Text

Thermal Margin Beyond Design Base (Tmbdb) Sodium-Concrete Penetration Margins Assessment for Crbr Plant
	ML20083M727
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	08/31/1982
From:	Ball T, Gross J, Koshurba D; ENERGY, DEPT. OF, CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20083M725	List: ML20083M722; ML20083M727;
References
	NUDOCS 8302010439
	Download: ML20083M727 (55)
	v • d • e

_

_.g.

e/

4 g

i l

TIED 3 SODIUl!.-CONCRETE PENETRATION MARGINS ASSESSMENT FOR THE CRSP.o bY l

i T. W. Bal i J. F. Gross D. P. Koshurba R. G. Vasey G. Freskaki s (B&R) 1 i

t i

l August 1982 i

4 8302010439 821020 PDR ADOCK 05000537 A

PDR

,1 i

TIEDS SO3lUll.-CONCRETE PENETRATION I/ARGINS ASSESSMENT FOR BiE CRBRP Teble of Contents

.PRCA Introducti on..

2 Vodel and Assenptions 4

Results 5

Radic.logical and Aerosol Consequences 7

Structural Consequences 8

Concl usi ons 9

Ref er ence s.....

10 freend!x A Annul us Cool ing Anal ysi s..

A.1 Resul ts A.1 L:SDdix B S tr u ct ur a l As s e s sm e nts........................

B.1 Reactcr Cavity and Liner..

B. 2 Pi pew;y Cel l Wal l s..

B. 3 Pi pev:ey Cel l Floor and Liner.

B. 4 Ccnf i nement Structure B.4 Centtinment Steel Shel l B. 5 R e f e r e n ce s..............................

B. 5

a TIGDB S031Ul/.-CCNCRETE SENETRATION MARGINS ASSESSMENT INTRODUCT ION Experiments (Ref erences i end 2) have Indicated that sodium-concrete reactions tend to be sel f-limiting with I imestone concrete under conditions prevail ing during a postulated Tl/BDS scenario in CRBRP.

The. sodi um-concr ete panetration was represented in the base case CACECO analysis as a constant reaction penetration of 0.5 inch per hour f or a pericd of 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months (Ref erence 3).

Sensitivity studies (Ref erence 3) show that a reaction penetration rate of 1 inch per hour f or 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months (12 inches total penetration versus 2 inches in the base case) can be accommodated by the TMBDB containment f eatures based on thei r desi gn requi rer.ents.

Some scdium-concrete e:periments have exhibited considerably higher penetration rates (up to approximately 0.2 inches per minute) for short perleds of time (Ref erences 4 and 5).

For al l tests that had an excess of sedium, the rapid reaction penetration was not sustained for more than a f ew mi n ut es.

Apparently the reaction penetration was sei f-limiting af ter a short pericd of rapid penetration.

In other tests, where only a limited amount of sodium was used, the as all abl e sod i um was al l consumed i n a short ti me i f i

rapid penetration occurred (in many tests virtually no penetration at all occur r ed, and very littl e sodi um was consumed).

In al l tests to date, the total sodium reaction penetration bas not exceeded the energy and hydrogen releases associated with the 1 inch per hour f or 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months used in the sensitivity cal cul ations.

From tha l arge body of avail abl e data, Ref erence 6 states that sodi um-concrete reaction penetration into horizontal surf aces appears to progress in three stages, each characterized by successively

.decreasi ng rates of penetration. These three stages and the recommended upper, bound retes and durations are as f ollows:

A.

An initial rapid penetration probably due to spallation and breakup of the surf ece l ayer of concre7 0.

The upper bound rate and duration of this stage is 7 inches per hour f or 20 minutes.

2

a

' B.

An intermediate stage where spallation is no longer occurring but the concrete surf ace is not f ully protected by the devel oping layer.cf reaction products.

The upper bound f or this stage is I inch per' hour for 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months .

C.

In the icnger term (the third stage) the rate of penetration is much slower and decreases with time because of a continually crowing layer of reaction products which inhibits transport of unreactea sodium to the unreacted concrete surf ace.

Upper bound-0.1 inch / hour i ndef ini tel y.

Based on the above mentioned analysis of the data and the analyses of TISDS sequences i n Ref erence 3, it is apparent that the sensitivity analyses adequately cover ite range of data observed to date.

It is al so apparent that consi derable margin exisis in Tb8DS analyses f o.

accommodating h igher sodium-concrete reactions at the expense of vent time (less than the base case 36 hours4.166667e-4 days 0.01 hours 5.952381e-5 weeks 1.3698e-5 months ). With a view to assessing the margins available in the current CRSRP desi gn rel ative to assumed variations in the sodium-concrete penetration rate, a margin study was conducted.

in assessing the margins evail able in the desi gn, two distinct considerations emerge:

A.

If there were no requirenent to maintain containment integrity for a fixed time without venting, what range of reaction rates could be accommodated by the design?

8.

There must be same period of time al lcwed f or venting decisions, activation of emergency pl ans, etc.

How early could venting reasonably be assumed, and woul d such an assumption give suf ficient margin to cover any remaining uncertainties regarding scdlum-concrete r eacti ons?

To assess these considerations a study was initiated with following obj ectives:

A.

Arti f ici al ly contrive a codi um-concrete reaction scenario which woul d so f ar cxceed any observed in tests to date so as to resuit in a need 3

to vent centcinment in 10 hours1.157407e-4 days 0.00278 hours 1.653439e-5 weeks 3.805e-6 months .

(Th i s i s com pa ti bl e w i th evacua ti on times quoied i n Chapter 13 of the PS AR. )

8.

Assess the capabil Ity of the desi gn to accommodate such a scenario.

This report docum:nts the analysis of this margins assessment which is a scenario with an initial sodium concrete penetration rate of 7 inches / hour f or 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months , f ol lowed by a rate of 1 inch / hour.

For th is case, no cr edi t is taken f or the reaction inhibiting ef fects of the reaction product layer, such that the 1 inch / hour reaction was assumed to continue until all sodium was con s uned.

It is enphasized that this artificially contrived case does not represent test data, but is simply a margin study to assess the design ca pa bi l i ty..

f-ODEL AND ASSUMPTIONS The CACECO code model def ined in Ref erence 3 ( Appendix C.1) was modified to perf orm this sensitivity study.

The model used in the base case includes a sodium-concrete reaction rate of 0.5 inches per hour for 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months , starting at the time of reactor cavity liner f ail ure (assumed to be at the time of penetration of the reactor vessel and guard vessel).

To cal culate the contair. ment conditions f or the penetration margins assessment, the CACECO model had to be modifiea to include the more severe reactions associated with the margins assessment case.

The criteria for venting were similar to those f or the base cese scenario and, as in the base case, the RCB hydrogen conceniration was the I imiting f actor on vent time.

Other desi gn requi re:ents (heat iosd to the conf inement bull ding, venting rates, aerosol discharge to the cicenup system, etc.) were not imposed on the assumption that the TMSD3 f eatures external to the RCB coul d be enhanced, if necessary,

.to accommodate greeier operational loads.

