w ! O ' ..
-FIGURE 4.6-61 Revision 1 '
-New.Page.--,.v..--,-,-,,,..,, -.
J .
-..: ,, - - ,, ,- - - . . . - . - - . - . , , , , - , . . - - . - - .r. c.,. ,-, - . . , , - - - , . .
E' 1 ne
" og i a sP i
vw ee l Rf 4 y O D g I 1 E y 1 I 0 0 y ' p 0 1 x 0 0 2
. 6
? -
- 4) 6 C 4 E
SE R ( U E EG R DMI O F U T A N' Y T
.I R
E P M E T " M 0 U C N . E 4 L , P R E W O L 0 R 0 E . . S I N E I lC g[ D N 5 O C E S E A C . C I 0 ( lr l f
/ 0
.. 0
. - _ _ - - ~ c' e S . :.; ec d7.a.
c9 E e. 9 .ca- iiM d c 9 ,= 91 S S e.
.,.,.cE
_ _ _ . _ - - . . . . . . . - - . ~ - - - . - . . . IO
@ G l ,
i j 2 CASE 5 E: ICE CONDENSER UPPER PLENUM TEMPERATURE
;u
! s-
~.
=
=, ~
=
=
, .,=._ l u.. - 4 ! c_. t f r r i . t
-e .
t = l M
\
t i c i e, e i
\g k
. r, l i i i
~
l i i E1 - t u
\ \ Pg
-l -
+ 1 4
e- ,-.__..-..-- p m._. -. - . . ,
=
i :: ,.4..- h _ . . ~ ~'_ f ( i I ,! [ I EI , , , , , , , , , , ,i
- _
- '. :: '.ce 2e.ee ;. 4. ce u. ce 40.0e 4:.e: Er.ce ca.ee 71.ee ::t TIMEUTC) v.1 0 '
FIGURE 4.6-63 Revision 1 New Page '
~1 1 ._-. !.
.I
, e_:. .
3, 4
-.- l l
1
! CASE 5
- c 1
f e
'. UPPER CONTAINMENT TEMPERATURE i L"-
j
<t 'I l
1 C e c . 1 5-
) -
l i a c
! =
c l .-;,
! u_ N c_
E
-g c
. c_
,W i i' e.
i c ', i i \ u-l , 1 p I i E j ;n 5. 5
.' ' ~ . 6 i i a i i i . 1 i .
2.?: '.00 !E.De c4.00 cc.DD 40.00 9:.00 E . rc E4.TC K. 00 'T i
.l. T M . . . , r, .
.ir (- -; ,1 p .
l - - Revision 1 F0GIRE 4.6-64 New Page
!. e , E i i-1 l CASE 5 ,. DEAD ENDED VOLUME TEMPERATURE ! E-l 1 i i c_ .i l g , -w \
"~~._ h 1
..- N L ./
k _ - i-
=.,
c d 2 --w. fg ** C_ Z c 7 1 - E'. . e o
. .i j I
=
c E_ n
=
c~ _., i i i i 1 i i i i
- C.c0 E.00 Ir.00 c4.De 2c. 0 40.C0 9..I0 ~" .PD ^4.00 'ik . i? ~~
i!M2 i. r r,
,] p -
Revision 1 FIGURE 4.6-65 _, __ New Page .
1 j f
.s, :- r 5 :
I i
' CASE 5 i C LOWER CONTAINMENT PRESSURE.
. c.
V-3 t c c *
= l i N. ,
F. ! h t I 1
.c :
.- c >
Ti
.- . , , . i C_- :
_,. , 3
- - .' s L d
.a ,
gv .- v- . - ,' I' \ c d. x- .-
.e .
~.y. . ,(s i
t c ,! c t
. :. _ i :!
i
.i t
.I
. -r c
c j
.e ('
- - . .i i i i j'
i i i O.00 S.00 24.00 i c! 6. 00 32.00. ;40.r0 9'.00 Es,00: E4,00 i
'72.00 - -c,1 i
L I T ME (';Eri ' *' 1 0 "
~ ; FIGURE 4.6-66 Revision ~1 ..
