ML20076H272
| ML20076H272 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1983 |
| From: | BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20076H267 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0630, RTR-NUREG-630 77-1143707, 77-1143707-00, NUDOCS 8306160497 | |
| Download: ML20076H272 (20) | |
Text
f L
[
{
4 c
L
(
B0UNDING ANALYTICAL ASSESSMENT OF
[
NUREG 0630 MODELS ON LOCA kW/ft LIMITS
(
B&W Document No. 77-1143707-00
[
V Prepared for B&W Owners Group by BABC0CK & WILC0X Utility Power Generation Division P.O. Box 1260 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 8306160497 830608 BabC0Ck & WilCOX PDR ADOCK 05000313
. sco.nami ceae av P
s I
s I
1 CONTENTS Page 1.
I NTR OD UC T I O N..........................
1-1 2.
SusMAav ANo CO,c tVS ION.....................
2-1 g
3.
METH OD OF A NAL YS IS.......................
3-1
(
4.
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS 4-1 4.1.
Impact of NUREG-0630 on LOCA Limits 4-1 4.2.
Impacts of NUREG-0630 With FLECSET on LOCA Limits 4-2 R EF ER E NC E S...........................
A-1 List of Tables
{
Table
[
4-1.
LOCA Limit NUREG-0630 Inpact Sensitivity Study at 2-ft Core Elevation, 8.55-ft2 DEPD, CD = 1.0 4-4 4-2.
177-FA Lowered-Loop Plant LOCA Limits 4-5
[
List of Figures Figure
(
4-1.
Large Break Analysis Code Interfaces 4-6 4-2.
B&W Model and ORNL Correlation of Rupture Temperature as a Function of Engineering Hoop Stress and Ramp Rate.....
4-7
{
4-3.
B&W THETA Model and Composite NUREG Correlation of Circumferential Burst Strain as a Function of Rupture Temperature.........................
4-8 4-4.
B&W Model and Composite NUREG Correlation of Reduction in Assembly Flow Area as a Function of Rupture Temperature...
4-9 4-5.
Hot Spot Clad Temperature Vs Time With NUREG-0630 -
13.5 kW/f t at 2-ft Core El evation..............
4-10 4-6.
Hot Spot Clad Temperature Vs Time With NUREG-0630 and FLECSET - 14.0 kW/ft at 2-ft Core Elevation.........
4-11 Babcock &Wilcox
- 111 -
. =co.,..n..,
[
[
[
1.
INTRODUCTION
[
During a postulated loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA), when the reactor cool-ant pressure drops below the fuel rod internal pressure, the fuel cladding may swell and rupture for particular combinations of strain, fuel rod inter-
[
nal pressure, cladding temperature, and material properties of the clad-ding.
Reactor thermal and hydrodynamic behavior during a LOCA depends on
(
the type of accident, the time at which swelling and rupture occur, and the resulting coolant flow blockage.
(
Appendix K of 10 CFR 50.46 requires that the cladding swelling and rupture calculations be based on applicable data in such a way that the degree of
(
swelling and incidence of rupture are not underestimated.
In order to es-tablish an industry data base, the NRC has sponsored several research pro-grams on cladding behavior during and after a LOCA.
NUREG-06301 is based on this research.
It contains revised models for cladding rupture, strain, and blockage during and following a LOCA which differ from present B&W eval-uation models.
Each utility with a B&W designed NSS was requested to provide supplemental
[
ECCS calculations assessing the impact of NUREG-0630 models.
A study was undertaken to determine the impact of NUREG-0630 implementation on LOCA
(
limits for B&W l owered-loop 177-fuel assembly plants operating at power levels up to 2772 MWt.
The FLECSET reflood heat transfer correlation was
(
also used as a compensating model to offset any NUREG-0630 LOCA kW/ft limit penalty.
{
1-1 Babcock & Wilcox j
. =co
..n J
[.
[
[
[
2.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSION
{
An ECCS bounding analysis was performed to determine the impact of the NUREG-0630 on B&W 177-fuel assembly (FA) lowered-loop plants operating LOCA limits.
The break analyzed was an 8.55-ft2 double-ended cold leg rupture at the RC pump discharge with a discharge coefficient of CD = 1. 0.
The LOCA limit was calculated for the 2-ft core elevation.
