ML20069N957
| ML20069N957 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1982 |
| From: | QUADREX CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19268D417 | List: |
| References | |
| QUAD-1-82-245, QUAD-1-82-245-REV-A, NUDOCS 8212070278 | |
| Download: ML20069N957 (51) | |
Text
-
- a. t 4, ATTACHMENT 3 AECM-82/574 A Survey of Tests and Analyses i
On The Effectiveness of the RHR System in the Pool-Cooling Mode l
r 4
A f
I
^
l 8212070278 821203 PDR ADOCK 05000416 P PDR
- o. s QUAD-1-82-245 Revision A A SURVEY OF TESTS AND ANALYSES ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RHR SYSTEM IN THE P0OL-COOLING MODE 1
l l ,
Prepared for:
Mark III Containment Issues Owners Group i .
I By Quadrex Corporation 1700 Dell Avenue Campbell, California
! Novcaber 198?
l l
. s QUAD-1-82-245 Revision A November 1982 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 2.0
SUMMARY
OF FINDINGS 2 3.0 SURVEY OF RHR SYSTEM SUCTION AND RETURN ARRANGEMENTS 3 3.1 Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 3 3.2 Grand Gulf Power Station 3 3.3 Perry Power Station 4 3.4 River B. ~d Station, Unit 1 4 4.0 SURVEY OF EXISTING TEST DATA AND ANALYSES 7 4.1 Perry One-Tenth-Scale Test 8 4.2 Monticello In-Plant Test 12 4.3 Caorso In-Plant Test 14 4.4 Kuo-Sheng In-Plant Test 15 4.5 Thermal Stratification Study of a Mark III Containment Suppression Pool 16
5.0 CONCLUSION
S 23 REFERENCES 27 FIGURES 28
.. ,e . ,
9
4 6
1.0 INTRODUCTION
At the request of the Mark III Containment Issues Owners Group, Quadrex Corporation undertook a study of the existing test data and analyses pertaining to the effectiveness of the residual heat removal (RHR) system as & means of thermal mixing within the pressure suppression pool . The purpose of the study was to determine if sufficient data and supporting analyses existed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the RHR system in four plants with Mark III containments (Grand Gulf, Clinton, Perry, and River Bend) without the need for in-plant testing. Specifically, the questions to be addressed are the positions of the RHR suction and discharge and the possibility of short-circuiting and reduced mixing from a lack of suppression pool bulk motion.
The first task was to study the RHR suction and discharge geometry and the l
- orientation of the discharge flow in the four plants. This was done by t
using drawings and documents supplied by the plants' architect-engineers.
The next task was to review existing test and analysis reports and summarize
. the pertinent findings that might be applicable to plants with Mark III containments. In some cases, complete reports we > available; in other cases, only facts found in public-domain reports could be utilized.
The final task was to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness o.f the l RHR systems of the four Mark III containments on the basis' ~of tf[e ' fin' dings l resulting from the survey of the existing test and analysis reports.
A summary of the findings is presented in section 2.0, and section 3.0 gives a description of the RHR system suction and return geometries and orientations for each of the four plants. This description is followed by a brief summary in section 4.0 of each test or analysis report reviewed.
Section 5.0 presents the conclusions drawn from the available data and information.
QUAD-1-82-245, rev A 1 November 1982
O O
- 2. 0
SUMMARY
OF FINDINGS
- Short-circuiting of the RHR flow, i.e., the direct flow of some of the RHR system discharge to the RHR system . suction line, is not likely to occur.
- After about 15 minutes of RHR system operation, t.he suction temperature is close to the bulk temperature.
- Operation of one RHR system loop breaks up initial pool stratification at the rate of 1.5 to 1.8'F/mi n ; therefore, a period of 10 to 15 minutes of RHR system operation is sufficient to produce practically uniform temperature distribution in an initially stratified pool.
- Three to four minutes of operation of one RHR system loop can produce an average suppression pool bulk velocity of approximately 0.4 ft/s in an initially quiescent pool.
- The data and analyses reviewed dealt exclusively with the operation of one RHR system loop. No data could be found on the operation of two loops or on the effect of the two loops ' discharging in opposite circumferential directions. Howeyer, based on considerations of continuity and conservation of momentum, global f'ow patterns were developed. They show the effectiveness of the exi, sting, R,HR ,systcm
, suction and discharge arrangements in domestic plants with Mark III containments.
- The concern regarding the effect of opposing RHR system discharges and the claim that each jet will impede the effectiveness of the other in providing suppression pool mixing are without technical bases.
Opposing Jets produce a different flow pattern but probably af ford as much thermal mixing as jets that point in the same direction.
QUAD-1-82-245, rev A 2 November 1982
3.0 SURVEY OF RHR SYSTEM SUCTION AND RETURN ARRANGEMENTS Some of the information presented in this section was obtained from preliminary drawings, and some of the dimensipns were estimated and may not be accurate. As far as thermal mixing of the' pool is concerned, the main features of the RHR system of interest are:
- Azimuthal location of the discharge nozzles or elbows,
- Direction of the return flow,
- Distance between the discharge nozzle and the pool bottom, and e Location of the suction strainers and their distance from the discharge nozzles and from the pool bottom.
The above information is summarized in figures 1 through 7 and described below.
3.1 411nton Power Station, Unit 1 The RHR system return elbows are located at azimuthal angles 275' and
. 94'; the suction strainers, at 37' and 323' (see figure 1). The discharge flow makes a 55* angle with the radial axis, and both pumps discharge counterclockwise. The discharge points are 14 feet 11 inches from the bottom of the pool and 3 feet 6 inches from the containment shell (see figure 2). The suction strainers are located 8,, feet; above the pool bottom and 3 feet 11 inches from the containment shell.
3.2 Grand Gulf Power Station The RHR system return lines have 45' elbows at the discharge ends. The elbows are located at azimuthal angles of 90' and 270' (figure 3) and are pointed in opposite circumferential di rections , i .e. , one discharges clockwise and the other counterclockwise. The suction strainers are located at 32* and 328*.
nuan 1.R2.745. rev A 3 November 1982
The discharge points are at a distance of 14 feet 41/2 inches from the bottom of the pool, and the suction strainers are 10 feet 6 inches from the bottom (see figure 4) and 3 feet 10 inches from the containment wall.
3.3 Perry Power Station The only information available for Perry Power Station is that contained in reference 1. Figure 5 shows the general arrangement of the suction and disharge for one of the RHR system pumps. The azimuthal angle between the suction and discharge points is estimated to be 18*. The discharge point is 16 feet 3/4 inch from the bottom of the pool and 5 feet 3/4 inch from the containment wall . The suction strainer is estimated to be 5 feet above the pool bottom. The locations of the second discharge and suction points are not known.