_ . . . . . . . - . , _ . . . _ _ . , .-.~.2__ . _ . . . - _ _ . . _ - , . . . - _ . . _ . - . _ .
. _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ New Page .._ __.._.
u
'. S 2' c,
e i 3 e
. ,s,t'. ,
j/ - 1* *
. t ,
CASE 5 - c ; ' ICE CONDENSER, l'.0WER PLENUM PF,ESStJRE
.-f 3
- E.:- ..>
)/
,l,
,) ,
n
- s. '
- s. '
'f 1 C f c
v_ t l i_
-N 1
C c C4 c L .:
~r \
\,
- k L. '
-L- ,s- ?w s
=
l ~' % -_._ - \
- s / .
(s r 7
/ .
e E ; I L_ i [
=.
E
<-. i i i i e i i i i i C.D0 F,00 1E.00 24.00 2c.PD 40.r0 4' 00 EE.r0 :4.?C 72,D0 :- P .
T.TMF(.'pr_.)
- .. .v.1 0 -
FIGURE 4.6-67 Revision 1 New Page. - - - - _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . ___ _ _ . - . . _ _ _ _ _ .__m. _ _ _
~.: -
i. I
! CASE 5 c
'. ICE CONDENSER UPPER PLENUM PRESSURE 9,
e c c i i. .-O ! CE 1 - ' :.7
.- m c__ !
T~ w;s c._
- 7. , ,
I
',V vadu( \,.\
i
; N- .r.
f w ~ -~~ _ _-
~ - - . . , , ,
a \
- {
. as =_ - i .-s1*
I
=tI J. .- ,
C IC F.00 IE.00 N. pe Yc,rg y'p, gg a '.gn f i g ,
' 't,' yA'IU 7' ' I'" -"
r t":"' 'r C ')
'[ T M '-'. x 10 '
FIGURE 4.6-68 Revision 1 McwLRmovs
4 1 e c
@ @ @ I CASE 5 1.
C UPPER CONTAINMENT PRESSURE . 4. - i c , t
, c c.
CE . .'_
~n ..
I C-
~
t I CL E C- 1
;% t l
, i L LLi ~.
, s t
.e ,-f 9.nar - - .
~~
n . - > . c. ~.._. _ , ; l d_ - i { , t t
]
1,
- c. -l i
- _ - ! !
I ( t
=_- !
;, i i i . i i - i 4 i i 0.00 :.00 !E.00 24.00 L 00 . - - 40.00 9:.00 EE.00 E4.IC 71.i? SP. :
-}prd I t t - r. a
. x 10 *. Revision 1 l
FIGURE 4.6-69 New Page
t i ! I e i -C CASE 5
+E DEAD ENDED VOLUME PRESSURE l ,
I 9l . t c. I C._
'hE; i
\
' 1 a
', I \'
l,
<\
N-srY%~ s
,;./ W&
.i r
I e .
~
N. __ _ _ . -
=_ -
ya s i 1
-l i
f I i i
- .T: '- cc 3 b p', ,4.
c LL cc. e ac.pe q.. , , . .6- - g i ,
' ' ' 4 _ '_- '/2. c c --
[ .T h F i '. r.-]
.3,t
.. .L Revision 1 FIGURE 4.6-70 New Page
1 1 l z-n @ G Q i I 1
} t
- CASE 5 t 4
4 j ICE CONDENSER UPPER PLENUM 4 ' L VOLUME FRACTION OF HYDROGEN i I (k, 'g ,s
- n, 's
- [- (
I r
.I il -
. c. 1 x" C' j I I i l , 5
~
o ), - [
& ; i i f t
t l
. > t
' I I
~l c-3 I *a m.rc g 6 d, i i !
a:. r,- ,4.
.-. ic...