Previous experience
(
has demonstrated this core elevation to be the most sensitive with respect to clad swelling and rupture phenomena which are affected by the NUREG-0630
(
model s.
The implementation of bounding NUREG-0630 models without the use of compen-sating models will result in a 0.5 kW/ft penalty on the LOCA limit at the 2-ft elevation.
NUREG-0630 mainly affects the LOCA limits of the lower core elevations which are limited by the ruratured node temperatures.
The 0.5 kW/ft penalty was also assigned to the LOCA limits at the 4-and 6-ft el evations.
The LOCA limits at the 8-and 10-ft elevations are limited by the unruptured node temperature, and enough margin between the peak calcu-lated temperature and the 2200F limits exists that use of NUREG-0630 models b
will not impose any penalty at these elevations.
Implementation of bounding NUREG-0630 models with the FLECSET reflood heat transfer correlation as a cmpensating model resulted i n,n_o kW/ f t penalty on the LOCA limit at the 2-ft core elevation.
An engineering assessment
(
was perfomed for the 4 through 10-ft LOCA limits. For the 4-ft core eleva-tion, there is no penalty due to the implementation of NUREG-0630 for the
{
following reasons:
(1) based on previous LOCA analyses 2, the peak ruptured node cladding temperature was calculated to be 1899F; therefore, sufficient margin exists to meet the 10 CFR 50.46 criteria of 2200F, and (2) the FLECSET compensating model results in a higher allowable kW/ft limit, thus resulting in no impact to the LOCA limit at the 4-ft core elevation.
For the 8-and 10-ft core elevations, the peak ruptured node cladding tempera-ture2 was found to be 1664 and 1560F, respectively.
There is considered to 2-1 Babcock & Wilcox i
. m o a c..,
be sufficient margin to satisfy the 2200F limit required by 10 CFR 50.45.
Therefore, no LOCA limit penalty is imposed at the 8-and 10-ft core eleva-tions.
For the 6-ft core elevation, however, the peak ruptured node clad-ding temperature 2 was calculated to be 2090F.
There may not be enough clad temperature margin to meet the 2200F requirement of 10 CFR 50.46.
Use of FLECSET may not produce a sufficiently low peak clad temperature to compen-sate the 0.5 kW/ft penalty on the LOCA limit at the 6-ft core elevation.
The 4 through 10-ft LOCA limtis, based on NUREG-0630 and the compensating model, FLECSET, are determined by comparisons to the results at the 2-ft core elevation and the base analyses.2 The analyses were performed for the beginning-of-life (BOL) conditions at which the average fuel temperature is at its maximum value. At higher burn-ups, the lower fuel temperature will result in a LOCA kW/ft margin when com-pared to BOL.
A summary of the key results at the 2-ft core elevation comparing the base case,3 with a case utilizing boundary NUREG-0630 models and a second case 2
which included bounding NUREG-0630 models and use of FLECSET, is shown in Table 4-1.
The 177-FA lowered-loop plant LOCA limits at each elevation are listed separately in Table 4-2.
l l
l l
[
2-2 Babcock & Wilcox
. u co....n.....,
[
[
[
3.
METHOD OF ANALYSIS I
The analytical metheds used in the study are the same as those described in c
the B&W ECCS evaluation model topicals, BAW-10103A, Rev. 34 and BAW-10104, 5
Rev. 3, except for the modificat. ions due to NUREG-0630 and FLECSET imple-1 mentation which are explained in the followi ng paragraphs.
Figures 4-2 through 4-4 show the NUREG-0630 bounding parameters.
F The major impact on the base case LOCA limit analysis 2, was the implementa-tion of the NUREG-0630 data in the ECCS large break evaluation model.
The l
(
modifications due to NUREG-0630 are:
1.
The NUREG-0630 rupture temperature as a function of engineering hoop b
stress correlation with a heating ramp of 0 C/s, shown in Figure 4-2, was used.
This ramp rate represents a bounding value for rupture data.
2.
The NUREG-0630 strain versus temperature data are contained in a fast and a sl ow ramp rate correlation.
The circumferential strain model,
(
Figure 4-3, used in the analysis bounds the composite of the slow and the fast ramp models.
(
3.