3.4 River Bend Station, Unit 1 The RHR system return points for pumps A and B are located at azimuthal angles 30' and 310', respectively (see figure 6). They terminate at 90' elbows pointed in opposite circumferential directions. The discharge flow is tangential. Suction strainers are located at 165*
(pump A) and 195' (pump B). Locations of the discharge and suction l relative to the pool boundaries are shown in figure 7. The return j
'- point is 14 feet from the pool bottom and 2 feet 9 inches from the l
containment wall. The suction strainers are 3 feet 4 3/4 inches above l the pool bottom and 2 feet 3 7/8 inches from the containment wa'll .
These dimensions were obtained from preliminary drawings.
I QUAD-1-82-245, rev A 4 November 1982
The results of the survey of RHR system suction and return arrangements are summarized in table 3.1. There is a certain amount of variation in the arrangement of RHR system discharge and suction among these four plants. For instance, the azimuthal angle between the two discharge points varies from 80' to 181*; the minimum angle between discharge and suction varies from 18' to 115'; and the distance of the suction strainer from the pool bottom ranges from 3 feet 4 3/4 inches to 10 feet 6 inches.
l l
l l
1 OVAD-1-82-245. rev A 5 November 1982 I __ . _ . _ -. _. __ _
TABLE 3.1--Summary of RHR system discharge and suction locations Plant Geometry Clinton Grand Gulf Perry River Bend Angle between discharges 181* 180 X 80*
Minimum angle between suction and discharge 48' 58 ~18 115' Direction of discharge flow same opposite X opposite Distance of discharge from bottom 14'11" 14'4 1/2" 16' 3/4" 14' Distance of suction from bottom 8' 10'6" 4' 3'43/4" Distance of discharge l
from containment 3'6" X 2'9"
. 5'3/4".. .. . ,
Distance of suction t
from containment 3'11" 3'10" X 2'37/8" l
Angle of discharge relative to radial 55* 45 X 90' X: Dimension unknown l
QUAD-1-82-245, rev A 6 November 1982 l
4.0 SURVEY OF EXISTING TEST DATA AND ANALYSES In the pool-cooling mode, the role of the RHR system is:
- To mix the water in the pressure suppression pool to avoid any hot spots in the vicinities of the quenchers and to eliminate thermal stratification and ,
o To remove thermal energy from the pressure suppression pcol in a manner that will reduce the temperature uniformly throughout the pool.
The rate of heat removal is proportional to the dif ference between the temperature at the suction side of the RHR pump and the service water temperature (neglecting energy-transfer mechanisms other than the heat exchanger). It is therefore desirable to withdraw water at the point where the highest temperature exists. However, if the pool is well mixed; it does not make any_ difference where the suction takes place as long as cold water returning from the RHR heat exchanger is not drawn back in, i.e., as long as there is no short-circuiting.
Another important consideration is the net positive suction head (NPSH),
which must be maintained under all postulated conditions to avoid cavitation. Starting with a stratified pool, discharge of the cold water near the surface where the temperatures are higher is desirable., ,However, there are other considerations, such as pool draw-down and bul k motion of the pool induced by momentum transfer from the discharge jet to the suppression pool.
When two RHR system loops are used in the pool-cooling mode, other questions arise regarding the relative location of the two discharge nozzles, the direction of the jets (same circumferential direction or opposite QUAD-1-82-245, rev A 7 November 1982
directions), the angle between the jets and the radial axis, the locations of the suction strainers, and the elevation of discharge and suction points, These questions have been investigated analytically and experimentally (small scale and in-plant tests). In most cas.es, sati sf actory solutions have been found.
A summary of each of the investigations and their major findings follows.
4.1 Perry One-Tenth-Scale Test A one-tenth-scale model of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant suppression pool was used in this test program. The model included 19 X-quenchers and various structural members, main vents, etc., to simulate the real flow resistance conditions that exist in the actual plant. A simplified sketch of the model is shown in figure 5.
4.1.1 Scaling Factors The scaling factors were as follows:
Length: 10~ ,
Area: 10" ,
9 Volume: 10~ ',
Time: 10~ ,
Velocity: 10~ , and Flow rate: 10' .
QUAD-1-82-245, rev A 8 November 1982
4.1.2 Purpose of the Test The purpose of the test was to investigate the following concerns:
- Short-circuiting between RHR system discharges and suctions.
- Optimum injection angle for the RHR system di,scharge jets, o Bulk pool motion from operation of one RHR system loop.
- Hot spots around discharging quer.chers.
- Temperature of the bottom liner of the suppression pool.
The RHR system discharge was sLnulated by using 50'F water at the rate of 22 gpm (corresponding to 7,000 gpm full scale). Water at 180'F, pumped at a rate of 6 gpm, was used to simulate the discharge of steam through the quenchers. This corresponds to approximately 256 lb/s of condensate in the full scale.
To simulate stratified pool conditions, a linear temperature gradient l
was established, with a temperature variation of 79'F at the bottom to 91*F at the top.
. . ,i . ,
4.1.3 Summary of Perry One-Tenth-Scale Test Results l
i l a. Test Series 0. Orientation of Discharge Jet
- The optimum jet angle was found to be 55' f rom the radial axis. In a uniform temperature pool at 47'F, this arrangement resulted in an averace bulk velocity of 0.15 ft/s (prototype) in 19 seconds (prototype).
QUAD-1-82-245, rev A 9 November 1987
- In a stratified pool (with water temperatures ranging from 91*F at the surface to 79'F at the bottom), a prototype bulk velocity of 0.17 ft/s was established in 25 seconds (prototype) with a 55' jet angle.
- A jet angle of 75' produced considerable backflow and turbulent flow conditions, particularly near the bottom and close to the drywell wall around quenchers 2 and 3 (figure
~). A potentially stagnant region was observed at the bottom near quencher 1.
- No stagnant areas were found for the case in which the jet angle was 55*. Flow patterns and constant velocity lines for this case are shown in figures 8 and 9, which show a considerable amount of turbulent mixing and backflow.
- b. Test Series 1. Short-Circuiting To investigate the possibility of short-circuiting between the discharge and suction of the RHR system, dye was injected in the discharge flow and tracked by movie and still photography. Quenchers 2 and 10 were operated, one at a time. These studies showed that short-circuiting did not occur with or without operating quenchers., ,
- c. Test Series 2. Velocity and Temperature Measurements A three-dimensional transient temperature distribution, starting with an initially stratified temperature field, is shown in figures 10 and 11. It can be seen that the initial stratification of approximately 12*F is reduced to 1 or 2*F in about 15 minutes.