- a- --- -
c, pe . c0 F .s 4.6 s - I!Mt.t..: > * 'u Revision 1 , FIGURE 4.6-71 flew Page
5.3.1 Selection of Lower Containment Temperature Function O v Burning of hydrogen in the lower containment occurs as a series of propaga-ting hydrogen flames. To predict the minimum time between flames, various CLASIX analyses of the response of the lower compartment to hydrogen burning were examined. It was noted that flames occur 3-5 minutes apart and that more energy is deposited in the compartment from a single slow moving flame than from a faster moving flame. Flame temperature was considered to be 760 C (1400 F), consistent with burning at 8.5% hydrogen by volume. During the time the flame is moving through the compartment, radiation will transfer energy from the flame to the walls of the compartment and to' equipment. After the flame has passed a point, that point will be in the cloud of hot gasses behind the flame, and temperature will decrease as the hot gasses radiate their energy to walls and structure. The overall effect of each (D b' flame is to raise the ambient temperature of the compartment so that each flame originates at a slightly higher ambient temperature. The rise in ambient temperature can be estimated from CLASIX as approximately 25 F per flame. Combining these results and assumptions, two forcing functions for lower compartment equipment survivability analysis have been developed and i are illustrated in Figures 5.3-1 and 5.3-2. These figures represent the 1-environment surrounding a cable or transmitter and are used in considering convective heat transfer. Section 5.4.2 describes how radiative heat trans-fer is handled for lower compartment calculations. O 5.3-2 Revision 1
f condenser as a function of height is shown in Figure 5,5-1. All of these p d assumptions are considered conservative.for the following; reasons. Actual
. thickness of the flame band is likely'to be less than.0.4 inches according to testimony by Bernard Lewis during the ASLB hearings on McGuire hydrogen control. A stationary flame imparts the maximum energy in a very small area, thus causing the maximum temperature rise.
l Because of the ccmplex geometry and boundary conditions, it was decided that the computer code HEATING 5 would be used for the solution to the heat trans-fer problem. The problem was modeled in three dimensions, using approximately 2700 nodes. Radiative and convective heat transfer from the flame and hot l1 gasses to the wall were modeled. Heat conduction in solide and radiative and convective heat transfer'across gaps, were included in analyzing heat' transfer to.and through the ice condenser wall. 5.5.3 Results The results of the-analysis for ice condenser foam temperature rise due to heat input from a stationary flame and hot gasses is shown in Figure 5.5-2 for the elevation coinciding with the level of the maximum foam temperature. The maximum temperature reached in any part of the foam is 123 C (253 F) substantially below the temperature at which pyrolysis of the foam would begin to occur. Figures 5.5-3 and 5.5-4, which show the temperature distri-bution at elevations above and below the flame, illustrate why the foam temperature remains low. Conduction of heat is very-efficient in the ' axial direction up and down the wall in the gap between ducts, and thus the 5.5-2 Revision 1
system. Selection of the glow plug as the DIS ignition source precludes further study of electromagnetic emissions and their effect on instru-mentation. (Section 2.3)
- 4. Catalytic combustors are an effective means of hydrogen removal. How-ever, environmental effects of catalyst performance indicate significant support systems would be required to assure combustor performance. As a result of these demonstrated concerns, further study is precluded.
.(Section 2.4)
- 5. In order to significantly affect the lower flammability limit of hydro- l1 gen, a micro-fog consisting of relatively large droplets must have a larger density then a fog with smaller droplets. (Section 2.5) t In addition to the results mentioned above, the remaining research projects are expected to indicate the following:
I
- 1. Ignitor location has relatively insignificant effects on hydrogen l1 deflagrations. Other tests show that with sufficiently small droplets, a micro-fog can reduce the pressure rise resulting from hydrogen defla-grations. (Section 2.6).