The NUREG-0630 coolant flow blockage data, Figure 4-4, is derived from burst strain data and, therefore, also bounds the composite of the slow
(
and fast ramp models.
Inputs to the CRAFT 26 code are stress versu's rupture temperature data and
(
blockage based on the reduction in flow area data.
Inputs to the THETA 1-B7 code are stress versus rupture temperautre data and maximum rod circumferen-
[
tial strain data to maximize metal-water reaction.
All other input re-mained the same as the base case LOCA limit analysis.2 Two analyses were performed at the 2-ft core elevation to determine impact on the peak clad temperature due to both the implementation of NUREG-0630
[
[
3-1 Babcock s.Wilcox
. me
..a....
bounding models and use of the FLECSET heat transfer correlation.
Previous analyses 4,5 have demonstrated that the 2-ft core elevation is the most sen-sitive with respect to clad swelling and rupture phenomena.
The first case used the large break LOCA ECCS model, Figure 4-1, from reference 2 with 6 and THETA 1-B7 models.
The NUREG-0630 bounding data as input to the CRAFT 2 second case employed the same CRAFT 2 and REFLOD models but replaced the FLECKA correlation 5 with the FLECSET model.
A mw THETA 1-B case was then analyzed at 14.0 kW/ft.
Case 1 CRAFT 26 was run at 14.0 kW/ft for the 2-ft core elevation.
REFLOD, FLECKA, and THETA 1-87 were also run at 14.0 kW/ft but did not succeed due to the ex-ceedingly high ruptured node peak cladding temperatures that resulted from the use of the NUREG-0630 models.
Both FLECKA and THETA 1-B were again run at 13.5 kW/ft and succeeded with a ruptured node peak cladding temperature below the 2200F limit required by NRC criteria 10 CFR 50.46.
Case 2 In an effort to reduce or eliminate the 0.5 kW/ft penalty from the implemen-tation of NUREG-0630, a computer code called FLECSET,9, developed to pre-8 dict the quench time and heat transfer coefficient for cosine and skewed power shapes, was used as a cmpensating mode.
FLECSET was run at 14.0 kW/ft using input on flooding rates obtained from the first bounding anal-7 ysis case.
An analysis using THETA 1-B was perfomed to generate the hot l
channel response at the 14.0 kW/ft LOCA limit.
The peak cladding tempera-ture was compared to the 10 CFR 50.46 limit of 2200F to determine accepta-bility.
~
)
3-2 Babcock & Wilcox e McDermott company
[
(
[
4.
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
(
l 4.1.
Impact of NUREG-0630 on LOCA Limits The results of this anlaysis are summarized and compared to the base case large break LOCA analysis in Table 4-1.
The maximum clad temperature was calculated as 1736 and 1692F for the ruptured and unruptured nodes, respec-tively, as shown in Figure 4-5.
These results are based on a kW/ft limit of 13.5 at the 2-ft elevation, which represents a reduction from the 14.0 kW/ft in the base case.
A LOCA case was examined at a 13.8 kW/ft limit at
(-
the 2-ft elevation but cladding temperatures failed to remain below the 2200F limit when including the impact of NUREG-0630 in the analysis.
(
Previous analyses,5 have shown that the LOCA limits at the lower core ele-4 vations are limited by the time of rupture and the rupture node tempera-
[
ture.
Since the NUREG-0630 impacts mainly the rupture node clad tempera-ture, the LOCA limits at the upper core elevations are not expected to be affected more than the LOCA limit at the 2-ft elevation.
Therefore, the re-sidual impact at the 2-ft elevation can be assigned to LOCA limits at the other core elevation.
As stated above, the NUREG-0630 impact was 0.5 kW/ft at the 2-ft elevation.
The LOCA limits at the 4-and 6-ft elevation can be conservatively reduced by 0.5 kW/ft to reflect the effect of NUREG-0630.
The LOCA limits at the 8-and 10-ft elevations are limited by the unruptured node temperature and are not greatly affected by NUREG-0630.
Also, the maximum clad tempera-tures for currently calculated LOCA limits at the 8-and 10-ft elevations
(
are significantly lower than the 2200F limit which provide additional mar-gin for the effect of NUREG-0630.
Therefore, the impact of NUREG-0630 will
{
not require a reduction of LOCA limits at the 8-and 10-ft core elevations.