QUAD-1-82-245, rev A 10 November 1982
The temperature at the suction point remained above the discharge temperature of 50*F, indicating that there was no short-circuiting.
The suppression pool water accelerated from zero velocity to an average velocity of 0.4 ft/s in 3 to 4 minutes (prototype values) of RHR system operation.
- d. Test Series 3. Velocity and Temperature Measurements with a Quencher Operating In this series of tests, a jet angle of 55' was used (as in series 2); and quenchers 2, 4, and 10 were actuated, one at a time, to study their effects on the velocity and temperature distributions.
__ Figure 12 shows the variation of velocity with elevation upstream of the operating quencher (number 2, see figure 5 for the locations of the quenchers). There is a velocity
. gradient in the vertical direction, particularly between levels 1 and 2 (levels are shown on figure 10) and between
. levels 2 and 3. In the lower half of the suppression pool, velocities seem to be uniform except near the bottom where backflow occurs. This velocity , gradient is more,, pronounced directly downstream of the jet and diminishes with distance from the jet and with time. Figure 13 shows the variation of velocity with elevation and with time for the case where l
quencher number 4 is operating. Measurements were taken downstream of the operating quencher. Simila rly , figure 14 is a plot of velocity versus time upstream of the jet with
! quencher number 10 operating.
t l
l
! QUAD-1-82-245, rev A 11 November 1982 l
.: __;_2__ . . n _ _
In figure 15, the temperature of the water at the suction of the RHR system pump is plotted versus time for three tests in test series 3. Temperatures measured at the specified locations at level 4 are also p, lotted for comparison. It can be seen that the suction temperature is always higher than the discharge temperature of 50*F, thereby indicating that there was no short-circuiting. Also, after about 15 minutes (prototype time) of RHR system operation, the suction temperature stays above the temperature at level 4. Judging from figures 10 and 11, the suction temperature seems to be at or slightly above the bulk temperature of the suppression pool after about 15 minutes of operation of the RHR system.
4.2 Monticello In-Plant Test The RHR system in the Monticello Nuclear Generating Station has two discharges at azimuthal angles of approximately 74* and 299* and four suction headers at azimuthal angles of 45', 135', 225', and 315 * (see figures 16 and 17).
I Extended safety-relief-valve (SRV) blowdown tests were conducted at Monticello in December 1977 and February 1978. In the first test , the pressure suppression pool was brought to a uniform temperature of 50*F with the help of the RHR system. After a 50-minute wait for the motion of the pool to cease (this waiting period was later determined to be insufficient) the SRV discharging into Bay D (figure 16) was opened and left open for 7 minutes and 55 seconds. The reactor pressure was approximately 1,000 psia, and the steam flow rate varied between 200 to 220 lb/s. The maximum difference between the measured local temperature and the calculated bulk temperature was 43*F (reference 2) for the duration of discharge. In the same period, the maximum temperature difference in the bay of discharge (Bay D, figure 16) was 12*F. This indicated good mixing in that bay, even in the absence of any RHR system flow. Thirty minutes after closure of the SRV, there was a 52*F-temperature variation in the pool from thermal stratification.
QUAD-1-82-245, rev A 12 November R W
The second test was conducted similarly, except that one RHR system loop was used in the recirculation mode (no cooling). The maximum difference between the local and bulk temperatures was reduced to 38'F (reference 2); the maximum stratificatio,n was 21*F at 20 minutes af ter valve closure; and uniform temperature was established throughout the suppression pool after 30 minutes of RHR system operation (in the recirculation mode).
A series of tests were conducted in November 1978 af ter two modifications were made:
- Forty holes were drilled in the end-cap of one of the quencher arms. The purpose was to enhance the bulk motion of the suppression pool by introducing steam, in tre circumferential direction, through the end-cap holes.
- A 90' elbow, terminating at a 10-to-8-inch reducing nozzle , was installed at the end of the RHR system discharge line, nriented tangentially. The purpose of this modification was to impact
, momentum to the pool and induce bulk motion in the suppression pool. The reduction of the flow area increased the rate of momentum transfer by about 50 percent.
Tests were run with and without the operation of the RHR system. The duration of the SRV blowdown was 12 minutes for the former and 11 minutes for the latter case. The results showed that the end-cap holes did not produce a significant improvement in the suppression pool mixing but that the modification of the discharge nozzle did. In fact, with the RHR system operation, the maximum local-to-bul k temperature was reduced to 15'F; and 6 minutes after SRV closure all temperature readings in the suppression pool were within 5'F.
QUAD-1-82-245, rev A 13 November 1982
The Monticello test results indicate:
- Quenchers provide adequate thermal mixing in the bay where they discharge.
- Properly directed, the RHR system discharge jet is an ef fective means of producing bulk motion and thermal mixing of the pressure suppression pool.
4.3 Caorso In-Plant Test The geometry of the Caorso RHR system discharge device is quite different from that of the plants with Mark III containments (see figures 18 and 19 for the details). Each of the two 16-inch-diameter discharge lines has a 9.2-foot perforated section with thirty 2-inch holes in two horizontal rows,180* apart. (The four 20-inch suction lines are located at azimuthal angles of 140* , 164* , 222* , and 235*.)
The locations of the temperature sensors and the activated quencher A are shown in figure 20. The extended SRV blowdown test was conducted with the reactor pressure at 975 psig and an SRV flow rate of 237 lb/s.
l The initial suppression pool temperature was brought to a uniform 60*F
! by running the RHR system in the pool-cooling mode. The initial temperature distribution in the suppression pool (just before SRV
. actuation) is shown in figure 21. The RHR system operation was stopped l
after a uniform, 60*F suppression pool temperature was established and 41/2 hours before SRV actuation. This waiting period was for ensuring that all suppression pool motion had stopped before SRV actuation.
l QUAD-1-82-245, rey A 14 November 1982
SRV A (figure 20) was actuated and lef t open for 13 minutes and 7 seconds. Figure 22 shows the temperature distribution and the end of the blowdown. The maximum temperature at this time was 116*F, registered by sensor T13. The sensor T3.07 on the opposite side of the suppression pool was at 94*F,15 degrees' above its initial temperature, thus indicating the extent of suppression pool mixing caused by the quencher. ,
After SRV closure, it was 3 minutes and 40 seconds before the RHR system pumps A and C began operating in the pool-mixing mode (no cooling). Stratification began immediately after SRV closure, as can be seen in figures 23 and 25. Figure 24 shows the temperature distribution after 4 minutes of RHR system operatin- The maximum temperature difference at that time was only 5*F.
The Caorso test results (reference 3) indicate:
e The X-quencher is an ef fective device for distributing the thermal energy of the condensing steam over a large volume of the
- suppression pool.
- The RHR system discharge device used in Caorso is ef fective in mitigating pool stratification and providing pool mixing.
Starting with a stratified pool, it takes only a few minutes of RHR system operation to reach approximately equal temperatures throughout the suppression pool.
4.4 Kuo-Sheng In-Plant Test (Reference 4)
The Kuo-Sheng extended SRV blowdown test consisted of a 9-minute blow-down of one SRV into an initially quiescent suppression pool at a uniform temperature of 90*F. Five minutes into the blowdown , one RHR system loop was put in the pool-mixing mode. At the start of RHR l OUAD-1-82-245 rey A 15 November 1982
O
- system operations, a 17*F thermal stratification existed; it was reduced to a 2'F stratification af ter 10 minutes of RHR system operation.
Both the results and the conclusions of this test are similar to those of the Caorso test, in spite of the major differences in the RHR system discharge geometries of the two plants. In both plants, the thermal stratification was reduced at the rate of 1. 5 t o 1. 8' F /mi n by t h e operation of one RHR system loop in the pool-mixing mode.
4.5 Thermal Stratification Study of a Mark III Contai nme n t Suppression Pool (Reference 5)
The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of one RHR system loop in the thermal mixing of the suppression pool following a design basis accident (DBA).
The suppression-pool and con'tainment data used in the analysis are given in table 4.1, and the RHR system suction and return arrangement is shown in figure 26. Table 4.2 is a summary of the sequence of events analyzed. The analysis starts at 15.5 minutes following the
- postulated DBA and covers the env; ng 30 minutes. The conditions at l
15.5 minutes after DBA are given in table 4.3 and constitute the initial conditions for the analysis. The emergency core-cooling system l
- (ECCS) flow was assumed to be 14,700 gpm for the first 14.5 minutes and l
l 7,800 gpm thereafter. The RHR system flow rate was assumed to be 6,500 gpm (table 4.2). The conditions in the suppression pool at the start
! of RHR system operation are given in table 4.4. The ECCS and RHR l system return temperatures were assumed to be 200*F and 111*F, t respectively.
l l
i I
l l
l nisan 1 n? ?a cav a 16 November 1982 l
The RELAP4/ MOD 3 computer program was used to simulate the events and obtain temperature distributions for the pressure suppression pool . A 32-node, half-pool model was used for the first 14.5 minutes; and a 39-node, full-pool model was used for the remainder of the time when the RHR system was in operation. -
The results of the RELAP4/M003 analysis showed that 15 minutes of operation of one RHR system loop (starting at 30' minutes after DBA) was sufficient to:
- Maintain the peak suppression pool temperature below 166*F
(+2*F/-0*F).
- Maintain the average suppression pool surface temperature below 166*F (+2*F/-0*F).
- _ Decrease the difference between the peak and bulk temperatures of the suppression pool from a maximum of 17'F to 13*F (+2*F/-0*F) and decrease the difference between the average surf ace and the
, bulk temperatures of the suppression pool from 15'F to 11'F
(+2*F/-0*F).
Another important conclusion, which is supported by the Caorso in-plant test data, was that 5 minutes of operation of a single RHR system loop was sufficient to provide nearly complete breakup of the initial thermal stratification.
Two other observations in reference 5 are either obvious or wrong:
- " Operation of a single RHR system is insufficient to maintain or decrease the rise of the bulk temperature of the suppression pool up to 45 minutes after LOCA."
l QUAD-1-82-245, rev A 17 November 1982
O e This should be obvious, since the ECCS is introducing 200*F water at a rate of 7,800 gpm while the RHR system is discharging into the pool at a rate of 6,500 gpm and a temperature of 111*F; the suction temperature for both systems is approximately 155'F. ,
e "The observed short-circuiting in the RELAP4/ MOD 3 simulation is conservatively estimated to be between 20% and 40% of the potential short circuiting. Because of th'e conservative choices for temperature input data to the estimate, it is believed that the actual observed short-circuiting may be less."
This conclusion was reached by calculating a rate of increase of bulk temperature (0.09 F/ min), based on computer-calculated suction temperatures and given discharge temperatures for the RHR system and the ECCS, and comparing it with the rate calculated by the computer program (0.21 F/ min). The latter was higher, and the conclusion was that short-circuiting occurred. In the absence of any errors (in the computer program or the hand calculations), the two answers should have been the same. Therefore, the discrepancy invalidates either the entire analysis (if the computer program indeed does not conserve energy) or the hand calculations. The hand calculations (appendix H of reference 5) were checked and found to be reasonably accurate (except the wrong ECCS flow rate was used in calculating the maximum rate of temperature rise). However, the conclusion about short-circuiting is without foundation and not supported by test data.
l nitan 1 R2 745. rev A 18 November 1982
TABLE 4.1.--Mark III 238 suppression pool and containment data Ccr.tainment ID 120'
leir Wall GD/D (h) 65'-S"/65'-0" Weir Wall Thickness l'-10" Weir Annulus Width 2 '- 2 "
o Weir Annulus Arca (ft-) 492
. o C*cstncted Weir Annulus Area (ft") 14 9
495 Total Vent Area (horizontal vent) (ft")
No. Ven: Azimuth Lccations 40 Ven: Azimu:h 3_ Spscing on Drywell I.D. 5 '-9 "
Total No. Vents (3 levels) 120-Y eat I. D. (E, _7, G) 27-1/2" 1
Ven: Len;th (D) 5'l0" Vent Cc:terlines Ht. from Basemat Top Row (J) 12'-11"
. iddle M Row PI) 8 '-5" So::om Row (H) 3' -11" 8 '
Con:linmen: Gross Volume 1,965,000 ft 3
Suppression Pool Vciume outside drvwell 119,000 ft W2:er Depth Af:er Drawdown -
16'-0" (03 High W2:er Level (.9 20'-5" h an' @ al -
, 7.,
_e .
- f a. .M i .
i F'"
.. . w.a -
l
. t_ *._ .__ '
. t- #
- *T" g I f
. .S ep *
. a , ,,,l
. **b . * {.
- r .
- All AS.1. 09 9Ag , , , - ,Q as... s, . 3nnn
-, .- _ ~_ . - . .