- 2. Operation of glow plug hydrogen ignitors at 14 volts provides sufficent l1 margin for effective operation over a broad range of environmental conditions. (Section 2.7)
-s')
J 6.2-3 Revision 1 J
- 3. 'For transition to detonation.to occur, both geometry'and a detcnab'le l1
(! concentration must be'present. Flame velocities will be obtained from. additional tests. (Section 2.8)_ ,
- 4. Due to the inherent characteristics of a discharge jet, combined with l1 the' operation of'the air return fans, localized accumulations of large hydrogen concentrations will not occur within an ice condenser con-tainment. (Section 2.9)
- In undertaking a project which requires one to work at the edge of known
- technology without specific guidelines or design requirements, the best
, conclusion that can be obtained is'one in which knowledgeable engineering _ personnel, applying the best tools available to them, reach what they con-sider to be a reasonable. solution that has a high probability of.being
-V successful. Duke Power considers that such a stage-has been reached with ?
regard to protection of the McGuire containment f om the effects of nuclear accidents which lie outside the station design basis. Additional investment' s in either research or analysis is extremely unlikely to change-the hydrogen-
- mitigation system itself or our conclusions concerning its effectiveness.
i' i P . Ov 6.2-4 Revision 1 t-
-.~.e- wr - r- ,:~,,- , w , - ,, N. , n , ~,-r.,,,ne,-v-o,--~ v.~---v- --,w- . - , , v -..-,~~,+,-n ,v,-v~m- --+ n-~---ve- -
em~ - ~ -- , - - ~ ' ' -
M
Response
--Q - Tests were performed at TVA's Singletonj ab in which an energized igniter. wasexposedtoleanhydrogenenvironmenks.(4%)for-24 hours. After this exposure, the igniter was tested for operability and was visually examined. All tests were performed successfully; therefore surface recombination for 1 extended periods does not interfere with the ability of the igniters to perform its function. Additional details of this testing may be found in the TVA response to this question.
- 4. Provide a complete discussion of the accident symptoms which will result in actuation of-the ignition system. Considering a spectrum of accidents, identify the minimum time period in which actuation is requirdd. Identify and justify the mode of. actuation, i.e. , automatic or remote manual.
Response
The hydrogen mitigation system'is actuated at the direction of the Shift. Supervisor upon automatic actuation of the Safety Injection System and when symptoms of a loss of-coolant accident are identified. This is described more thoroughly in Section 3.0. Because it takes a substantial amount of time during an accident to reach the point where the core has been partially uncovered and metal / water reaction is producing hydrogen, the required actuation of the hydrogen mitigation system upon initiation of safety injection will ensure that the igniters are energized and ready long before hydrogen concentrations in containment have reached an ignitable mixture. It is also for this reason that remote manual actuation of the igniters is adequate. (J h.
)
7.0-2 Revision 1
- 5. With regard to the Fenwal igniter test program provide the following information.
i-I a) Summary of the data from the Phase 2 Fenwal tests in a format similar to that provided for the phase 1 tests in the TVA Core. Degradation Program Report, Vol. 2. Include the calculated AP/AP max value. i
Response
See Table 1 and Table 2. b) Description and justification'of the scaling-of the spray flow tests r i to the ice condenser upper or lower compartment sprays.
Response
! See Section 2.1.3.2. c) Description and justification of the scaling of the steam hydrogen transient injection tests.