L
[
Babcock & Wilcox 4-1
U Finally, due to the burnup dependency of the average fuel temperature, the lower fuel temperature at higher burnups will compensate for the impact of NUREG-0630.
It has been estimated that the LOCA limits can be restored to their original values after a specified burnup as shown in Table 4-2.
4.2.
Impacts of NUREG-0630 With
}
FLECSET on LOCA Limits The results ~of this analysis are summarized and compared to both the base case 2 and NUREG-0630 case 1 analysis in Table 4-1.
The maximum clad temper-ature for the case using NUREG-0630 and FLECSET was calculated to be 1847 and 1809F for the ruptured and unruptured nodes, respectively, as shown in Figure 4-6.
These results were calculated based on a 14.0 kW/ft limit at the 2-ft core' elevation.
As stated in section 4.1, there was an impact of 0.5 kW/ft for the 2, 4,
and 6-ft core elevations due to the implementatin of NUREG-0630.
- However, based on the results obtained from the analysis using NUREG-0630 with the FLECSET heat transfer correlation, no LOCA impact has been found at the 2-ft core elevation.
This is because of the higher heat transfer coef-ficients generated by the FLECSET compensating model, which in turn re-sulted in a higher allowable kW/ft limit.
A 0.5 kW/ft NUREG-0630 penalty was assigned in case 1 to the 4-and 6-ft core elevations.
These elevations are also kW/ft limited by the ruptured node temperatures.
The peak cladding temperature results at these respec-tive elevations were reviewed considering the improved heat transfer pre-dicted by FLECSET.
For the 4-ft core elevation, there is no impact on kW/ft limits due to the implemenation of NUREG-0630 and FLECSET for the following reasons:
(1) based on the results of reference 2, the peak rup-tured node cladding temperature was calculated to be 1899F; therefore, suf-ficient margin exists to meet the 10 CFR 50.46 criteria of 2200F, and (2) the FLECSET compensating model is expected to a result in a higher allow-1 able kW/ft limit, thus resulting in no impact to the LOCA limit at the 4-ft core elevation.
However, for the 6-ft core elevation, the peak ruptured node cladding temperature was calculated to be 2090F.
There may not be enough clad temperature margin to meet the 2200F requi rement of 10 CFR
)
50.46.
Use of FLECSET may not produce a sufficiently low peak clad temperature to compensate the 0.5 kW/ft penalty on the LOCA limit at the
]
4-2 Babcock s.Wilcox
. =co a...
(
6-ft core elevation.
For the 8-and 10-ft core elevations, the peak rup-
{
tured node cladding temperature 2 was found to be 1664 and 1560F, respective-ly.
There is sufficient clad temperature margin to satisfy the 2200F limit g
required by 10 CFR 50.46.
Therefore, there is no penalty on the LOCA limit at the 8-and 10-ft core elevations as given in BAW-10103A, Rev. 3.4
[
r k
C l
t
[
{
I
[
[
[
[
4-3 Babcock &Wilcox
.=co a
I I
Table 4-1.
LOCA Limit NUREG-0630 Impact Sensitivity Study at 2-ft Core Elevation, 8.55-ft2 DEPD, CD = 1.0 Base case 2 Case 1(a)
Case 2(b)
CRAFT run AD4ICLD AD4IDWU AD4IDWU REFLOD3 run AD4IBKD AD4IVUS AD4IVUS g
THETA 1-B run AD4ICCA AD4IEVW AEKIBUH 4,
CRAFT, kW/ft 14.5 14.0 14.0 THETA 1-B, LOCA 1imit 14.0 13.5 14.0 Peak temperature, *F, unrup-1843/43.5 1692/42.5 1809/37.0 tured node / time, s Peak temperature, F, rup-1934/43.5 1736/42.0 1847/37.3 tured node / time, s l
Rupture time, s 21.6 22.6 17.9 End of blowdown, s 25.2 24.8 24.8 End of adiabatic heatup, s 36.0 35.5 35.5 Maximum local oxidation, %
2.14 1.52 1.67 CRAFT 2 blockage, ?.
58.8 67.65 67.65 (a) Case 1 includes the impact of NUREG-0630 bounding models.