Other variations f rom the base case scenario incl udad were:

1) the sodium-concrete penetrailon rate f or the pipeway floor concrete is the same as f or the RC flocr (with the exception that the reacticn oc;urs only when a sodium pool exists; 2) Ini+!ation of the RCB annul us cool ing system at 10 hours1.157407e-4 days 0.00278 hours 1.653439e-5 weeks 3.805e-6 months ; 3) increasing the therinal conductivity of the concrete nodes as the assumed penetration f ront moved past the node to sir.ulate movenent of the sodium boundary (the node thickness 4

used in the region of concrete penetration was two inches); 4) consumption of sedium by reaction with the concrete resi due (0.38 f t3 sodium per f t3 concr ete) in addition to reactions with the water and carbon dioxide driven of f f rom the concrete.

(in the base case TMSDB, the reaction energy 331 Etu/lb concrete, was accounted f or, but sodium consumption f rom this source was i gnored due to the smal l enount of concretc involved); and 5) RCB purge initiated at 13.5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months (immediately af ter' blowdown to atmospheric pressurs).

RESULTS The results conf inn that with an initial sodium concrete penetration rate into the reactor cavity floor cf seven inches per hour for the first three hours and I inch per hour thereaf ter, RCB venting woul d be requi red at 10 hours1.157407e-4 days 0.00278 hours 1.653439e-5 weeks 3.805e-6 months .

Consi derations which are important during the TMSDB scenario ini cude the consequences f ran the initi al hydrogen i gnition, conditions which cause the initiation of ROB venting, and long term or maximum ROB conditions during v e nti ng.

These results are se:marized in Table 1.

Due to the additional energy frcm the... ore severe sodium-concrete reactions causing the sodium pool to hcat up f aster and allowing sodium vapor to enter contairenent sooner, the criteria f or initial hydrogen ignition are met ei 1.4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months es compared to 10 hours1.157407e-4 days 0.00278 hours 1.653439e-5 weeks 3.805e-6 months in the basc case.

The corresponding hydrogen bull d-up in containment prior to ignitior is less than in the base case (2.5% versus 4.5%). Upon ignition, the containment responses woul d be l ess severe.

The resulting centairment temperature and pressure woul d be 570oF and 13.9 psig as compared io 845cF and 22.4 psi g f or the base case, j

The initi ati on of RCS venti ng i s tne next important consi deration.

The criteria that can dictate venting are excessive RCB pressure and steel shell to perature, or excessive hydrogen buil dup.

In this case the hydrogen buildup was the limiting condition causing venting to occur at 10 hours1.157407e-4 days 0.00278 hours 1.653439e-5 weeks 3.805e-6 months .

With the sodium and hydrogen rates into contairanent averaging about 4000 lb/hr end 350 lb/hr, respectively, over the f irst ten hours, the containment oxycen was depleted to bel ow 8% due to the chenical reactions.

Af ter the cxycen is depleted to bel ow 8% in containment (8.9 hours1.041667e-4 days 0.0025 hours 1.488095e-5 weeks 3.4245e-6 months ) the hydrogen is 5

predicted to acct.mulate due to inccmplete burnir.g.

As in the base case TIEES sequence, venti ng woul d be initiated wel i in advance of reaching the hydrogen Iinit because the depressurIzetion of containment results In hydrogen fIowing up f r crn the reector cavity, which in turn causes the hydrogen concentration to increase durir.g the blowdown period bef ore purging can be initleted.

(For purging, the RCB must be at a negative pressure.)

In the bese case the resul+ing peek hydrogen concentration is 4.5%, well below the objective maximum of 6.0%.

In this case the cal culated hydrogen concentration has reacted 2.6% at 10 hours1.157407e-4 days 0.00278 hours 1.653439e-5 weeks 3.805e-6 months when venting is initiated.

The bicvdown excursion exceeded 6% f or epproximatel y 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months .

(The peak was 8.7% at 13.5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months .)

During the time hydrogen was above 6%, the oxygen was below 5% so ihat the ml>:ture in conteir. ment woul d not be flammable (cal culational ly, the reason the buc'rogen exceeded 6% was because there is not enough oxycen to meet burning criteria).

This short excursion beyond 6% hydrogen is considered acceptable f or this margins assessment case since it occurs at a ilme when F.CB oxygen has been depl eted.

Shcrtly af ter purging was initiated, the inco:ing air raised the oxygen concentration to 5% at which time the hydrogen i

in cxcess of 4% burned with acceptable consequences to conteinment i

conc i t i ons.

Figure 1 shows the hydrogen and oxygen concentrations as a f unction of time.

The peak contairrnent pressure was higher at venting than 4

)

the base case (18.7 versus 13.1 psig), but welI within the ultimate pressu e capabil ity cf the steel shel 1 (Ref erence 3).

The reactor cavity and contsiraaent atmosphere tenperatures are shown in Figure 2.

The contairenent tenperature is several hundred degrees higher than the base case due to the incre:. sed rate of sodium burning.

The higher containment e fmosphere tei.pcreture al so resul ts in a higher steel shell tenperature than in the base case (4cOcF versus 4000F based on the one-dimensional CACECO cal culations).

l The rteel tenperature is shown on Figure 2.

Figure 3 shows the reactor l

contcirenent pressure which is higher then f ound in the base case because of

.the increased sodium burning and more energetic concrete reactions.

Additionally, the heat loads to the RCS steel shell for the base case and f or the.v.rgins assesment cese are shown on Figure 4.

While the peak flux to l

the steel shelI is not si gni f Icanti y di f ferent f r om that observed f or the base case, it occurs eerl ter in time and is suntined for a longer period.

Sodi u a boli dry occurs at 51 hcurs f or this case es compared to 133 hours0.00154 days 0.0369 hours 2.199074e-4 weeks 5.06065e-5 months f or the L se case.

The amcunts of sodium aerosols irgested into the cleanup l

l 6

system are ciscussed in the Radiological and Aerosol Consequences section bel ow.

Figures 5 to 15 show structural tenperatures f or the various cavity and pi peway floors and wal l s.

The total penetration of sodium into the reactor cavity floor is 5.7 feet whil e the pipeway floor is penetrated approximately 2 feet.

These te:peratures are used in Appendix B to assess the integrity of th e str u ct u'r es.

The ef f ects of the heat loads on the steel containment shel l and concrete conf inement structure were assessed and the results are shown in Appendix A.

RADIOLOGICAL A'4D AEROSCL CONSEQUENCES 2 Four Exclysion Econderv Doses The doses resulting f rom the margins assessment case (10 hour1.157407e-4 days 0.00278 hours 1.653439e-5 weeks 3.805e-6 months vent) scenario are ccmpared with the TMBDB base c:se (36 hour4.166667e-4 days 0.01 hours 5.952381e-5 weeks 1.3698e-5 months vent) doses in Table 2.*

The peneiration nargins assessment scenario produces a higher RCB pressure for the f irst 2 hcurs resulting in a greater release rate of the initially suspended 1000 lbs. of scdlum and noble gases.