Response
See Section 2.1.3.2. 7.0-3 Revision 1 Carry Over
model in the circumferential direction as well as modeling the lower compartment as several subvolumes. i) Describe any plans for future modifications of the CLASIX code. 1
Response
a) See topical report number 0PS-07A35, "The CLASIX Computer Program for the Analysis of Reactor Plant. Containment Response to Hydrogen Release and Deflagration," October, 1981, sections II-VI. d b-i) Ibid, letter attachment E b-ii) Ibid, letter attachment F b-iii) Ibid, section III and Appendices A-C (O c) Ibid, sections III, IV, and V.D 1 I d) Ibid, sections II, IV, V.A.1, V.O., and VI I e) Ibid, sections IV-VI f) CLASIX is no longer initialized with the results of.LOTIC-1. -Initial , conditions are those assumed for FSAR containment accident analyses. g) OPS-07A35, op. cit., sections II, IV, V.C, and VI h) The original design of the ice condenser considered postaccident maldistribution problems from nonuniform ice melting, small breaks, 7.0-8 Revision 1
and jet impingement on the lower inlet doors which could result in a channel being burned through the ice bed. At that time, Westinghouse performed various calculations to model possible nonuniform ice bed. melting and showed that burnthrough was not a problem and that con-siderable margin remained in the ice bed. Independent of the Westing-house efforts, Battelle Northwest Laboratories evaluated ice condenser performance after being commissioned by TVA and Duke Power. BNL con-firmed that no burnthrough would occur-. The phenomena associated with potential maldistribution for hydrogen-steam jets would be comparable to the pure steam jets evaluated originally and found to be acceptable. The arrangement and location of the primary system piping well below-the ice condenser inlet doors precludes a break release point being adjacent to those doors and allows substantial mixing to occur in' p]
\
the lower compartment. The AEP/ Duke /TVA/EPRI sponsored research program at the Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory was designed to model lower compartment mixing following a small break LOCA in an ice condenser plant. These tests should provide addi-tional evidence that the lower compartment atmosphere is essentially uniform and that preferential. flow to the ice bed is unlikely. i) Planned modifications to CLASIX include changes to the sump and recirculation flow models, incorporation of a variable burn fraction for propagating burns, addition of a spray heat transfer correlation, and coding modifications to reduce run time. These changes are not expected to have any significant effect on the results and conclu-
-n
( ) sfons presented elsewhere in this document. OPS-07A35 will be .. v 7.0-8a Revision 1 New Page
revised to describe CLASIX modifications upon completion and veri- 1 fication of the modifications.
- 7. Provide a discussion of the results of analyses of the S2 0 transient using the revised CLASIX code as discussed above addressing the following:
a) Identify and provide the results for a base case reference analysis and discuss the rationale for selection of the base case, e.g., representation of a best estimate or bounding calculation. Provide justification for the characterization of this analysis. The results should include plots of pressure, temperature and gas concentration for the various regions of the containment. ( Response: Section 4.0 contains the results for the base case analysis for the S 20 transient and provides justification for use of this analysis as a bounding calculation. Section'4.0 also presents the results of an analysis performed at a best estimate flame speed resulting in a more realistic assessment of containment response. Plots are included in bo 7.0-8b Revision 1 Carry Over
Section 4.0 which include both'.the bounding case and the more realistic'
.s assessment at' lower flame speed.
.b) Provide the results of sensitivity studies to determine the effect of_ operation of 1 or'2 trains of fans and sprays.
Response
See Section 4.6. , 1 c) Provide the results of analyses to determine the effect of various hydrogen combustion assumptions considering the following: i) Combustion of lean hydrogen mixtures withLpartial' combustion.
Response
It is difficult to determine correct CLASIX input parameters at' hydrogen levels below that at which downward propagation occurs (8-8.5% by volume). This is because the amount of hydrogen consumed becomes a function of igniter location, as does burn time in each compartment, and flames do not propagate throughout a corrpartment.but only in certain directions away from igniters. Hydrogen flames at 8.5% hydrogen by volume produce hotter, more energetic flames, which burn throughout the compartment. It is our judgement that cases of lean burning wiht' partial combustion
- ' are bounded by results of analysis at 8.5% and above.
ii) Complete combustion of hydrogen at various setpoints. 7.0-9 Revision 1 I
CLASIX results show this to be the case then the predicted pressure differentials will be compared to the maximum allowable differential v pressures to determine the margins in capability of the containment structure.
,. h) Since the original S 2D transient analyses did not mechanistically consider termination of the accident, it is necessary to identify the effects of core recovery. Therefore, either demonstrate that various modes of core recovery do not adversely affect the hydrogen and steam release rates and therefore the containment pressure and 1
temperature response or provide the results of analyses which address the more likely scenarios which affect core recovery.