TABLE 4.2.--Sequence of events for ECCS and RHR system activity following LOCA ,
Time Flow Rate System Activity (minutes) (gallons per minute)
- 1. ECCS Suction & Discharge 0 - 15.5 Pool height and pool thermal stratiEcation at 15.5 minutes are provided 'oy GE
- 2. ECC5 Suction & Discharge 15.5 - 30 14,700 gpm
- 3. ECCS Suction & Discharge 30 - shutoff 7,300 gpm
- 4. RER Suction & Discharge 30 - shutoff 6,500 gpm QUAD-1-82-245 20 November 1982
~
TABLE 4.3.--Initial conditions 155 minutes following LOCA (ECCS)
Water Level (f:) 16.0 Temperamre ( F)
Level IV (Top) 139.,5 ,
Level III * -
138,8 Level II 135,5 Level I (Bottom) 128.0 Flow Rates in Pool Negligible ECCS Return Temperature 200.0 QUAD-1-82-245, rey A 21 November 1982
~ . _ ,
i J e o
J
% 5 re
/ '
/ ' '
TABLE 4.4.--Initial conditions, 30minutesfolloying LOCA(RHR) i
,0 t
16;0 Water Level (Ft.i Te=perature ( F) :
Level III (Top) 165.S Level II 165.0 Lerel I (Bottom) 142.7 Flo ,- Rates in Pcci None ECCS Return Temperature ( F) 200.0 RHR Return Temperature (OF) 111.O i
r,
/
j .
s Y
+
1 s
l QUAD-1-82-245, rev A 22 g ,
c 4 l 5
_ - . , .-. _ . , - . _ . ,, , _ , _ , _ _ , _ _ , _j (.,
5.0 CONCLUSION
S The test data and analyses compiled in this report lead to the following conclusions regarding the effectiveness of one. RHR system loop in providing mixing within a boiling-water-react 6r (BWR) pressure suppression pool:
- Scaled tests at the Perry Power Station demonstrated that even when the suction point is less than 20' degrees from the discharge, no short-circuiting of the flow occurs.
e The same tests demonstrated that, after approximately 15 minutes of RHR system operation, the suction temperature is close to the bulk temperature, e Both the Perry and Monticello tests indicated the importance of directing the RHR system discharge flow in such a way that suppression pool bu.lk motion is induced. This bulk motion enhances the uni form distribution of the thermal energy throughout the pool.
o Caorso test results demonstrated that other RHR system discharge devices, such as the sparger design used at Caorso, are equally
, effective in affording suppression pool mixing. In fact, pool stratification was reduced at about th: same rate (1.5 to 1.8'F/ min) at
! Caorso (witn a sparger) and at Kuo-Sheng (with a 90' elbow).
- The X-quencher is an effective means of distributing the thermal energy of the condensing steam.
l The question of the consequences of having two RHR system discharge elbows facing each other (when both RHR system loops are in the pool-cooling mode) l was not directly addressed in any of the reports. That being the main question, it will be discussed in the following paragraphs.
l l
l ?
QUAD-1-82-245, rev A 23 November 1982
The main concern regarding the effect of opposing RHR system jets is that this arrangement may impede the bulk motion of the suppression pool and adversely affect suppression pool mixing. Regarding the bulk motion of the suppression pool, several points need clarific.ation:
- Circumferential bulk motion by itself is only effective in distributing the thermal energy circumferentially. This type of. mixing is necessary when the thermal energy is deposited locally, such as in the case when an SRV is stuck in the open position. However, many other mechanisms contribute to and are essential for thermal mixing:
- Secondary flow patterns induced by RHR system suction, ECCS suction and return (when operating), quencher discharge, and the turbulence caused by submerged structures and pool geometry.
- Free convection, which is particularly effective in spreading the hot water over the top layer of the pool. The Caorso test , as well as an earlier test at Quad Cities, indicates that , even in the absence of RHR system activity, the temperature on the other side of the pool rises in a very short time after SRV discharge begins.
l
- The concern that opposing RHR discharge jets will impede pool mixing is
! a misconception. Whereas it is true that a rigid body. subj,e,cted t,o .two o equal and opposing forces will not move, the same is not always true for a body of liquid. To clarify this point, one may picture a global view of the flow patterns for the two cases, i.e., with two jets in the same direction versus opposing jets. For simplicity, secondary fl ow l patterns will not be shown; and transient effects will be ignored,
- , i.e., steady-state flow rate will be indicated. Taking River Bend as
! an example, the global flow rates for the cases of jets discharging in the same direction and in opposing directions are shown in figures 27 and 28.
t l
l i
QUAD-1-82-245, rev A 24 November 1982
If the discharge jets are pointing in the same direction, the overall flow will be in one direction with the flow introduced at azimuthal angles of 310' and 30' (the locations of return lines) and withdrawn at azimuthal angles of 190' and 165* (suction points). The flow rate for each loop is called d ,i and the entrained flow is denoted by m2-In the actual case of opposing jets, there are two ' planes of symmetry at azimuthal angles of 180* and 350'. The planes behave more or less as rigid boundaries. When the two opposing streams meet at these points, they are deflected, as shown in figure 28. Again, each jet induces a flow rate of m2; and each loop has a flow rate of $ . 1 Tne flow pattern shown in figure 28 is ideal for suppression pool mixing, since there is not only a circumferential flow but also a flow in the vertical direction to break up any stratification.
At the planes of symmetry, i.e., at azimuthal angles of 350' and 180*,
mixing of the two streams takes place. In other words, these two planes act as very effective parallel-flow heat exchangers, providing energy transfer between the two halves of the suppression pool.
This is admittealy a highly simplified presentation of the actual flow, l but it serves the purpose of refuting the notion that in some manner two opposing jets will cancel each other's effect and reduce the degree l of thermal mixing afforded by the bulk motion of the suppression pool.
l Similar flow patterns exist in the Grand Gulf plant and lead to the same conclusion.
1 1
l I
i QUAD-1-82-245, rev A 25 November 1982
To summarize, all of the domestic plants with Mark III containments have RHR system discharge and suction arrangements that preclude short-circuiting and provide effective thermal mixing of the pressure suppression pool . The remarks about the disadvantages of opposing di,scharge jets, particularly the suggestion that two opposing jets will tend to impede the effectiveness of each other, are without technical basis. Uniform and unidirectional bulk motion is not the only and not necessarily the best way ,of effecting thermal mixing. Opposing jets provide a different flow pattern, which is equally
' effective in distributing the thermal energy.
Existing tests and analyses provide suf ficient support for the above conclusions; additional testing is not necessary.
i
- . ,e . ,
9 l
QUAD-1-82-245, rev A 26 November 1982
References
- 1. "Model Study of Perry Nuclear Power Plant Suppression Pool."
Final Report. November 10, 1977.
- 2. Su, T. M. " Suppression Pool Temperature Limits for BWR Containment." NUREG-0783.