The l arger l eakege during this time interval produces the higher 2 hour2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months Exclusion Boundary doses fcr the margins assessment case compared to the base case.

30 Dav Lew Perulation Zone Doses The majority (>99%) of the 30 day !.ow Population Zone (LPZ) bone dose comes f rom pl utoni um sparging f ol lowing hoil dry.

Sparging renains unchanged so the bone dose increased very littl e.

The whole body dose is largely dependent en external gamma c>posure f rom the r 3l eased nobl e gases.

The higher RCS pressure and early vent time releases more of these gases early in the event, when the cal culated radiological irpact is greater.

The resul t i s an L PZ dose about 4 times greater than the bese case.

The second si gni f icant ch ange is in'the thyroid dose which decreases f rom 99.2 rem in 1he base case to 94.7

This comparison used Case 2 from Table 4-3 of Ref erence 3 as the base case.

7

ren f or the penetration margins assessment case.

This cecrease is attributed f

to the f ect that this case has higher aerosol cor.crentrations, resulting in l

greater overal l aggi oneration and f al icut than the base case.

The ! ung dose is heavily dependent en the solid f ission products which are noT released ea rl y i n th e e/ ent dur i ng mor e r adi ol ogi ca l l y si gn i f i ca nt ti me i nt erv al s.

However, the greater suspended aerosol concentrations produce a higher RCB-aggi aneration and f el icut rate with l ess rel ease to the environment.

Consequently, the net ef f ect on the l ung dose is very smal l and it is essenti al ly the same as the base case dose.

The higher aerosol concentrations in the penetration margins assessment case result in greater aerosol depletion and sanewhat less cercsci discharge to the RC3 cl.een-up system.

Table 1 provides a comparison of the totel aerosol transported into the clean-up systen and the rate of transport.

STRUCTURAL CONSEQUENCES The consequences of the penetration margins assessment case on containment and conf inement structures have been assessed and the details are presented in Appendix B.

The r es ul t s i ndi ca te th at desi gn ch anges w ou l d be r eq ui red i n two areas of the structures to accommodate the margins assessnent case.

The requi red modi f ications are:

A.

Reactor Cav ity Fl oor (1)

Extend the wel l liner to 6.5 feet into the floor structural co ncr et e.

(2)

Eliminate the construction Joint at Elevation 733 ar.d rearrange th e r eba r i n th e f l oor.

(3)

Frovide a desi gn f eature en the RC floor liner near the wall to inhibit the spreading of the duel debris to the region of the wal l-f i car j uncti on.

8

_,.y

yv

B.

Pi peway Cel l Fl oors (1)

Provide a second l ayer of insulating concrete bel ow the second liner which separates the two layers of structural concrete.

(2)

Incre:se the thickness of the floor by the thickness of the second layer cf insulating concrete (lower bottoo).

l These modifications are not considered majer changes and would, in conjunction with other existing TI3DS features, result in acceptable Tb8DB margins to accommodate the margins rssessnent case, 00NCLUSICNS j

Base on this margins assessment, the f cilowing conclusions heve been reached:

A.

Tne sodium-cencrete penetration rate f or the margins assessment case, which is 7 inches /hr f or 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months f ollowed by 1 inch /hr thereaf ter until sodi um boil dry, coul d be accommedeted by venti ng the containment at about 10 hours1.157407e-4 days 0.00278 hours 1.653439e-5 weeks 3.805e-6 months .

B.

Hydrogen i gnition woul d occur earl ier and would resul t in l ess severe contalunent conditions f ollowing rapi d burning.

C.

The clean-up system peak flow rate is sanewhat higher than the base case, but bel ow the desi gn basis val ue f or the system.

The total eerosol Icading woul d be l ess than the base case.

D.

The sodium bcIl dry time is recueed to 51 hours5.902778e-4 days 0.0142 hours 8.43254e-5 weeks 1.94055e-5 months compared to 133 hours0.00154 days 0.0369 hours 2.199074e-4 weeks 5.06065e-5 months in the base case.

E.

With modest ccsign modifications in two areas (the Reactor Cavity floor and the pipeway cell floors) the margins essessment scenario would result ;n acceptable containnent and conf inement siructural margins.

9

' F.

Radi ol ogi csi doses are comparable to the tase case except the 30 day LPZ whole body dose which is greater than the base case due to the earl ter venti ng, but stil l within the guicel Ine val ues f or this beyond desi gn base event.

REFERENCES 1.

J. A. Hassberger, R. K. Hil l iard and L. D. Muhl estein, " Sod i um Concrete Reactions Tests," HEDL-TME-74-36, June 1974 2.

J. A. Hassberger, "Intermedi ate Scal e Sodi um-Concrete Reaction Tests,"

HEDL-TFE-77-99, March 197 8 3.

CRBRP-3, Vol ume 2, "Hypotheti cal Core Disropti ve Acci dent Consi derations in CRBRP, Volune 2 Assessnent of Thermal Vargin Beycnd the Dest gn Base," March 1980 4.

B. M. Butcher, et al., "Sodi um Containment and Structural i nt egr ity,"

NUREG-0181-3, Advanced Saf ety Research Program Quarterl y Report, April-June,1977, SAND 77-1134 Sandia Natlor.al Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, p p. 145-156, November 1977 5.

D. A. Dahl gr en, et al., "Sool um Containment and Structural Integrity,"

Advanced Reactor Saf ety Research Progran Quarterly Report, July-Sept (mber,1977, SN4D 77-1975 Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerc,ue, NM, pp.111-118, May 197 8 6.

HEDL-7FE 82-15, L. D. Muhl stei n and A. K. Dostma, "Sodi um-Concrete Reaction Executive Summary Report: Application to Limestone Concrete," June 1982 10

o s'

TABLE 1

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS WITH INITIAL SODIUM-CONCRETE PENETRATION OF SEVEN INCHES PER HOUR Penetration Base Margin Case Assessment,

I Initial Hydrocen Ignition Time (hrs.)

10.0 1.4 RCB Atmosphere Temperature (*F) (before/aDer) 120/845 145/570 RCS Pressure (psig) (before/after) 2.2/22.4 2.4/13.9 Hydrogen Concentration (Vol.%) (before/after) 4.5/0.0 2.5/0.0 Initiation of RCB Venting Time (hrs.)

36 10 RCB Atmosphere Temperature (*F) 61 7 710 RCi' Steel Shell Temperature (*F) 400 390 RCB Pressure (psig) 13.1 18.7 RCB Hydrogen Concentration (%)

0.0 2.6~

~

RCB 0xygen Concentration (%)

8.4 7.4 Ma imum Conditions Durino Venting Maximum Venting Rate (ACFM) 24,00C 27,50C Purge Rate Assumed (SCFM) 8000 8000 Feak Hydrogen Concentration (Vol.%)/ Time (hr.)

4.0/40 8.7/13.5 RCS Atmosphere Temperature (*F)/ Time (hr.)