Response
P V) Westinghouse has conducted an analysis to investigate the effect'of core reflood on hydrogen and steam generation rates. Utilizing the codes WFLASH and LOCTA, it was assumed that the emergency core cooling systems were. activated after the core was uncovered and still in a coolable geo-metry. The resulting peak hydrogen and steam flow rates were less than one pound /second and less than thirty pounds /second, respectively. 1 Hydrogen generation was terminated within five minutes of ECCS actuation. - The reflood transient increased the total mass of hydrogen generated by less than one percent. Similar results were obtained from an independent analysis conducted by TVA utilizing the MARCH code. As a result of these analyses, it was concluded that the core reflood transient will have an insignificant effect on the analyses presented in Chapter 4. m 7.0-15 Revision 1
i. i l i) Provide the fan head curve used in the CLASIX model. In order to demonstrate the effects of variable fan flow provide figures of fan i flow as a function of time. i 4 i i s 4 i I r l i f I ! O l \ i i l Revision 1 7.0-15a Carry Over
. . _ - . ~ _ , _ . _ . - _ _ _- _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - . - . - - _ _ - - -- - --
.. _ _ . .. ._ . ~ . .e_ , __ _ _ - - _ . . _ , . _ . _ , _ _ . - - ._ . _ - _ . -
- . - 4 i
g 4
- Response
- 4 The fan models used in the base case _CLASIX analysis reported in Section. '
- 4.0 used a constant flow fan.
Flow rates were 30,000 SCFM for-each' air
]
- return fan and 3,000 SCFM for_each hydrogen skimmer fan. The CLASIX-sensitivity work to be performed in response'to question 8 will use actual fan curves for these-two fans. These curves are available in the'
! McGuire FSAR Figure 6.6.2-2 (air return fan) and Figure 6.6.'2-3 (hydrogen o skimmer fan). y I (l 8. Identify the spectrum of accidents which you have considered in your L evaluation of the distributed ignition system. Discuss the rationale for b selection of the various accidents. Discuss the basis for assumptions l regarding termination of the accident prior to core slump, if appli- a cable. Provide the assumptions and results of CLASIX analyses performed
-i to evaluate the containment atmosphere pressure and temperature results,
- similar to that provided for the S D2 transient,1for the_various'. accident sequences selected.
1 i Response:
.+ i l
- In response to this question, Duke Power considered the,availabi_lity of- -
i (- analytical tools which might be used to establish the boundary.and ini-- ! tial conditions for various accidents. It was discovered that the MARCH l' computer code was the only available code which would model.beyond design 1 [_ basis events with core degradation and hydrogen release. Because of the empiricism contained in. MARCH, and the lack of adequate verification, it l was concluded that there was excessive uncertainty in using results of: ;
; . MARCH as forcing functions for containment analysis beyond what had
!' 7.0-16 Revision 1 t
& 4 he re- m e w herw 9 v esee +ce ;-_ -
W s-w-e+e-w +-+ -F ue e-en-tet=s eww w-t-seeMi-- -e- fe & =r g qv - .- .N v+ v e ye wvwy f etveve t * *r 'v mg-r v yr t-*-t- w +w evwewe v
- already been done. Accordingly, it was decided.that a more prudent i 3 -.
i course,was to examine whether the distributed ignition system would-
- protect containment integrity with an adequate margin during a series of sensitivity analyses using conservative' assumptions for the boundary and initial conditions to be input into CLASIX.
The first case considered sas that of minimum availability of operable containment pressure suppression safeguard systems. This-is analyzed as Case 1 in Section 4.6. The second case considered the effects of enhanced hydrogen release rate to the containment. It had been speculated that for a given hydrogen generation rate, MARCH might underpredict the release rate to containment by a factor of two. An additional factor of two was added, so that the o I - U rate of hydrogen release used in the analysis was four times that used in earlier analysis. The time scale was compressed by a suitable factor so that the total hydrogen release mass was maintained at 1500 lbm. In-Section 4.6, this is analyzed as Case 2. A third analysis case, Case 3 in Section 4.6, considered the possible effects of variation in the mass'and energy release rate during the blow-down phase of the LOCA which leads to core degradation. It was noted that almost all of the mass and energy release from the reactor coolant 4 system occurs during the blowdown phase of the LOCA and prior to core degradation and hydrogen release. During core uncovery, the mass and. energy release rates from the reactor coolant system der.rease substan-O- tially because the system becomes in pressure equilibrium with the 7.0-16a Revision 1 New Page l
containment due to loss of inventory. Accordingly, the mass and energy (n) release during the period of hydrogen release are insignificant com-pared to the earlier period.- This being the case, the initial condi-tions for the hydrogen release phase of the accident may be bounded by considering a worse case set of containment conditions during the blow-down phase of a LOCA. The selected worse case was containment pressure. at the highest calculated value for a small break LOCA and a total melt-out of the ice inventory in the ice condenser. This is a very conserva-tive assumption since design basis events do not cause a meltout of the total ice inventory. The other conservatisms in this assumption are discussed in Section 4.6. The results of the analysis of these three cases are presented in Section p 4.6. As noted in that section, in all cases the containment responded in V) 5 a manner which ensured the preservation of structural integrity. At no time did a detonable mixture occur anywhere in containment. It is concluded that the hydrogen mitigation system will perform its intended function under a wide variety of-initial and boundary condi-tions within the containment with an adequate safety margin. It is also concluded that the consideration of the bounding cases of'high hydrogen release rates and worst case initial conditions for hydrogen release at the end of the blowdown period proves that adequate safety margin is available in the system and that-it will perform its function for any selected accident sequence which could reasonably be expected. M k/ 7.0-16b Revision 1 New Page
l1-
- 9. Provide a quantitative evaluation of the probability and effects of_ form-ing'a fog, comprised of. water droplets, inside containment. .This evalu-ation should. address the following items:
a) Identification of the range of' droplet sizes and requisite volume-tric density to preclude combustion of hydrogen or affect combustion characteristics such as flame propagation. Provide the basis,- including experimental evidence,_to support these conclusions.
'b) Consideration of the probability and consequences of fog formation
~
in the various regions of the containment (e.g., lower compartment, ice condenser).
Response
A study was conducted to identify the major fog formation and removal mechanisms within an ice condenser containment' Additionally, the ef-- b- .
\_./
fect of any resulting fog on the operation of the distributed ignition system was evaluated. Fog concentrations throughout containment were obtained by simultaneously solving the mass conservation equations for-- fog droplets in each of the containment's subcompartments. These equa- 1 tions incorporated fog formation due-to condensation and reac,ar coolant system blowdown as well as fog removal by gravitational settling and-sprays. The calculated results were: 1) Fog will not affect the ! standard hydrogen flammability limits in the lower and upper compart-ments. 2) Although unlikely, fog present in the upper plenum may l raise the lower flammability limit slightly. However, ignition will occur at the design basis hydrogen concentration of 8.0-8,5 v/o. I \_ t 7.0-17 Revision 1
Analytical work has shown that the mean caoplet size formed by the break flow is approximately 4p. -To account foi condensation and agglomeration, this study assumed a mean droplet diameter of 10p. Further analysis indicated that significant amounts of fcq are generated only when the initial state of the break flow is subcooled or saturated liquid. Therefore, fog generation was assumed to terminate when the reactor vessel level fell below the break elevation. Approximately fifty per-cent of the break flow was vaporized, leaving the remaining mass suspended as fog droplets. Knowing that thermal boundary layers are formed near cold surfaces, the Hijikata-Mori theory of fog formation within thermal boundary layer was used to evaluate fog formation due to nucleation. Analysis has shown that when local vapor supersaturation reaches critical supersaturation, rapid fog formation occurs within the boundary layer. Since micronsize droplets are obtained within a few h V milliseconds, very little supersaturation is required for further growth. During fog formation within the boundary layer, the bulk fluid temperature is decreased via heat transfer to the cold surface. If the bulk fluid temperature has dropped below the dew point, then it was 3- assumed that bulk stream condensation has occurred. Calculations based on studies of the growth of cloud drops by condensation and observations of valley fog have shown that the mean droplet size varies from 8p to ! 14p. A 10p droplet diameter was, therefore, assumed. The only significant fog removal mechanism considered was collision with spray droplets. A removal' efficiency of 100% within the volume covered by containment sprays was assumed. (Varying the. fog removal efficiency did not significantly affect the study's conclusions.) Although removal _by l pb 7.0-17a Revision 1 New Page-
. gravitational settling was evaluated, the terminal-velocity of a 10p .O ,
b) . droplet is so small that the effect was minimal. Agglomeration is a potentially significant removal mechanism that was simplistically treated by assuming the mean-droplet size grew to 10p. Other potentially signi-ficant removal mechanisms that were not considered are impingement on structures and the " spray" resulting from ice melting. The effect of a fog on hydrogen combustion was evaluated by utilizing the
-work of von Karman. Three energy equations were developed to model the combustion kinetics and heat transferred to the unburned gas and fog. I Comparisons between von Karman's work and experimental data obtained from Factory Mutual were good. Analysis has shown that the minimum fog inert-ing~ concentration varies approximately with the square of the volume mean p droplet diameter.
s I U-Analysis of fog formation and removal rates revealed that the upper and lower compartments maintained lower fog concentrations than the upper plenum. When the hydrogen concentration reached the lower flammability limit (4%) in the lower and upper compartments, the calculated fog con-centrations were a factor of ten and five, respectively, below the inert-
~
ing limit of approximately 8x10 4 v/o. The calculated fog concentration in the upper plenum was sufficient to inert the mixture when a hydrogen I concentration of 4 v/o was achieved. However, when the hydrogen con-centration reached 8.0-8.5 v/o, the calculated fog concentration was at least two times smaller than the required concentration for inerting, e approximately 2x10 2 y/o, p V 7.0-17b Revision 1 New Page 1
Because of the conservatisms mentioned earlier, essentially all fog (h ! generated within the lower compartment was transported to the upper , plenum. The severity of these conservatisms was obvious when the analytical model was compared to the complex geometry and congestion present within an ice condenser containment. However, due to the complexity of the analysis, fog removal by mechanisms other than spray collision and gravitational settling was not quantifiable. As a result, it was recognized at the beginning of the study that the calculated results would be more qualitative than quantitative. Considering the calculated results and the conservatisms inherent in the analytical ! methodology discussed earlier, it was concluded that: 1) Fog present in the lower and upper compartments would not affect the hydrogen lower flammability limit. 2) Fog present in the upper plenum is not expected to significantly affect hydrogen's lower flammability limit. Ignition is O' V expected to occur at concentrations well below the design basis concen-tration of 8.0-8.5 v/o. In order to assess the effects of inerting in a volume of containment, two analyses were performed using CLASIX. This first, identified as Case 4 in Section 4.6, considered that the lower compartment became inerted such that neither ignition nor propagation could occur there. 4 The second analysis, designated Case 5 in Section 4.6, considered tha' the upper plenum of the ice condenser was inerted. The results of the analysis of these two cases are presented in Section 4.6. As noted in that section, in neither case is containment integrity challenged; indeed, containment pressure remained below design pressure at all times. Examination of the hydrogen concentration in the various w 7.0-17c Revision 1 New Page
compartments showed that at no time did a detonable mixture occur in any
-part of the containment, included the volume which was'inerted. We 1 conclude that the consequences of fog formation, even if it leads to compartment inerting, do not_ represent a safety concern.
- 10. Provide a quantitative evaluation of the probability and effects of producing supersaturated steam conditions in the various containment compartments. Discuss the effects these conditions may have on igniter performance. Reference any test data used to support your conclusions.
Response
See response to Question 9. 1 O O 7.0-17d Revision 1 a Carry Over _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _J}}