(b) Case 2 includes the impact of NUREG-0630 bounding models and the use of FLECSET heat transfer correlation.
)
l 1
l 4-4 Babcock & Wilcox
. uco....n c.....,
[
{
Table 4-2.
177-FA Lowered-loop Plant LOCA Limits Core elevation, ft 2'
4 6
8 10 B AW-10103 LOCA limits,4 kW/ft 15.5 16.6 18.0 17.0 16.0 TACO 2 impact.2 kW/ft
-1.5 0
0 0
0 Base case limits,(a) kW/ft 14.0 16.8 18.0 17.0 16.0 b
+ NUREG-0630 impact, kW/ft
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5 0
0 7
Case 1(b) (base case + NUREG-0630), kW/ft 13.5 16.1 17.5 17.0 16.0 FLECSET-offset,kW/ft
+0.5
+0.5 0
0 0
{
Case 2(c) (base case + NUREG-0630 +
14.0 16.6 17.5 17.0 16.0 FLECSET), kW/ft s
(
(a)The 2-ft LOCA limit can be restored to 15.5 kW/ft after a burnup of 1000 mwd /mtU.
(b)LOCA limits for 4-and 6-ft core elevations can be restored to 16.6 and
(
18.0 kW/ft, respectively, after a burnup of 1000 mwd /mtU.
The 2-ft LOCA limit can be increased to 15 kW/ft after a burnup of 1000 mwd /mtU and restored to 15.5 kW/ft after a burnup of 2600 mwd /mtU.
(
(c)The 2-and 6-ft LOCA limit can be restored to 15.5 and 18.0 kW/ft,
4 respectively, after a burnup of 1000 mwd /mtu.
(
{
[
(
(
[
[
4-5 Babcock a.Wilcox j
. =co....a
Figure 4-1.
Large Break Analysis Code Interfaces
)
INITIAL RC
)
SYSTEM &
CORE PARAMETERS INITIAL CORE
}
PARAMETERS II I CRAFT MASS & ENERGY RELEASE CORE kESPONSE DURING BLOWDOWN l f II CONTEMPT CONTAINMENT PRESSURE
RESPONSE
STORED ENERGY CONTAINMENT
' f BACK PRESSURE l
VESSEL if GEN RATE yy7
- FLECHT h(t)
REROD 3 FLOODING REFLOOD HEAT TRANSFER
' f i f i f COEFFICIENTS
)
V THETA
- FLECHT correlation to be re-HOT CHANNEL RESPONSE placed by the FLECHT-SEASET
}.
correlation (FLECSET Code)
I f
)
HOT PIN THERMAL RESPONSE SURFACE HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT HOT CHANNEL FLUID TEMPERATURE
~
METAL-WATER REACTION
]
]
4-6 Babcock & Wilcox
. m.o..n c...m n
5 2
r S
/
C n
o 8
m 2
i t
i c
nu F
m b
S 2
a e
/
C sa 4
N 1
e a
ru r
t N
arep m
m i
r e
N s
T p
k e
,5 re 1
m ut N
s t a s
r pR e
u r
R p t
N m
S f a m
oR po r
nd lo on
\\
f ia t
S g
as
/
n l s C
i r
ee N
r rr 0
0 e
rt
,1 e
oS n
C i
N p
g Lo n
N o E
RH O
\\
g d n ni ar e
e N
l e en di og Mn E
W
.5
&f
\\
Bo W
B 2
4 e
m rug i
F 0
l 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
1 0
9 8
7 6
1 1
1 t32m&*
m
?~
,*XoE " !!8x
- $ { i.5 l\\
l
l l
t 00 2
1 t
s r
u B
l 0
a i
,0 t
1 n
1 e
/
r m
e fmu u
cr i
C
/
f 0
o
,0 n
0 o
1 i
tae l r
/
eu W
rt m
ra B
C or C e p
Gm e
E e r
,0 u
n 0
t U
9 a
N e r
r eu e
tt p
ip m
su e
oR T
p mf oo C
n do ni 0
at
,0 c
8 l n eu dF o
Ma As Ta EHn Ti a Wr 0
&t 0
BS
,7 e
3 t
s G 0e i
4 sE 3 u oR 6l e
pU 0a r
mN V
u o
g C
i F
0 0
m
- 6 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 0
8 6
4 2
1 1
g}y %Li bU$
EX8x {
?m
.1y
,lll'1 ll I
1l1
l l
00 2
=
1 r
a r
y l
b m
0 e
0 m
s i1 s
1 r
A n
i m
n o
c i
t cu n
de 0
Re W
r0 mlT r
0 f u B
1 ot a nr oe ip t m ae C
e re rr ou e
Ct r
p 0 u Gu 0
t ER 9
a
/
m R
r Uf e
r No pm en e
~
to T
ii m
st oc r
pnmu g
oF e
0 C
a t
s d
iG 0e sE 3 u s
ns r
oR aa 6l pU 0a l a mN V
ee o
dr C
oA e
M b
w Wo
&l BF 0
.0 r
4 7
4 e
r r
u f
g i
F m
/
00 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
8 6
4 2
1
=A x3' 5 8 vE<
-r e
a6
.In "!ng i1ij 1lll 1
Figure 4-5.