- 3. Holan, J. , and Mintz, S. " Mark II Containment Program, Caorso Extended Discharge Test Report." NEDE-24798-P. July 1980.
- 4. Author's notes, taken at the site during the Kuo-Sheng in-plant SRV test.
- 5. " Mark III Suppres si on Pool Thermal Strati fication Study. "
Revision 0. EDS Report No. A-77-122. December 5, 1977.
l QUAD-1-82-245, rev A 27 November 1982
270' CONTAINMENT f
\
55 RHR PUMP B SUCTION 323*
! /
DRYWELL I
l /
180 0*
TN l s ~
l s I
-. ,e ,
. 55
, h' SUCTION 94*l PUMP CAPACITY 5050 GPM FIG. 1 LOCATIONS OF RHR SUCTION AND DISCHARGE CLINTON POWER STATION 28 QUAD-1-82-24.5. rev A November 1982
CONTAINMENT g DRYWELL RHR RETURN .
a d 3' - 6" RHR SUCTION l 14' - 11* (/ a 3' - 11"
=
8'-0" V y FIG. 2 ELEVATIONS OF RHR SUCTION AND DISCHARGE CLINTON POWER STATION QUAD-1-82-245, rev A 29 November 1982
270*
45*f ,
CONTAINMENT id%
RHH PUMP B SUCTION 328*
DRYWELL 180*
/
,/
/ 0*
s
\
x
~\* 32
! RHR PUMP A i
SUCTION N '
45* V ,
90*
FIG. 3 LOCATIONS OF RHR SUCTION AND DISCHARGE i
GRAND GULF POWER STATION QUAD-1-82-245, rev A m er 1982 30
CONTAINMENT RHR RETURN n
RHR SUCTION W n 14' - 4 W" 10' - 6 "
1r 1r l
l l FIG. 4 ELEVATIONS OF RHR SUCTION AND DISCHARGE GRAND GULF POWER ST ATION i
QUAD-1-82-245, rev A November 1982 31
& gg s, ..t c . c.
- isof walt. Stonact law.g
-p g ~,g. e e . _ _.
E b / g 'p,os / -
g '=,=~>te., /
/ .-t - a. ... . . .
~s @
e j #
- ==-
83 --
l
/ <
--d A
e 6 3 p.
y outasCt(RS & 1 >-
~ T N
h P '
C I '
COLO
- RHR WilllDRAML NI g3v Piss) 22 4/4* _
SfCie 4 4
~
$CYEeTC#
TO DG pe P
\
600 Cat,
- eS-104 Stomact ,
l Em4 12 pg st avoeg I:
B , . . . . . . s, s . .
E, FIG.5-LOCATION OF RHR SUCTION AND DISCHARGE s*
8~ PERRY POWER STATION (MODEL)
270*
CONTAINMENT PUMP B 310*
RETURN s
PUMP B SUCTION 90*
195' f s DRYWELL ,
180* O'
- s 165 90*
/
PUMP A
- SUCTION 30*
PUMP A ' '
l RETURO PUMP CAPACITY IN g ,
POOL COOLING MODE PUMP A 5050 GPM PUMP B 5050 GPM FIG. 6 LOCATIONS OF RHR SUCTION AND DISCHARGE RIVERBEND (PRELIMINARY)
Ollan.1. A? ?AR cou a 11 Nm,amha r 1009
o .
CONTAINMENT DRYWELL 2' - 9 " ; =
RHR RETURN a
14' - O, 2' - 3 7a" % =
RHR SUCTION STRAINER i +
3 ' - 4 %'
v
)
FIG. 7 ELEVATIONS OF RHR SUCTION AND DISCHARGE RIVERBEND (PRELIMINARY)
QUAD-1-82-245, rev A 34 November 1982
g . ... ._. .. . _ _ . _ _
?
r co
~
m
. ,U.
a
< .6 ,
, . .I 7.*O . I,.. S, I. &' 10. ;
20 3.0 4
.3 4
o j {.0 30 2jo l.o ;
5
, ;,\..,.{ ;6.. .. j .. . ;,,. .., /,
. 1 .... . ... ... l ,
\ cAi!! \
, ..p .. n .. ,.. w .... p ... .
A 7:i -
6;-
h.a
.a p'js.Mjp -;g,,
gg7
."/* .
" ." -aJ' 4 .
y;.: : 4:: .: .
.x
.:.::. t
[.
.6
. . i . .I ,
-! M. ii? ..M.
3 . : ii wA L l' vEtoctTIES MEASURED DETWEEN QUENCHERS No I AND No.2 o VEtocaisES MEASURED BETWEEN THE JET AND QUENCilER No.1 er GILBERT ASSOCIATES INC.
[1.r g Q JET ANGLE 55' . ' '. etaar swratsso's m m*L sne' Er i $ POINT VELOCITIES AND i
! .-. ISO-VELS - TEST O D l g FIG.8-VELOCITY FIELD FOR JET ANGLE OF 55 DEGREES
~ -
!* . , [;A
- JU".'E 19TT
. a ~..w. =-1 .
e T80'l/OUENCHER PJO. I t:0. 2 NO. 3 t!O. 4 08 0.
%d j
~ "*- ~-
mssot watt %#
--M.
~
- g( -3(
LEt4GTH Or ARROVIS DO NOT
_ REPRESENT THE MAGNITUDE itts ettow '
Of VElectTY
" 5-h .
f
._ JET Af3GLE CC = SS*
3 %
%cussiot watt , / . out ac eet es
=-) w- '
s
.i
- y. ~
n w
3e or
(
l :CHER --
w 4
V R184 witsicatwat
%# U
=A a moratt g'- %s
~.
.-e p 'W
-.. /#
01A =
)
- 1 z ~ CILBERT ASSOCIATES Inc.
3 I f.r,d3 nur samss.o ,cw exet ses
$ .~
? v VELOCITY PATTERtJS s v .
\ TEST O D v
e .-
$ FIG.9-FLOW PATTERNS FOR JET ANGLE 55 DEGREES d[Q'/. ,,8.. , ,, ,ye ,, , 7
<o.....:s..g..T:a.,,;; _
QUAD-1-82-245
. . ;; p- s. o !<
2
! .- w m
'~!
4 o J D & k N
d U E E 9' *i N v',a o
. c w mue w Ud r, W - in 4 2 a,
d59
-mdv 5
8 3 EC
. - mIwn D
o i
?.I:.;!
i
~
w i
g
@m .
- 4, e . w>o: -:emCen : .s .
u a ,
. wcyg w.,.
- c
- t. a o
=
t D u
~
==m
- s' . ;
9~
o : m .oa % :.
- 37. %.,.g e
~
g l'I..;
.-=-.
- g gg ge t .
d .
~
j
/ W e L
.4 >
b=
0 9O e
L
/ E2
?
~
J
~
~
"d
=
e d
e Mn u
}Y J J J g F W Y Y y tdj c o-a
' 2 3 5 0
8; 2
i J ~ s v ~
\ 2 1
. . . o
- k e o . I g .
- a g 8 z <
(J.)*dn u mcon e . .
N 2 p
) .
W e g
. . . y
- 2 I
. . . E F 2
Y I O
O 1
. l.
O l
l :: . e.-
5 a C
j-
~:: ,
~
gE E ::
et j
o
~
l
, se -
d m I s r m r :i
~~W / ,O
~W E s
- >~
b3 ' W d A
/ 9 >O - g *O s-o o e i e F
E L r ,2 J ee i :
T O f
- l
., a d 5 o*
l " " 60 E "*
' 4- -# ~J p J
7 r
e
~ *
\ t \ ,o IN * '
,: o
? * . g 2 A"A" 1- o' one en , A , , , , , _ , *~ . . . . . . . . . . . .
I
- . i I
, m 1 4%,
e e o C r e d W b s
- w a 3 [:
. s d ;)
3
'dNhO C
$med 88 pj n. W c' e W t N.4t U U C u _~., ! 4 e t a r wu 0 e- m .u l f.
U 0 mIwC 3 W9 O 4 l c to * = \'! 9! !
a e k w >- to o i
\l?: s
- e tJ
> O :: c 3- 0 3
o E
r y .J
"- C a.5O ~ As * * ,. :;;
o j 'm -
6E "
5 g~":
a e b.5
%./1{! *-
w Qp.tl 1 3 .
I S_
. .sa
- w2 P -
W L
o o e.r O ^
4 C A -
=-
~
a O d d d
- l a ,
2.
- I -
~ a d
" " a sx a .a .a g s-e: . 7 Y Y > O j / s
- *e 5 5 5 5- o f
l.
v i y e
e o
- t l l
. . . o Z o
e
. o'-
. o m
X-(3.) *dW31 7300W
. e . 5 2 m
w "ff .
J
. 2 2
. . . E E d W
- I e _.s i
o O
o.
8
~ . e s . ,
e h_
,. $- a s
1 9* o i u- u .$. 2 . ro.
oO = @O
'O s
.: 3 I' .
I m
, 3 "i 5 /.S
" Ys e ' Ns e- s >
W w A L
- 6 98o ,9 3 u g o A i u 6
e.
W w I
E
$u --
c --
a ou a-
- g~4 v
~
de wu e
s s j " *
- s l I i i i i
\ l \ ) I
'g
- o
- n. o .
. n,,
OllAn-1.R2-7a; ro u .a U.) enn 000n 2o is.$ w:2. -, a u...-_t. ,an,
e rr
. -cot o s af ta Jtt one a ovisscuta ose = 3 uins' LEGEN0 r LEVEL I *PRODES t,2,3 te -
\ [
- LEVEL 2 - - - - - -
LEVEL 3 ---
f LEVFL 4 ---
- tOENTiftES PROBES 05ED TO CotAPUTE THE AVERAGE AT EACH LEVEL se - - --
OUENCitER NO 2 OPERATING s VELOCITY RACet BETWEEN CUEf4CHERS f 8 2 A, ^
x .
u,ct ....t...,
/ / ..
~
% e a
o --
4 a: -
n I
e
) p Levtt 2 PaoSC S 4,F.co, i3
, ,. ' 'L - - - - - - - _ - - ---- d ----- . _--__. _ _ _ _ - .
os - -
p .
I s
,s
,A (
i
, i i
. ^
s' .- - \II -
^j je s<e i
i , ---
s, ,e i gf.
- ' ~
v r
s o / r se as to so
\ r 19 i I v' .
e i i r s g g' Ltvit3,Paoe isegte I A ,,j i -
_c --
A f l.f.* 7..d l cono at srira,
,tu, s.smsm 4
I7 18 1
'5 \ j~ _ _ _ -
y
[s' y \'/ k# . '(/y^y,-._'m.
-, s, -- -- -: J D
/r ~ ~ _
\- '-d .
k '
'\f{/. or. -
. . c .. r s ,.
TIME VERSUS VELOCITY PLOTS TEST SERIES 3
.s ~~' 10.sr t:0 3E
,~ ,- - - - , -s- i - --- .o is es .s , no to us j/ l'.g,j' ll o . . s e.
j#'."
.,......,,.."..*..I" #
- E IIII PROTOTYPE TIME (MIN.) . 23 FIG.12-VARIATION OF VELOCITY WITH DEPTH AND WITH TIME
2 i"
O
,O o,. --
n -
LEGEND j f i LEVEL i '78t0BES 1.2.3
- gi I LEVEL 2 -------
, g, , ; L_._4, LEVEL 3 ---
f fi1I 11 ll LEVEL 4 ~~-
lII I t i11 8
-loENTIFIES PROGES USED To C0fAPUTE THE AVERT.GE AT CACH LEVEL gglt I, et I j g I l OUENotER NO.4 OPtnATir4G 6 VELOCITY Rf.CK I i BETWEEN CUENCHERS 4 8 5 l f i
- I I I I I 1FN i
l
-i i /X '! -
n '
_l,
, c I
l ,/
a x -
%vtt 3
1 tt e.PaoetssJ.3
- i ; -
i e I 5
/ e' '.; N~-
co
, 3~
e i I i i _-
s _
__-, ('i i .
, , Tl '
v N e t% ,s \.*-
i l
s ll lf i I s --____- _ _ _ _ _ _ .___d _ _tevtt :
aoets r.no.es. 4 i
/ l I il ss ____ _ _ _ _ _ -_____
/ I -
N \ f .
- 1 I l'i ; l
\
J
\
lI \l \ .
. fI 1I \' / \ -
,e l\
n .s / s \
% :g _ _ _
f\ l g/ \
L /- "
- _ -ttvtt enoots s.si
{ \ j\ ,
- s i,
1 g[ .I '\ y ,
\
gf ( .-
-Y V
-l / ' I r
8 i
'/
t I
I' \
' ! <\s /
fx
's ,-
t I
\ ,,/ gIl
/
- - ' _. __. A\
..x y;/
f_ t ,,t t ., ,,,,,,,.,3 rr LIJpl CfLCERT ASSOCMTES WC.
y ,,,, ,< ,,,,, y ., ,,ox < - g s n.,,
.o - r 4 ,.- -
, f ,
'- \'
v TIME VERSUS VELOCITY PLOTS I cat =c e a a g- / cmo set o ,,,u,. TEST SERIES 3 3
- 1. <f#
^
TEST fl0. 3:1
>o e e e s e ,o sa ne ss ne to as si e' ~s t PROTOTYPE Tif tE (ttfrd.) {}df g,7, ['t;T *--' J c.E P.: .!._D x.:, . . . . . ..
497 T g FIG.13-VELOCITY VARIATIONS OF OPERATING OUENCHER NO.4
e
't LEG EtJO LEVEL I "PROGES I,2,3 LEVEL 2 - - - - -
LEVEL 3 -
LEVEL 4 ---
i
40ENTIFICS PRODES USED TO !
COMPUTE THE AVERAGE AT EACH LEVEL r \ /\ .
QUENCHER NO. IO OPER AnNG & VELOCITY RACit BETWEEN QUErACHERS le a 19 i
- x /
r -. , fg
- LtvtL t e toets e.t.io.is .
.,, g_ .__ ..._ .._ .
U ~_ _\ ~/
fttvtti.e c i s e.
I i -
l 1 i ig a p\ /.\ .. """Tj f I' \ (
N 7%
s
/ '\ / l
/\
~
> '/ I s. p ,s u , y -
C #
I
\ N g-- Ltwrt 3. Psioets s.es N
1 ,n ,f'.
A .'..'\ / /~ j x . .
f- */ y' #
\, . , , , ,, - - - . ~ .
LtvtL e enootsYis- - '
I
/ v ,
'" [~ ~ ~, ~~ .
~-
l A / .
lj l J re as se .. !
tl* A)
/,/
nh er
-I CfLEERT AS$0Cl.TES If4C.
/ I'..e i
]
n =, sense. coot es, t si..;,
I j .r _
./ QUENCMER 8 CotO VsA7(A TIME VERSUS VELOCITY PLOTS j
-( /
'I.
'- x o,. ., i s .= TEST SCRIES 3 TEST l'O. 3G !
,..._y-l'_.-...,..._____,_______.u,-
PRoTOrvPE Tir.:e cr.=1 . 4. . . ,' /.d . . d. ...y .uuE is n p. .- ..
m: . . . .. p l FIG.14-VELGCITY DISTRIBUTION UPSTREAM OF THE JET
e n U. ' 5 -
. - _ . _ - 'b : s
,s
. .n. .
I e
a.
u - . , . a-
- ), ..
.s at E -ai. . m a o ...
e .
's'e .s;3 .
e1-
<~
g \ N n
m
.f.-
- ,~
1 e -
a .
3 ,e a '
b' t -;3 - C - --
,, : - ]/. -
a -- .- m ..
'lf 's ; /
< * *=-
==- . .' M Id ata. I wD" .* 2".
k 4*8
=>
l>. U - .
/ od =lr
.i g.
l -: .
/e/ 5 -i !
d.
at s_.-
g +
e.
- I ,, s w --
L I./ ;
~
t I a
' l t W 5
e
\
. .s I
s E.
a F
N I N o-
> b 3
B
/
i lp / W
=0
$1 fE3
- = -
'5 . H s- l <
. E h .5 l $
i s
, W
( .) n.71 73::a h
Z O
H i
O
' D th
, l / , a i . .s
,.s a
I\
o
(
i a -
C
. c
=-
>- O
~ o s a
'N E / '
.s . _s
. .- .. -- o _
.-* --- e a
. i ~
,o \.
, 2. ..
l 4. .
{ It i5 3
, . -. .- & .2 - -. . _ .: .-- . - - .
l i I, .c --- , .S 5.
s
- o. , . - - - - .
-r .....
/
I _I . . -- l. . . . . _ .. _
nuan_1 oo.oAc .~...a U Ed
- 3 ' 3:0^ an t'l'd3i d * ."^ . .---
O' .
A 315' I 45*
SUCTION SUCTION 299*
/
BAY D DISCHARGE DISCHARG 74*
I 270* - - - -
90' l
l
/ N l \ SUCTION SUCTION /
225' l 135' l
\
180*
l l FIG.16 RHR SUCTION AND DISCHARGE LOCATIONS l
- QUAD-1-82-245, rev A 43 November 1982 l
l ,_ . _
e ..
I 10* DISCHARGE LINE f d JL 61.8' / s 40*25' k 107'
/
9
\ SUCTION 22*30' VIEW A-A FIG.17 RHR SUCTION AND DISCHARGE ARRANGEMENT QUAD-1-82-245, rev A 44 November 1982
4 '
FIGURES 18-25 (SEE PROPRIETARY FILE)
?
l
{
l l
l l
l l
l
__.._ _ _. _ _ . _ _ _ _ . ... . . ~ . _ _ _
s ,oe I
l Atimuth o' 4 .
4 .
HR Retum Azimulh 30*
RHR Suction Atimuth 39*
Atimulh 9e*
~ 5.6
. glo = i.55' a-
__. s-
/
/
_ __ 9-____ ~** .. /
/
- s
- e
?-
.'i
, n _-4, n ,
- - - p _
h; . ,
t
- "..*. RHR Reham /
~~." :
n' f. . .'
T RHR Sudien /l h IG4' 16.5 8, c, .
L s' 4 _ i
(
5.583' 3 l db_ (D=do' l 2 :.. -o p lg y
. * -l.1 :.;;.:.,. *
- s go'
- Section A-A FIGURE 26 RHR RETURN AND SUCTION DETAll OUAD-1-82-245. rev A 53 f un s,o,,,so ,. i o n .,
,E .
.=
T 2
180 180*
195 310* 350* 30* 165*
RETURN RETURN i
, 17 mj i m1 1r i
. . I g m2 ,
my t m. 2 2b+b 1 2 bYb 1 2 m,
- i -
e
$+N 1 2 I 8 I
]
mi , , mi 9 N l l l SUCTION SUCTION O
t ..
1 FIG. 27 GLOBAL FLOW FOR DISCHARGE JETS POINTING IN THE SAME DIRECTION e
m
is '
7 k
8 s
E 180* 180a 195* 310* 350" 30* 165*
RETURN RdTURN ,
I . . I it mi mi g mi + m2 ;
j ~62 b2 mi + m2 ,
'(
(
= . > C .
=
mi + m2 5 1+ m2 II . .
' V m2 m2 ,
- ,A
%g
' i
)
e f
' y $1 '
I M i lf RHR SUCTION . RHR SUCTION O '
a X
- 1 FIG. 28 GLOBAL FLOW FOR THE CASE OF OPPOSING DISCHARGE JETS
=
N
_