915/40 1020/14.6 l

AerosolCchaarisons Mcaimum Rate to the RCB Cleanup System (lb/hr) 4400 5100 Total Aerosols to the RCB Cleanup System to 250,000 167,000 Boildry (ib) 11' l

a o

TABLE 2 COMPARISON CF P.ADIOLOGICAL CONSECUENCES 2 Hour EB Deses (rem) 36 Hour Vent 10 Hour Vent Penetration Marcin Assessment Orean Base Case 0.028 0.44 Bone 0.0055 0.082 Lung 0.0096 0.023 Thyroid WholbBody 0.16 1.9 30 Day LPZ Doses (rer.)

10 Hour Vent 36 Hoar Vent

. Penetration Martin Assesment Organ Base Case _

55.1 55.2 Bone 3.96 3.91 Lun9 Thyroid 99.2 94.7 Whole Body 3.5 13.0 l

i t

s l

{

t 12 I

i

4 Figure 1 RCB Hydrogen and Oxygen Concentration i

20.0 e

16.0 G.

12.0 M

3 2

Oxygen 8.0 11 a

/l It

~

l l

j z.o I

f Hydrogen

- j 1

i

/l I

/ I li i

i I

i f

0.0 0

10 20 30 40 50 Time (Hrs.)

13

Figure 2 Reactor Cavity and Containment Atm sphere and Centainment Steel Dome Temperature 1800 Reactor Cavity Atmsphere j

s 1600. [

' ' ~

I

/

1200 E

Containment Atmosphere 3

e'~

~..

e g

e

~~

a

's BCD '

l]

l 1

7' Containment Steel Dome

,/l/

~

L /, /

~

c0 li 1 /

-ll l

/'

I I

I 1

O.0 O

10 20 30 40 50 Time (Hrs.)

14

Figure 3 Containment Pressure 24 20 4

/ 1

/

1 16 f

3

/

I Y,

g l

l 8

-l I

I 12 E

7 g

5 si /

l 0

ll I l

2 iil 8

itil I

. lfl

\\

II l

t 4 -l

\\

/

\\

/

\\

0 L-----------------

l I

1 I

t I

0 10 20 30 40 50 Time (Hrs.)

15

Figure 4 120 Heat Load Through the Containment Structure Steel Shell 110 i

100 90 -

Margins Assessment Case 80 -

N i

70 -

1 M

Base Ca.se o

o a

N m

S.

50

/

40 30 20 10 1

e f

I O

O 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Time (Hrs.)

16

Figure 5 REACT 0R CAVITY FL00R (frua liner to 3.5 ft.)

LEGEND in o.

0 Hours L' '.* '. g.

~.

["* ' '

c... _..

10 nso. W i

]

g,co,

__.,........ 20

- 3

1. - - - -- 30 l

+

40 i2cb.

m i

e i

50 E

ioco.

j e

o ea Ou e.

U I

C e

e t

=.E 200 u

w e

4 e.

I eCC.

4 l

4 6

I e

+

j e

fC.

e 3

I b

e8, 8

f e,$

e

'a.,,

i 1

\\

1

'8 b. 88 s."

i.2 i.e 2.0 2.*

2.8 3.2 3.6 DISTANCE (FT) l I

(

l

(

17

Figure 6 REACT 0R CAYITY FL00R (from 3.6 to 7.6 ft.)

LEGEND h____I 0 Hours 1900.

\\

A 1

J.

10 g

l t

j l

! -------- 20 t

l 30

\\

l iroc.

.I

\\

f 40 t

n u

I j

i i

i 50 s

\\

ca 8

L i

p l'00.

4 I

,k s

FJ s

g b

c>

t Q.

E 1

s

\\

o 603.

3-

\\

g i

i

\\

i g

l g

[

00.

g 1

t

\\

s e

a

\\

N

~

l s

jco,

's~~

N,~

e i

_~ ' --- E

.. %m.;,

4 I

G.

J.4 a.0 9.9 9.8

%.2 5.6 6.0 6.9 6.R T.2 8.6 DISTANCE (FT) 18

Figure 7 J

REACTOR C A V 1 T 'r FL00R (from 7.6 to 11.6 ft.)

LEGEND O Hours ef. g 1.0 IrT '.

20 30 vs t

40 i:.s 50 l.

^u.

c g

gr..s y

s.

3 a

e 2

I i

u. c 3U l

t 1

I i,. f a.

j

\\

,1 s'

a N

~

[

. =

k.a v.2' 9.6 10.0 10.*

10.8 11.2 11.6 7,g DISTANCE (FT) 19

Figure 8 REACTOR CAvi1Y NONSUBMERGED WALL LEGEND i cc.

0 Hours I

(

j i+cc.

10 l'

ga l*00.

30 l

40 it:c.

n 50 u.

b l 'J 6 0.

-I o

L

.z,

(

PC PCC.

o9 5

+

A

+C0.

q N

-cc.

,.s

'.'sN

'. ' N

.'N. 7. '. ' ', s I

/co.

~

-w= s _

e :.

.r cw w.

i.c 2.o

.o w.o s.o 5.o 3.o l

DISTANCE :FT) l l

i l

20

Figure 9 REAC10R CAVITY SUBnERGED WALL (upper)

LErE!;D

\\n00.

e O Hours 1600.

l 10 20 i=CC.

30 n:c.

40 w

o v

v L

50 3

10C0.

aLu

'l C1 E

N 600.

4 l

'.I s;G.

=

=C0 sg

s s\\

.' sN l

~%

JGC.

.'~.'~ ~ ~

e.

. f. s e

,_.~~ e _g_ a.y,, c.

h.

t, l.0 2.0 3.0 9.0 5.0 6.0 F.0 DISTANCE (FT) 21

Figure 10 REACTOR CAVITY LOWER SUBMERGED WALL LEGEND inco.

0 Hours L

10 i+ce.

1 20 l=cc.

30 rico.

40 wL 50 i

E icco.

o a

es b

O c.

a eco.

u 1,

e--

4 i

660.

4 t

4 1

g ec.

.ss s, sN

'ss N

i m.

.. ~,

~.....

.c gn.,,;w..,

.g -. g. m t

i.o 2.o 1.0

.o 5.o 6.o 2.o DISTANCE (FT) 22

Figure 11 REACTOR CAVITY P1PEWAY CELL FLOO,R (from liner to 4 ft.)

LEGEND

,,7,

O Hours gacc.

10

~ ' ~ ~ '

16GC-

7'=->.

20

\\

t i

i

\\

ng n=CC.

k g

40

\\

1200.

s n

50

.u.

s

\\

s

{

o s

L 10$5.

sa

\\

3 s

n

\\

o i

\\

t a

c.

E

00.

\\

o s:

i

\\

.i -

.\\

.s.

ecc,

,\\

i N,

s s

bb.

\\

N N

g s

N

.,....*g'

, ~_

4

/ ',0.

e 9 r.

0.=

0.A

1. ? -

1.6

?.0 2. ai 2.8 3.2 3.4 9.0 DISTANCE (FT) 23

Figure 12 RCAC' TOR CAVITY PIPEWAY CELL ROOF LEGEND 0 Hours a c0.

\\

10 I

20 1 00.

30 i

1200.

i 40 1,[

LA 50 c

1000.

.io

o

d

l!

l '.

s a

r::

g 600.

c.

n

'*)

o t-

\\

/

600.

I

\\

/

6 's\\

l

/./

d e

g ki

~CG' t

s

., s '\\

f< /,-

s

ss v..'

@?>?(.7-f.-

t. ~-M s-

/

~

iss.

' ' ~,'. '. ~.

....~ ~...

I 0.

G. f.

G.%

i.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.%

4.0 4.5

%.0

%.9 6.0 6.%

DISTANCE (FT) 24

Figure 13 REACTOR CAVITY PIPEWAY CELL OUTSIDE WALLS-2.5 FT.

THICK LEGEND 0 Hours 1600.

5 10 4

t 20 n.co.

1 30 l200.

)

40 i.\\

u.

},

c0 o

s

,cco,

\\,

a L

3

+a

\\\\

f"J

CO.

o.

.i e

.\\

U t-

'N N

~

6C0.

3 N

i-5.N l

s l

's N A

- s.

-cc.

~x s

N s

s

-~ W~

.~

~

.t.. - -. :%-

i.

.{... -..... -.

c..

t,. t, G.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.9 3.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.9 2.6 l

DISTANCE (FT) l l

25

Figure 14 R E A f.' T O R CAVITY PIPEWAY CELL OUTSIDE WALLS-4 FT. THICK b r *e h.e

. J, t O Hours acc.

1 19 20 i,co.

T 30 g

ttLO.

40

?

m

\\

50 6

t

gccc, p

a t

a" I.

I F

'J I.)

C c

c i

A 1

c,c.

,,s

+

s\\

N-s s

'*G-s

\\ \\

s s

~

i t.r.

. *... ~. " '

~m ~'

-.....,,,,....-.. - _ --a.._..__- 7._.. g..ym L

r,

0.m 1./

1.A 7.0 7.9 2.8 1.2 3.6

.0 DISTANCE (FT) 26 l

Figure 15 REACTOR CAYlTY PIPEWAY CELL DOUBLE HEATED WALL LEGEN0 l = 0 0.'

O Hours

'd I

10 m co.

go

\\

1 i,co.

30 i

i j

40 i200.

u.

O 50

~.9 o

y

1000,

.i u

e e

P a

.: E ec L

i(

o

d c.e

- i o

CG.

}

c-

\\.

?

ll k.

.'h.

sco.

i Ai

/H r0-x

.,', s %

'...*l k.

/

~

~ ~

-.~ h - - _

~.

,co.

o.

0. C' O.=

0.e I. 2 1.6 2.0 2.=

2.6 3.2 3.6 9.0 D I S T A f/ C E (FT) 27

- ~__-

)

AFFENDIX A SO310!/.-CONCRETE PENETRATION IURGINS ASSESS!'ENT R4NULUS C00' ING ANALYSIS 4

i The penetration margins assessment case heat loads to the contairenent steel shell as a f unction of time were used as input to a detailed ihermal cal cuiati on usi ng the TRUMP computer code.

The thermal model was i dentical to that of Ref erence 3, except an updated model was used in the vicinity of the annul us cool ing outl et structures.

The nodal arrangement of the thermal model is shown i n Fi gur e A1.

An annulus cooling system flow of 400,000 SCFM was used as was in the base case.

RESULTS The ter.perature versus time plots f or key nodes are presented in Figares A2 j

through A13.

The structural consequences of these tenperaiures are described In Appendix B.

1

)

j j

l i

l l

l b

t l

A.1 L

n M J' E #'

Ctef attesterf

[ Cet1 A' ment ti

[ UL M

/

titrat:De e's / sis / t's / 715 / eil / eis / sit / 31e /

l

/ 114 /

I t'

L3

/s?' / 612 / til / til / 018 / Sir / sif / att

~

M / 113 /

f e tt J-ll l

>ss s

I'mim*I~lml~l~l/~l m,

mr 4

tra sw I 8/4 l PN M4 DM 444 b4

[ IM /

$38 7 West het 1LM2 m,

,t,...,

t,,

h13 181); 181)

'9717

" lit 1617 1811 1131)

' 111)

I suSVL ATscs 5

.% t3 1913

'I t 3 1713 1913 1813 1813 1313 1

N g-iw.3 tist test l

l g

{ Wt ]

CLAtt (1Fft not l tati. tasi j tai i tsst tut l nas' iset I8W I ttei tse s ertaaltas f t004 7 2t rce ritt

' 7?

F L7t n7a l is;s 222s 'sur site titt ' sets M4

>:+r Isett I k ts ' es.c

~

l

sts j nis

t is 2?is ta il 26ts ra ts 23i6 21: s at te till 6:16 90s Dxt taba e A ( M7t '.

mti n*t s'ti 23it is t s 2:16 ' a sil 2316 27tl 3116 2116 Hib 605 tEsa t i th$ { ens t 9476 i

I

. Coutatts

? 41l tw I: 21:2 175:, 29.1 1L41 M7 l 1381 2:41 319?

2181 p.11 Pc7

\\

n1r tantalit LIR IIL

\\

Contatt!

847t8 til ettti t T= plt ? Pirattstet Alt FLpur, f!I a :t its4 is Scuatt D00170A AIA fletr.

(3) a:St st4 r8104'att hCDt FCR Mt&T 1810 10 IT!!L COttaltsatKT.

4a) atM trct ts 54 Watt actt tot atAT 1910 10 testatt! Orts.Atsa C FL0 ell (61 eC3f sta 411 AJetstsi Alm.

til 40$ll tb!C1, ter4 440 f t>C3 att Soutpant McEL Figu c Al Annulus Cooling System Thennal Model 3659-1 A.2

J i

6 h t y t. r 8 setList Liit.9 l

.t

.+e.

w

.t se.t gs s"e t."

s e*e.

... es os sei.

~,

u...

~

-nu E

u lit

,w y

3 u ii.

t

y, N

th

,N-15 L

m.

M. '('. M. ' ' "e,tw v.,?&g g

\\

f" V.. f..

nu.

I w.

u.

i.

f l ot t i s e vi l 8 Figure A2 Steel Nodes A.3

4 I

6huwtys gestg,g LEttes s ee.

8"-

_N

~ hS$g 33,g i

Met i.es s

.........,g g,,,

es

.s s g ges:

Ies.

- ~

m m

e.

=

sie.

- u.: i...

=

g-l'

~

/

0

./

=

g n.

-N

-/

3

~ w.c s.

,f...,

e

/

n.

.,..b y.

- l./

, ~..

/

.(

/j g

g

/

j,,, y g.... g....

n.

~.

sn.

II Af f ragg g ;

l l

l t

Fieure A3 h' odes 1301-2001 l

l i

A.4 i

L

e okkWLW5 C04Lgag he.

(

l Lassan l

\\

as es asu' l

=

I j

ass eg goi3 s

e es

........ og,g ggg3 a

OM.

e

'e

- - - MSE 3333 g!*

/

mo st area a

I f

t

~

\\/

1

"""""""= at 6 8 8433 l

GM.

/

M 6g sogg t-

hl l

%. 'N f

N'.

f

-SN,,h l ji

)

~

\\%;4.,

n.

/1 W

' ~.x t

,W -

l', ' /T

,F

~

- d W A-V, I

\\

l a.

a.

tsattneues>

l l

Figure A4 Nodes 1313-2013 A.5

6ttyLys g68 Lits Ll8Ett We8

,3lf a

gg g,

A M 68 telf

.e e

........ ag s g gpap as r.

-.---us

son,

)l m

m

/

=

- =

+4 878F

/

=

as a.

E M 61 8 elf w.,..,

u.

~.'. :NJ l

'4~.

/

l'

~~

/

~~ ~, s;.

~

.2

/

~

I<

a' r

l

~t, s

.,i, j1 K,

3

n. -_

"~~....,s..

TIME (50VR$)

t Figure A5 i

i I

i Nodes 1317-2017 A.6

6 t li k t v 1 gggggg6 bd-LESIh8 w

)

w.

~

m.

e

........ w a g

.W e

mia...

b

/

%,1 m

-- w.i...

S

/

a

/

w

..e.

M....i 6

3

.... - \\

l '74-

~

>~.

l u.c....

l p-i o

/

N.

e 7

~,m

~..

/

t DW Y.;%%

/

s l

/

a

.a f

I

\\

_..s',

M,,....

%g J'

pg,

~.

u.

W.

s.

so..

flatIaf WR8 3 Figure A6 No.ies 301-1001 A.7

e attWLW8 C00L!st Lttlet a.

m.

is a.

us.

as sg i,

/

a.

- - =

l l

/

.=

=...

. g..

IW-A.

======*.4 M I...

j r

,I

~

',-g s

~

,s

/

s

~

s.

m

.I

/

s'k I.* o< /

%~

r~

\\

r

' m.....

i y

(

--. 7...

I l

'i e

I uc.

I I

E f si e W t 8 7 r

Figure A7 Nc. des 304-1004 A.B

I attvtus c6 Lins LE8teC see.

mo st see 400 h

........ at e L 9ee en m

ee et see 1

e m,

=

N

.6L

.se

/

e

/

w st at see e"%

em 3q, L

j E

f r

te st ete es i

.s e-l se at tese j

He.

{ j

' r,s,

r l:

/,e i

'.~,s.*

s s

/

A 444

,s l

.."v l}A

-' / /

g g

N

~~ %

/

f. '

-...g

'l, y/ f' wS M.

w

-e==

l M.

SM.

B#e.

s ee,

s ee.

Tlagt uguas 3 1

l 1

l Figure A8 Nodes 309-1009 A.9

s it t w t u t C88Llh4 LE8th8

... iii w.i

.si

~

m-r,

...........ii

)

,.'s

......e

.ii 3

I e-..

a

s.

.e

.f

, q i

.g.

8%.

.*., s.\\

i o

(

-s

/

~

s

~.

~~. ~ N.

1 a

i x~

t' syg,

'a-

- f, ', fl-5 f'l;lt

/

/ / /,/~--.... J.

m.

j

~.q ii

. as' /

m.

i*.

sa.

~

t ngs m8vali 1

l Figure A9 Nodes 311 1011 j

l A.10

e attWLW5 C08Litt L181 0 w.t ist 89..

N

...i, h

........w.4 3i3 I **

e w

wec..

s

\\-

~

J

/

l x~,

w.i...

w.i

,is

~

/

i

/

f'

,s'

\\,-Wl l :

l / s~

/

j 7[-

l,1la i

i. } /

11 l-..'

f /*

i:

i.:4,/,

., _... 4.s/

1 l at t I u 8 W R 5 8 Figure A10 Nodes 312-1012 A.11

I I

l I

Stkytag ggggggg Lt8 tat e

as a.

M 98 48 Sat.

e

.e

........ eg og gg3

./

'h,

* *

Dett als f

= =. Mn F43 1

i,..

W f

- meet 883

~

'.\\.n...

n es, j

,/

- ~

Mn...

o

.. ~..-

-. ~ %

~

) /

/

~

i l

/

s

~

I I i.- ir< ~:%

. 'i, /

j /

1%

s ll,,, i /,f. *'

t

?

.I_ m.-

l

~.

sn.

TIME f aC WR13 Figure All Nottes 313-1M3 A.12

e e

48RWLUS CEtLitt t15t48 l

me t 3,.

a.

W*

........ M g g gg.

?

,0 n...

m.

\\

n...

-=

i

.e es.

~

j'

.h.

~

7 f

, ' g.

== i..

s

~

~.

t

/

~

l f

! '., ' ^,

~

,~

a' f'.i,' i,

Jr'" ~---~l-----...,,h.

4l.: ]'. u, /

. ~

i,'/

so.

.s,.

s.<.

T Im(t at W2 5 7 i

Figure A12 Nr. des 314-1014 I

I A.13

s o

48tWLW1 C66Litt

- e.

Lt8the M DS fil ed 88 ott e.

e

........ og 6 5 l89 es e

44 9.

=

. \\.

.... gegg gg,

/

an

/

I

-- M bt fl0 m.

f E

-f

,...--sg,'s

e >< ses E

tM.

l es 64 til y

b'..

es...,

r s..

l v

t

~

l s.

s e.,

l j

/

j^%

I';.,

1 1; y

~......**..... m..%

.----l. t /..

ye/

mt;,,,,g-----

s o..

e.

R

/ /A,,

M.

4.

94.

ee.

64 es.

IM.

480.

I te.

7istt me ya$ 1 i

t l

Figure A13 1

tiodes 315-1015 A.14

o AoPENDIX B TIEDS SODIUR-CDNCRETE PENETRATION MARGINS STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENTS.

The sodium-concrete penetration mar gins assessment case considers penetration rates of sodium into concrete of 7 inches per hcur f or 3. hours and I inc'h per hour thereaf ter.

The tenperature transients f or this case are shown in Figures 5 through 15.

The structural requi renents are.as f oi lows:

A.

Wal l liners in the Reactor Cavity to maintain integrity until bolidry time (50 hours5.787037e-4 days 0.0139 hours 8.267196e-5 weeks 1.9025e-5 months ).

Whil e this is not a base case TirDB requi renent, 'It e

is imposed here to preclude extrene penetration into the RC walls con' currently with extrene penetration into the flocr.

B.

Pipeway cell welI integrity to be maintained as f ollows:

WalI between RC and pipewey celi (double heated walI) - 50 hours5.787037e-4 days 0.0139 hours 8.267196e-5 weeks 1.9025e-5 months All others - 30 hours3.472222e-4 days 0.00833 hours 4.960317e-5 weeks 1.1415e-5 months C.

The Reactor Cav:ty fIocr and P1pewey Cet I fIocr to prevent sodium ieakage to Cel 1 105 untii bolI dry time.

D.

Contair. ment and Conf inement integrity to be maintained f or long term.

The structural assessments f or the sodium-concrete penetration margins assessment case include the Reactor Cavity, Pipeway Cells, and the Conf inement structure and containment shel l above the operati ng f locr.

The containment and conf inement bel ow 'he operating flocr are not subjected to any si gnif icant tenperatures in th9 short term, and long term ef fects are not expected to be dif ferent than the base case.

l The porpose of the structural essessments was to eval uate whether the struct ur es, as designed, can withsiend the irtposed conditions, and i f not, to t

j determine what rrodif ications would be necessary to accomplish that.

Due to the scoping nature of the work the assessments are based on s!rnpilfled l

computer model s and/or comparisons wIth the base case structural eval uations, the riaterici properties and criteria are as described in Appendix C.3 cf B.1 l

J

CR3RP-3 (Ref erence B1).

A brief senmary cf the eval uations is given bel ow.

REACTOR CAVIT( AND L INER The Reactor Cavity well above the floor is subjected to temperature transients (Figures 8 through 10) which are about the seme as in the base case, since the surf ace temperature is governed by the sodium boiling temperature which is independent of sodium-concrete penetration rate.

Integrity for the Reactor Cavity wall and liner in the base case has been demonstrated f or 50 hours5.787037e-4 days 0.0139 hours 8.267196e-5 weeks 1.9025e-5 months and longer, so the 50 hours5.787037e-4 days 0.0139 hours 8.267196e-5 weeks 1.9025e-5 months (boll dry time)

Integrity 'requi renent in the margins assessment case is met.

The Reactor Cavity floor liner is assumed to f all at the onset of the accident as in the base case.

The Reactor Cavity floor thermal transients of Fi gure B1 Indicate that 5.5 to 6.0 feet of concrete ~woul d be to al ly degraded by the penetration of sodium and heat and this would leeve only about 2 feet of concr ete to the f l oor f il l constructi on j oi nt (Fi gur e B2) which is not adequate to prevent sodium leakage through the construction joint.

Fur th er, if the sodium penetration extends radially into the wall, the base of the wel l woul d be undermined and l eakage to the adjacent cell 105 mi ght occur.

In order to meet the scenarlo requirenents it would be necessary to introduce modifications in the floor of the Reactor Cavity and the junctica with the wall.

The basic modif ications, in the cenceptual stage, consist of the f ol lowing (Fi gure B3):

1 A.

The wall liner wcul d be extended to 6.5 feet into the structural concr ete.

B.

The construction joint at Elevation 733 would be eliminated and the f loor retar rearranged.

C.

Prcvide a desi gn f eature cr. the RC floor near the wall te inhibit the de' ris to the region of the floor vall junction.

spreading of the f uel u

B. 2

Eval uations were perf ormed to determine the adequacy of the concrete bel ow the reactor cavity floor under the temperature transient at boil dry time (50 hours5.787037e-4 days 0.0139 hours 8.267196e-5 weeks 1.9025e-5 months ),

in these eval uations the undergraded portion of the floor was represented by the axisymmetric restrained section in Figure 84 and the stress analysis w:s perf ormed using elastic procedures and the computer progran ANSYS (Ref erence B2). The behe/ lor was bracketed by two extrene conditions of no racial restraint and f ull radial restraint.

Capacity cal culations were perf ormed using the computer progran b?HI (Ref erence B3).

The results of the analyses demonstrate that the floor can withstand the imposed temperatures with suf ficient margin.

PI FEW AY CE'LL W ALLS

!n the base case, integrity for the wall and I iner between the Reactor Cavity and the pipeway cel l s has been demonstrated f or 70 hours8.101852e-4 days 0.0194 hours 1.157407e-4 weeks 2.6635e-5 months .

For the penetration margins assessment case, the wall liner'Is subjected to the same temperatures es in the base case and the concrete wall at boll dry (50 hours5.787037e-4 days 0.0139 hours 8.267196e-5 weeks 1.9025e-5 months ) is subjected to tenperatures which are 1 ower than the base case 70 hour8.101852e-4 days 0.0194 hours 1.157407e-4 weeks 2.6635e-5 months tenperature (Fi gure B5),

it may be concl uded that this concrete wall and wal l l iner meet the. margin assessment case requi renents, in the base case, i nt egr ity of th e pi peway cel l wal l s and wal l liners (other than the Iiner between the RC and the pipeway cell) has been demonstrated f or 40 hours4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months , at which t!me the liners may fail, but collapse of the walls is not expected until af ter the 133 hour0.00154 days 0.0369 hours 2.199074e-4 weeks 5.06065e-5 months sodium boil dry time.

In the penetration margins assessment case, the wall liners are subjected to the same tcmperatures as in the base case.

A canperison of the penetration margins assessment case trarsient with the base case transient (Figure B6) Indi ca tes that the pipeway cel i wel l tenperatures at 30 hours3.472222e-4 days 0.00833 hours 4.960317e-5 weeks 1.1415e-5 months are sanewhat l ower than the 40 hour4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months base case transients, it may be concl uded f rom this that the pi peway cel l liners meet the penetration margin assessment requirenents.

{

Eecause of the much shorter boil dry time, the well tenperatures are less severe at boil dry (53 hours6.134259e-4 days 0.0147 hours 8.763227e-5 weeks 2.01665e-5 months ) in the margins assessment case, so that the concrete wal l s al so meet the requirenents f or the penetration mergins assessnent case.

l I

B. 3

e Pl PEW AY CEL L FLOC.R AND L IN ER The penetration margins assessment case considers that the pipeway cell floor eg>eriences the same penetration rate in the reaction as the reactor cavity so there i s substanti al sodi um penetrati on.,

Ir. order to accommodate the tenperature transients it is necessary to introduce the following nodi f ications to the present desi gn (Fi gure B7):

A.

Provide a second layer of insulating concrete bel ow the second liner.

B.

Increase the thickness of the floor by the thickness of the second

~

l ayer of insulating concrete (lower bottcm).

With the above modifications the temperature transient at 50 hours5.787037e-4 days 0.0139 hours 8.267196e-5 weeks 1.9025e-5 months is as shown i n Fi gure 58.

Scoping computer analysis was performed using the programs ANSYS and MPHI, with the floor represented by a restrained section similar to that of the Reactor Cavity floor model descri bed earl ter., The results of this analysis Indicate that structural integrity of the modified floor woul d be maintained and leakage to Cell 105 would be prevented f or at least 50 hours5.787037e-4 days 0.0139 hours 8.267196e-5 weeks 1.9025e-5 months as required.

CONFINEMENT STRUCTURE An eval uation was perf ormed to determine whether ihe conf inenent structure coul d sustain the thermal transients of Appendix A with the same annulus cool ing as in the base case.

The eval uation cons!sted of computer analysis using simplif ied model s and comparisons with the base case eval uation descri bed i n Ref erence B1.

Speci f ical ly, analysis was perf ormed usi ng the

. computer program ANSYS and model s of restrained sections simil ar to that shown'in Figure B4 for the RC floor to cal culate the thermal manents and f orces at various l evel s.

These val ues were tisen adjusted based on the results f rom the base case which considered both restrained sections and the f ul l structure anu were compared to al lowables f rom the progran MPHl.

The results indicate that f or the 50 hour5.787037e-4 days 0.0139 hours 8.267196e-5 weeks 1.9025e-5 months transients integrity will be maintained.

The results al so Indicate that the worst conditions, f rcm the B.4

si. uc' eral stendpoi nt, occur at 50 hours5.787037e-4 days 0.0139 hours 8.267196e-5 weeks 1.9025e-5 months or eerl f er.

As shown in Appendix A, the tenperatures cecrease af ter the 50 hour5.787037e-4 days 0.0139 hours 8.267196e-5 weeks 1.9025e-5 months sodium boil dry time.

CONTAIN!ENT STEEL SHELL

.1 The tenperature transients in the steel shell are shown in Appendix A, with the ar.nul us cool ing activated at 10 hours1.157407e-4 days 0.00278 hours 1.653439e-5 weeks 3.805e-6 months .

The peak tenperatures prior to venting (when the peak pressure of 18.7 psig occurred) were about 6000F.

Ref erence B1 gives a pressure capability of the~ steel shell' of over 34 psig at 6000F so there is no significant threat to the steel shell as a result of the penetration margins assessment case.

Al so, the peak tunperature at the steel shel I-grade I evel intersection was ebout 170cF, welI below the 240oF critical tiuckling tenperature of Ref erence 81.

It is concl uded that the 1

mar 5 as assessment case does not present a significant challenge tc the steel shelI.

REFEFENCES El CRBR?-3, Vol ume 2, Assessment of Thermal Margin Beyond the Design Base E2 Co.puter Progran ANSYS, Revision 3, Swenson Analysi s Systens Inc.,

E0uston, PennsyIvania 1

B3 Ccaputer Progran f' PHI, Burns and Roe, Inc., Oradel1, fu B.5

~

1800.

N 1600 1400

\\

s s

O 1200

.ac:ob 1000

$u

~

i;5 660 e

k30EOURS 50 EOURS (Boil Dry) 600 400

\\

200

\\s --- --

e i

0 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 DISTANCE TRCM TOP OF T1.00R, IN.

FIGURE B1 F.EACTOR CAVITY P 00R - TIMPERAILAI TF.AysIINTS B.6

-w--,

v s

t d

T s;3.,

. T.s. c.

v._

CON C..T.T. v..

d d

Y 40B" t.

i

/

r~

1 740

/

-l a

/

~

l

.c

[

ji

[

LL.

/JJ C,..

s.,, a

.3 :.s.._

.,. _. O.,

4

.n t

. :.. :au a

)

2 L CONST. JT EL. 730 7

.,o y

CONTAINFIST LISER l

p

- T C J.o:- B2 x_

SICTION

.I.,CTCR CAVITY AMD *.!ALL C'J?_?_r5T DESIGN 2.ND EXTENT OF Na PENITRATION l

PENETRATION MARGIN ASSESSMENT B.7

n

'r

~

s

/8" 3/A" STEEL I.IN79

. X STEEL s

' LINER e

i' 4

I O

e x

INSULATING CONCRETE TOP OF FLCOR EL. 740'-8" x

k rm, 1,

s 1

x n

5

}

l Lm l

b 4,.

x y

c s.

+

~<

g s

A b

s

\\ ~ '

s

\\

.[

EL. 733' q i

D 7

I y..

s s

s 1

o f/ 73 o 7

.l

\\

^

t L d~m ':.1inneyil4mb i

FIGURE B3 SECTION - RIA.CTOR CAVITY FLOOR.u'D ***ALL MODIFIID DESIGN l

l l

B.8 IL

O e

9 e

l S

VenEs 7 tor' fate

/

m / < > >,/,,

l o

e h

t.

i il b

t 8i Dy O

4 v

v p

('%. d'o gt.

V em-d

%i Y

(Jfer /

O qv s

O 1

theiti <s<<,'

LEd. 7.5'o. o

^

/2 "

9 FIGUPI B4 AXISYPSITRICAL MODEL FOR RC FLOOR I

(

B.9

I e

REACTOR CAY!TY PIPEWAY CELL DOUBLE HEATED WALL

[ NOTE: Margin Assessment Case Trarisients unless otherwise noted]

tec0 r

nsco.

J Y

f N

taco.

I l

12c0 mu 0

i i

a i

L o accc.

a 1

.o Lu 1,

CL

li E

L 1

o ecc.

H I::

1

.' i soo.

^!

\\.

/ To es s 4.sc c4sc sco-

/

/,

.i

[ss s? %

x

/--h'..< f

/

'9

-.-~

.y.' ~~~m-_

jA-

~ _

,e,.

' '- 1.9. *. ~..

l o.

0.C 0.9 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.9 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 DISTANCE (FT)

Figure B5 B.10

P]PEWAY CELL OUTSIDE WALLS-9 FT. THICK 1 SCC.

I t=CO.

I i.

1200.

\\

)

n

-14 i)

ICCD.

gg gg3 A4:C CAJC

{

B

.s E

/i 400.

a I

E-5

\\

- 50 v4s

~

.c

- :g 80 h4s

. :, c.

t,w

'. 'b \\

',h. 'R3./-.

!.go ax,

-CC.

e s'%

s e%.

'.r

'&s

. o.,+4,- N vs o y,, f 'm'" KG.,

~..'_'. ~.~} '~. - _ - g - _ -

_g_.

5, O

o.o o.6 e.8 1.2 1.6 2.c 2.a 2.s 3.2 3.6

..o DISTANCE (FT)

Penetration Margins Assessment NOTE:

Transients unless noted other.ise FIGURE B5 P1Fr.*AY CELL WALL TEMPERATURES - PENETRATIO 1 l'.ARGlHS ASSESSMENT c:D EASE CASE B.11'

i g

1 3/8" FLOATIllG LIrlER 3/8" LINER 58 11

\\

-l %

~

{g l f

r u

IllSilLATIllG

=

INSUI.ATING 2

COriCRETE 7

i CONCitETE (l'EllLITE)

Q (l'Elt!.ITE) hl 1/4" FIXED LINER g 1/4" LINER]

1,

/

W

/

x z

i

/

c' f

INSULATING s

M CONCRETE g

)

q g

(l'ERLITE)

S N'

h PRESENT DESIGN

_1 MODIFIED DESIGN e

FIGURE B7 PIPEWAY CEI.L FI.00R CROSS SECTION

O 1

e 0

.. o I

I I

4 i

y..e., a. -'aN. G C'"CI:".a:.

v w

S ECC'~D L. n..

s 2000 7

,cn

--w0 e.

c

,eC" -

=.

6a a

=

SCO 1

l.00 1

i 9

i i

20 30 40 50 60 7C DISTANCE FICM. TOP OF FT.OOR, IN.

FIGUF2 B3

\\

., : :.... s C..: - 1.

uC.a.1 1..: :,,,.1.

.,nh. c. hT 5 r

e c.

s.

.1 :.

B.13

__

ML20083M727

Text

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search