Hot Spot Clad Temperature Vs Time With NUREG-0630 -
13.5 kW/f t at 2-ft Core Elevation 1800
/
N
\\*sY 1600 UNRUPTURED N00E ea w
1400 f
g 4
bl a
w
\\
E
\\
g 1200 g
j
\\
\\
)
1000
\\
\\
\\
800 g
E
\\
i
\\\\
U 600 RUPTURE 0 NODE
)
400 I
I I
I I
I O
20 40 60 80 100 120 Time, s J
l 4-10 Babcock & Wilcox
~
. u.o
l F
Figure 4-6.
Hot Spot Clad Temperature Vs Time With NUREG-0630 and FLECSET - 14.0 kW/ft at 2-ft Core Elevation F
L
{
2000
[
n 1800 g
1 La-i J
1600 I
s 1
5 i
\\
[
=
i i
\\
i
-f i;
UNRUPTURED NODE 1400 n
2 li I
[
/
v r
j 1200 I
g l
RUPTURED N00E
\\
1000
(
l
's 800 l
\\
's. s.
20 40 60 80 100 120 Time, s l
4-11 Babcock & Wilcox
. u o...n......,
REFERENCES 1.
D. A. Powers and R. O. Meyer, Cladding Swelling Models for LOCA Anal-
[
ysis, NRC Report NUREG-0630 April 1980.
2.
M.A. Haghi, et al., TAC 02 Loss-of-Coolant Accident Limit Analyses for
(
177-F A Lowe red-Loop Plants, BAW-1775, Babcock & Wil cox, Lynchburg, Virginia, February 1983.
k 3.
TAC 02 - Fuel Pin Performance Analysis, BAW-10141P, Babcock & Wilcox, Lynchburg, Virginia, August 1979.
4 B. M.
Dunn, et al., ECCS Analysis of B&W's 177-FA Lowered-loop NSS, BAW-10103A, Rev. 3 Babcock & Wilcox, Lynchburg, Vi rginia, July 1977.
f 1
5.
B. M.
Dun n, et al., B&W's ECCS Evaluation Model, BAW-10104, Rev.
3, Babcock & Wilcox, Lynchburg, Virginia, August 1977.
[
6.
J. J. Cudlin and M.
I. Meerbaum, CRAFT 2 - FORTRAN Program for Digital Simulation of a Multinode Reactor Plant During Loss of Coolant, NPGD-TM-287, Rev. AA, Babcock & Wilcox, Lynchburg, Virginia, June 1982.
7.
R.
H.
Stoudt, et al.,
THETA 1-B - Computer Code for Nuclear Reactor Thermal Analysi s, NPGD-TM-405, Rev.
L, Babcock & Wilcox, Lynchburg, Vi rginia, March 1982.
8.
N. Lee, S. Wong, H. C. Yeh, and L. E. Hochreiter, "PWR FLE CHT SEASET Unblocked Bundle, Forced and Gravity Reflood Task Data Evaluation and
(
Analysis Report, NUREG/CR-2256 (EPRI NI-2013 or WCAP-9891), November 1981.
9.
G. P. Lilly, et al., PWR FLECHT Skewed Profile Low Flooding Rage Test Series Evaluation Report, WCAP-9183, November 1977.
[
A-1 Babcock a,Wilcox P
_ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _