ML20087L487

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards non-proprietary Handouts from 950821-22 NRC-ACRS-GE Meeting in San Jose,Ca
ML20087L487
Person / Time
Site: 05200004
Issue date: 08/22/1995
From: Quinn J
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To: Quay T
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned), NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
ACRS-GENERAL, MFN-165-95, NUDOCS 9508250285
Download: ML20087L487 (120)
v • d • e


Text

rc j

1 i-GENuclearEnergy k165 San Jose. CA 95125-1014

^ LMR

$B P

$C von 408 9251005 (phone) 408 925-3991 (facsimile) l August 22,1995 MFN 165-95 L

Docket STN 52-004 Document Control Desk U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Attention: Theodore E. Quay, Director.

Standardization Project Directorate

Subject:

SBWR - Non-Proprietary Handouts From August 21 & 22,1995 NRC-ACRS-GE Meeting In San Jose, CA Enclosed are the non-proprietary handouts presented by GE during the August 21 and 22, 1995 NRC-ACRS-GE Meeting in San Jose, CA.

S y-

/,/

ne f inn, Pr s Manager

Enclosure:

Non-Proprietary Handouts From August 21 & 22,1995 NRC-ACRS-GE Meeting In San Jose, CA cc:

P. A. Boehnert (NRC/ACRS) (2 paper copies w/ encl. plus E-Mail w/ encl.)

I. Catton (ACRS)

(1 paper copy w/ encl. plus E-Mail w/ encl.)

S. Q. Ninh (NRC)

(2 paper copies w/ encl. plus E-Mail w/ encl.)

J. H. Wilson (NRC)

(1 paper copy w/ encl. plus E-Mail w/ encl.)

a

.?-

c --

t

~., V U <. J

)

1 av0' 9508250285 950822 PDR ADOCK 0520 4

U I

l

O GENuclear Energy 4

SBWR GE/NRC/ DOE /EPRI - Conisinment Meeting PANTHERS /PCC TestResults Containment TRACG Analysis GIRAFFE TestIssues August 21 & 22,1995

Participants Name Agency Phone A. Drozd NRC 301-415-J. Kudrick NRC 301-415-S. Ninh NRC 301-415-1125 E.Condon DOE 301-903-K. Vijaijan DOE T. Mulford EPRI 415-855-T. Fernandez EPRI 415-855-J. Quinn GE 408-925-1005 l

1 R. Buchholz GE 408-925-4584

l l

Participants, continued Name Agency Phone P. F. Billig GE 408-925-1388 J.D.Duncan GE 408-925-6947 J. R. Fitch GE 408-925-6148 B. S. Shiralkar GE 408-925-6889 M. Herzog GE 408-925-1921 H. A. Upton GE 408-925-1474 J. L Thompson GE 408-925-1798 R. E. Gamble GE 408-925-3352 J. E. Torbeck GE 408-92506101 t

G. A. Wingate GE 408-925-1073

4 i

Participants, continued Name Agency Phone J. E. Leatherman GE 408-925-2023 K. T. Schaefer GE 408-925-2443 P. Novak GE 408-925-N. Barkley GE 408-925-F. Hatch GE 408-925-4

~

Arrangements Meeting location (August 21 & 22,1995):

GENuclearEnergy 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California Building J Room J1010 Contacts:

John Leatherman 408-925-2023 Kurt Schaefer 408-925-2443 t

9 I

Agenda i

Monday morning, August 21,1995, Room J1010 8:30

Introductions

1 8:45 Discussion on of any deviations in the PANTh:3S/PCC testmatrix PFB(JRF/BSS/ JET) 9:15 Tests review:PFB(JRF/BSS/ JET)

Instrumentation: location, calibration and failures (ifany)

Data processing and storage Presentation of results:

applicability of SBWR transient analysis helium testresults:results and discussion 11:45 Lunch (GE Cafeteria)

- s--

L Agenda i

l Monday afternoon, August 21,1995, Room J1010 12:45 Discussion ofplanned objectives and achieved goals with respect to TRACG qualification and the SBWR l

certification process JRF(BSS/ JET) 4 comparison with 1-tube correlation TRACG calculations and comparisons 4:00 Review / collect Open Items from first day JDD 5:00 End of first day of the meeting I

i

.. -e s

,-e,.-e w

--r--

.m e-v n

i

\\

Agenda l

Tuesday morning, August 22,1995, Room J1010 8:30 Comments / clarifications of first day of meeting JDD u

8:45 Continuation of discussion of PANTHERS /PCC results PFB(JRF/BSS/ JET) 10:00 GIRAFFE audit / inspection follow-up discussion MH(PN/NB/ JET)

VB cycling Effect of microheaters Results of the lighter than air tests and in particular, the air samples from the four tests, and whether the VB actuated 4

11:45 Lunch (GE Cafeteria)

4 Agenda Tuesday afternoon, August 22,1995, Room J1010 12:45 Status of the SBWR vacuum breakerissue HAU(JLT) 1:30 Discussion ofscaling: REG (BSS)

GIRAFFE (core power, heat losses, PCC sizing)

PANDA (general) 3:00 Break 3:30 Review of open issues from the two days of meetings JDD 5:00 End ofmeeting

O GE Nuclear Energy NRC Meeting on Containment Analysis PANTHERS Goals with respect to TRACG Qualification 4

B. S. Shiralkar August 21,1995

l PANTHERS Test Objectives 1

  • Demonstrate that prototype PCC heat exchanger meets design requirements for heat rejection
  • Provide qualification database for TRACG for quasi-steady heat rejection performance of a prototype heat exchanger

- PCC flow / pressure drop (PC1)

- Condensation heat transfer on primary side including effects of noncondensibles (PC2) l

- Secondary side heat transfer (PC3) i 1

- Parallel tube effects (PC4)

- Parallel module effects (PC5)

  • Determine and quantify differences between lighter-than-steam and heavier-than-steam noncondensibles Test Objectives Met

}

e

. m

.m e

-r

..~,

TRACG Qualification Objectives

  • PCC pressure drop

- TRACG predictions slightly high (conservative)

  • PCC Heat Transfer

- TRACG predictions conservative on total heat transfer by ~15%

- Evaluating improved correlations Kuhn (UCB) correlation for condensing side Forster-Zuber pool boiling for pool side

  • Noncondensible buildup with vent closed

- Higher concentration in tubes for nitrogen (conservative)

- Lower concentration in tubes for helium (nonconservative)

\\

  • Parallel tube and module effects

- Not significant with air I

- Present with helium (vent closed)

Nitrogen data predicted conservatively 1

Helium data needs to be bounded i

1

G

'GE Nuclear Energy PANTHERS-PCC Test Program i

Paul F. Billig SBWR Test Operations and Analysis l

i i

Presentation to NRC on l

August 21,1995 I

filename: nrc8-21

Outline Morning Topics - PANTHERS /PCC Testing Test Matrix

- Instrumentation

- Data Processing and Storage Test Results

  • Steady-State Tests

- Water Level

- Non-condensable Gas Buildup

- Applicability of PANTHERS /PCC to SBWR Afternoon Topics - PANTHERS /PCC Analyses TRACG Calculations and Comparisons Discussion PANTHERS-PCC

"k f

Test Matrix Presented in TAPD (NEDO-32391, Rev. B), Tables A.3-2a-d and A.3-25, and T/H Data Report (SIET 00393RP95, Rev. 0)

AII thermal-hydraulic tests completed (Table A.3-2a-d)

- 97 steady-state tests 11 transient tests Some structural tests deferred (Table A.3-25)

LOCA cycles completed - 10 cycles

- Pneumatic tests deferred

  • Ansaldo to review structural results and decide if tests necessary -

may be bound by large number of performance tests

  • Ansaldo redesign of header covers to prevent leakage

- Remaining tests may be necessary for final component qualification but not SBWR certification PANTHERS-PCC ll,5

=

w

Instrumentation Types and location of allinstruments described in Test Plan

& Procedures (SIET 00098PP91, Rev.1) and Test Specification for IC & PCC Instrument Installation (SIET 00157ST92, Rev.1)

Types and location of thermal-hydraulic instruments repeatedin T/H Data Report

- Appendix A:

Instrument List

- Appendix B:

Modified Instruments Calibrations performed by SIET

- Laboratory certified to calibrate instruments Conform to standards traceable to Italian equivalent of U S. National Bureau of Standards Calibration records available on site PANTHERS-PCC f' *l,,

Instrumentation icontinuedj Instrumentation Failures Given in Apparent Test Results for each test

- Most problems related to some structural instruments One tube inner waH thermal-couple never worked (DTWB011)

- No failure of critical instruments (see TP&P, Section 13.3 for list) 4 PANTHERS-PCC f' "',

4 Data Processing and Storage

\\

Data Tape Format described in T/H Data Report, Appendix E

- Files include both directly acquired signals and derived quantities

- Instrument name included for direct signals

- Measurement name for derived quantities defined in Appendix E

- Additional files give constants for derived quantities, instrument zeroes and historical data

- AII files are in ASCll format Data Storage

- AII data stored on 4 mm 120 Mbyte tapes Original tapes are at SIET Copy sent to NRC with T/H Data Report

- Data also stored on GE VAX computer in San Jose 1

PANTHERS-PCC llg5

\\

l

~

Test Results (Steady-state testsj Tabulated in T/H Data Report (Tables 7.1 - 7.6)

Shown in Data Analysis Report (Figures 3.1 - 3.15i Saturated Steam Tests Heat removal vs. inlet pressure is linear Intercept (no condensation) corresponds to saturated conditions in pool Superheated Steam Tests

- Results similar to saturated tests

- Except at high flow, steam desuperheats in riser and upper header PANTHERS-PCC f'%,

Test Results (Steady-state tests, continuedt Saturated Steam / air Tests

- Provides broad database to characterize PCC at various steam / air mixtures Tests at same gas fractions and various inlet pressures

- Smooth transition to complete condensation at high pressures

  • Heat rejection rate tends to asymptote at higher pressures
  • Limit = energy to condense steam and subcool to pool temperature
  • Heat transfer declines in lower tube region

- Increase in air concentration => decrease in condensation Superheated Steam / air Tests

- Results similar to saturated tests

- More than 50% of superheat lost in riser

\\

PANTHERS-PCC f,

Test Results (Transient tests)

Shown in T/H Data Report (Figures 7.2 - 7.16) and Data Analysis Report (Figures 3.16 - 3.37)

Water Level

- Demonstrates change in condenser performance versus pool water level

- Performance linproves as levellowers to top of tubes

  • Less head => cooler pool Performance decreases as tubes uncover
  • Less heat transfer surface => higher pressure needed to maintain condensation
  • Beyond design basis conditions

- SBWR water sufficient to keep tubes covered at least 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />

- Demonstrates margin in system design PANTHERS-PCC

(",k I

Test Results (Transient tests, continued)

Non-condensable Gas Buildup (Air, Helium, & Air /Heliura)

- Steam start with vent closed and specified steam flow

  • condensation induced flow Pressure rises as gas accumulates in PCC and vent line AirInjection Tests Gas builds up in vent line, lower header, and lower tube region Temperatures in lower regions approach pool temperatures

- Eventually all condensation occurs in top of tubes PANTHERS-PCC

$" ll, 1

i l

Test Results ITransient tests, continuedj Helium Injection Tests

- Performance differs from air tests

  • Helium remains in PCC unlike air tests
  • Buoyancy prevents accumulation in lower regions Temperatures in various regions indicate wide dispersal of helium
  • Greater condensation occurs in lower than upper tube regions
  • Nonsymmetric temperature distribution within headers and between headers

- Significantly less gas needed to degrade condenser performance

  • No large accumulation in vent line and lower headers
  • Higher accumulation within tubes PANTHERS-PCC
' l,,'

Test Results (Transient tests, continuedj Air / helium Injection Tests

- Performance more similar to helium tests

  • Gases remain in PCC Temperatures in various regions indicate wide dispersal of helium
  • Nonsymmetric temperature distribution within headers and between headers Condensation in tubes vary
  • Some tubes show little condensation near end of transient
  • One tube shows condensation along complete tube
  • One tube shows less condensation at bottom of tube

- Little gas needed to degrade condenser performance

  • Some accumulation in vent line and headers PANTHERS-PCC f' ", ,

e Test Results - Conclusions PANTHERS /PCC achieved thermal-hydraulic test objectives

- PCC condenses steam at design conditions PCC able to vent non-condensable gases

- PCC performance is well behaved Large database available for TRACG code qualification

- Steady-state tests at broad range of steam and air flows Transient performance at various pool water levels Transient performance with gas buildup Lighter-than-steam gas behaves differently than heavier-than-steam gas Buoyancy overcomes downward flow under condensation induced flow conditions Tests measure differences in condenser thermal-hydraulic performance i

PANTHERS-PCC M '3

Applicability of PANTHERS /PCC to SBWR TAPD, Sec. A.3.1.1.4 and Fig. A.3-3 describe PCC operational modes and applicability of PANTHERS-PCC data i

Two main operating modes of PCC i

- Pressure Drop Driven Mode

  • PCC capacityS_ core decay heat
  • PCC flow is forced by DW/WW dP Condensation Pressure Driven Mode
  • PCC capacity 2 core decay heat
  • Flow induced DW to PCC dP due to condensation PCC tests capture both modes PANTHERS-PCC

I\\!

1l l

,i.jl

!1

.Fg ggm c;g cy$ e$eg V

a5 eay 8jgEOU t tne et l

Vu l,

l"l I

I I

i i i

l l

- I j

l I

C O d

C a

P e

h t

r n ee tav Wi -

n sn s

I I

I l l[i l

I e

e n

p o

o is e

r sl c oa e

l of e

k r

r a

pPu e

p S

d t

s s

S r

u b

a le le m

o e

b b

u n

h a

a u

o a

n n

a t

h y

s s

c i

a i

M t

d c

e e

v e

d d

no p

t d

n n

i c

o o

m w

w

=

c c

h o

l ty i

n n

e c

o o

lo l

r F

u f

a n

n p

d d

s m

Ht a

x s

a e

e e

u I

le g

c c

c p

m 1

l l

,i g

l I

Ct n

n r

u C

d d

w i

C O o

u u

x P

l C

e e

o A

o a

P R

R L

M e

i c

t n

a a

hh3 hh ts r

i D

e p

x Ht e O

I l

I 1 _

f_

]

I g

I Cl n Ci P

C C

P g

n3U 3:

l le t

w n

o mr e e x

t V c E

u in y

e e

r 3

n k o D

n u ap t

Ae n9 c

et Cg e

ar e Or e

VBS C

e A

C L m C

P

[g pb o u T S S

R g

2@ mea $[$53-yeJ H

E F

i T

F 28m2a.w $ g 2*mo Ce3*6' N

AP

)

,?

Applicability to SBWR (continued)

Both PCC operational modes represented by PANTHERS Pressure Drop Driven Mode

- Steady-state steam / air mixture tests model this behavior Test T23 captures high pressure drop through system similar to early blowdown when main vents are open Test T9 captures range of conditions with flow through PCC but not main vent Test T2 demonstrates conditions near crossover to condensation mode Condensation Pressure Driven Mode

- Steam only and gas injection tests model this behavior

- Spectacle flange on vent pipe simulates pipe submergence in S/P Steam only tests (T41, T43) show operation with allR/C gases purged Injection tests of air (T51), helium (T76), and air / helium (T78) demonstrate performance with gases trapped in Hx PANTHERS-PCC Q;,

Applicability to SBWR - Conclusions PANTHERS /PCC performance models SBWR PCC performance Tests capture both pressure drop driven and condensation pressure driven modes Steady-state tests cover range of steam / air fractions for SBWR Transient tests demonstrate condensation pressure driven flows both with and without the presence of non-condensable gases in the PCC SBWR integrated systems tests (PANDA and GIRAFFE) complete the qualification database by demonstrating system performance PANTHERS-PCC f %',

O t

GENuclearEnergy l

PANTHERS-PCC Post-Test Analysis ByJim Fitch NRC/GE Meeting San Jose, Ca.

August 21,1995

Outline e Objectives ofpost-test evaluation i

e TRACG model of PANTHERS-PCC test facility e Correlations used by TRACG e Testsselectedforpost-testevaluation e Results of post-test evaluation (work in progress)

+ SSpuresteam tests i

+ SSsteam/airtests l

+ Transient tests with noncondensable injection i

. e Application for containment transient analysis e Containment analysis forlightgas e Summaryandconclusions

t Objectives ofpost-test evaluation e Evaluate applicability of TRACG correlations for calculation of PCC performance

+ tube side

+ poolside e Evaluate applicability of " lumped-tube" input model of PCC for use in containment system analysis.

+ paraIIelmodule effects

+ paraIIeltube effects e Evaluate capability of codelinput model to distinguish distributional effects of gases which are lighter and heavier than steam

~

5 4 9L FR/2 J8

)e e

r d

ts ttxy e

r I-f p

pm D

n Si t r

(A k

a t

o t

re V

jq3,iI

(

4_

J I l C

1_ I_

j C

g 7 ~_ "

2_

o i <

l 1

P g

-~

S e

-~

R n

E 4

-~

E n

d H

%mkJ T

N o

o A

mn ia P

nt -

f e

o o

h C

t

)H l

te e

ln d

I

' f i

o Q

m G

C AR T

Correlations usedby TRACG e Correlations are builtinto the code e Condensation heat transfer on tube side is calculated using the "Tsukuba" correlation. Function of:

+ condensate film Re number

+ vaporstream Re number

+ noncondensable gas mass fraction e Nucleate boiling heat transfer on poolside is calculated using the Chen correlation e Correlations are applied on a local (notintegral) basis e There are no plans to develop special " multi-tube" correlations for SBWR containment analyses

Correlations usedby TRACG e University condensation heat transfer data vs SBWR PCC operating range 6

s 5

a O

y 4-

, Siddique OD c5 5

3 0

O d

Vierow 3

x D g a

3 2

a a

+

a o

O 9

x 1

/

4.%

0 3 Y,

O XX X

J Oa O

x x

0 2

4 6

8 10 12 14 16 18 20

^

Steam Mass Flow (kg/sec)

JRFG Br2L95

)

ms Tests forpost-test evaluation e " Checks" indicate resuits for today's meeting l

Test Test Type Data Comparison Number 41 /

SS - pure steam inlet pressure 43 /

SS - pure steam inlet pressure 49 /

SS - pure steam inlet pressure 9/

SS - steam / air heat rejection rate, Ap 15 /

SS - steam / air heat rejection rate, Ap 18 /

SS - steam / air heat rejection rate, Ap 23 /

SS - steam / air heat rejection rate, Ap 2

SS - steam / air heat rejection rate, Ap 17 SS - steam / air heat rejection rate, Ap 19 SS - steam / air heat rejection rate, Ap 22 SS - steam / air heat rejection rate, Ap 35 SS - steam / air heat rejection rate, Ap 51 /

TR-nc buildup inlet pressure vs airinventory 76 /

TR - nc buildup inlet pressure vs helium inventory 1

- 78 /

TR - nc buildup inlet pressure vs air / helium inventory i

55 TR - water level inlet pressure vs water level f

JRFT 8/2t95

Steady-state pure-steam tests e TRACG underpredicts heat rejection rate at a given inlet pressure by 35-40%

e Use of a standardpoolboiling correlation on the poolside and the Kuhn correlation on the tube side reduces the underprediction to 15-20%

e The applicability of the poolboiling and Kuhn correlations is supported by the PANTHERS waII temperature data e The remaining discrepancy between test and calculation may be associated with the lowerpool temperature in the tests vs the calculations (100 oC vs 104 oC) 1

=

Steady-state steam /airtests TFST CONDITIONS Test No.

Steam Flow Air Flow Air Mass Inlet Inlet (kg/sec)

(kg/sec)

Fmetion Pressure Temperature

-(kPa)

('C) 9 4.96-5.00 0.076-0.077 0.015 296 - 782 142 - 174 15 5.00 - 5.10 0.165-0.167

-0.032 300 - 790 140 -176

~

l8 4.99 - 5.02 0.40 0.073-0.074 284 - 641 135 - 165 2'

4.97 - 5.03 0.85 - 0.87 0.146-0.148 298-584 135 - 160

Steady-state steam /airtests e Heat rejection rato for given air flow, steam flow, and inlet pressure is generally underatedicted by 15-20%

e Pressure loss is overpredicted by a comparable amount e Heat rejection rate and pressure loss are related because less heat rejection means higher flow rate in the vent e Data trends with varying inlet pressure at fixed inlet flows are weII l

represented e Results are less sensitive to pool-side h than pure steam because of large degradation on tube-side h t

e It is expected that the comparisons would be improved by use of Forster-Zuber and Kuhn in place of the present correlations.

y Application to SBWR transient analysis e PCC iniet conditions varysiowiy with time BDLB 0.5 50.4 5

2 E 0.3 m

z y 0.2 l purging period l Q- 0.1 0.0 0

2 4

6 8

10 12 14 16 18 20

-Time (1E3 sec)

Application to SBWR transient analysis e Consider the length of time it takes to " fill" the condenser vs the time scale of a significant change in the inlet conditions.

e For BDLB PCCS purge requires about one hour whereas condenser fill time is on the order of 6 seconds.

e Condenser adjusts to changing inlet conditions on a much shorter time scale than that over which the conditions are changing.

e

Conclusion:

development and validation of correlations based on steady-state data is adequate for application to SBWR transient performance.

e Integralsystems tests willprovide finalconfirmation.

%E

l Transient tests e Vent closed atspectacle flange e Steady-state established forpure steam at 5 kg/sec (like Test 41_1) i e Noncondensable gas injected untilinlet pressure reached 790 kPa e Test 51: Airinjected at a nominal flow rate of 4.3 g/sec for about 2 hrs (Finalinventory = 28.6 kg) i e Test 76: He injected at a nominal flow rate of 0.7 g/sec for about 40 min (Finalinventory = 1.45 kg)

=

s e Test 78: Air /He in a 4:1 mass ratio injected at a nominal flow rate of 5.5 g/sec for about 20 min (Finalinventory = 5.8 kg) e Test and analysis results plotted as inletpressure vs accumulated noncondensableinventory l

n2s 8f2V95 l

N Transienttests e Results of comparisons between TRACG and PANTHERS for air and helium injection can be explained.

e Air tends to settle at the bottom (Iowerportion of tubes, lower headers, drain line above water level, and vent line above flange) e PANTHERS facility coIIects more airin the vent pipe because of heat loss which is notincludedin the TRACG model.

e Helium tends to move upward throughout the condenser.

e TRACG cannot predict the upward movement of the helium, at Iest not with a one-tube model.

l I

i t

l l

l l

OE

9 j

i Containmentbehaviorforlightgas e Conditions tested at PANTHERS are only applicable to performance with vent closed.

1 4

e In SBWR application, any degradation in performance will force the vent to open.

e Gas purging via open vent will dominate over distributional effects within condenser.

e PANTHERS /TRACG comparison indicates TRACG cannotpredict

?

details oflight-gas distribution in a " dead-end" condenser with a one-tube model.

e GIRAFFE tests will confirm there is no adverse effect of a light gas

)

on integratedsystem performance.

e Bounding calculations can be used to evaluate the 100% M-W reaction case.

i

!!",s

I l!

\\l1)i{l 1 5 39 F t 2

Rf JB 05 5

4 0

4 d

e d

t a

n 5

3 r

w g

n d

e e

e p

r d

o iu 0

o q

s 3

t e /

r i

e

)

c t

c e

o e

n g.

n s

c e

s r

g 3

a n

e i

in f

5 E f

a B

d g

2 1

g r

(

m L

e u

e r

p t

r S

u m

h o

M s

i s

T g

f e

r r

0 i

p 2

l e

r p

o r

f, f

e v

5 r

e d

1 o

n ir e

i e

u v

q h

e a

w r

0 1

g h

ig n

e s

b n

u p

e t

p 5

n o

e t

m n

e n

v 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

ia C

4 3

2 1

1 t

C n

P gxij o

C e

lll

4 Summaryandconclusions e Significant progress in post-test analyses of PANTHERS PCC data

+ 3/3 steady-state pure steam tests analyzed

+ 4/9 steady-state steamlair tests analyzed

+ 3/4 transient tests analyzed e Calculations are conservative forpure steam and steam / air tests

+ Heat rejection rate underpredicted by 35-40% forpure steam and 15-20% forsteam/airtests

+ Data trends captured e Need for modified correlations indicated

+ Forster-Zuber(pooiboiling)onpoolside

+ Kuhn (UCB) on tube side e Need to supplement TRACG with bounding calculation for evaluation of100% M-Wreaction case

Meeting Goals Scaling supports certification test data use Insulation decision re: Panda correct Panthers PCC TAPD objective met Giraffe Audit / SIT test #/ scope satisfactory

- No VB cycling acceptable

- Microheater effect; noncondensible meas.

l VB single failure criteria concerns ofXRC understood-approach to resolution agreed

Meeting Goals eden 9F GE AuDtT.

l Panda QA items from 1EfN4 resolved Test Data representative of SBWR; useable in Certification /TRACG qualification TRACG Containment Analysis Roadmap

)!

D GIRAFFE Helium Tests Test Facility Description 4

Test Objectives Test Initia. Concitions Test Procedures Presentation Goa. s Vacuum Breaxer cyc..ing, Effect of Microheaters Test Resu..ts 4

.n

--.w.-.-

< -.,, _,.e,--

%,<..+e-

,a

---see e

+w,

-=v

---.~, -

t m-~.-

~,

.e i

. -.o.

,...- -. -,, -...i___m

.. m

l-

-i GENeclearErreig}r esAss77 sa x0.- s

. REV. I F FLOWRATE -

T TEMPERATURE P PRESSURE DP DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE S NON CONDENSABLE GAS SAMPL!NG LOCATION '

PCC POOL

~~~55i~-

.t.

s C0

' ' ' ' = = ' ' ' ' " " ' '

- s GDCS PCOL l

l

_~5 P

h k.

7 l

e z

oRywELL q

q I

e RPV

~

l

' e O

g j

I i

)

WETWELL FIGURE 3-1. CIRAFFE Test Facility Schemade

.,,,,. : c...........;..... '...

...:p.:,:..

......v.,..

.. %..l.

..p p.....

.. 7..

.,4..,..

M

\\

., s f.,.

J 3

s.

g i

... l h

i

.... f g

=

. S,.:

' II

.:F p

1

\\

.'-l...'.

\\

i:. -

,w r

e

((.}. *1 '.,.,.,.,.. * ',

f' f, g j.,,

w f...

4((((44444

....t.O.....u......,,.,-

. ::M,ec mr+ a....#w..;; ;.

~

% a. *, y.mw -.

b.- 1.

.",:ime:s:g:::.;;, g..:::._:,v;' }q.'-

v.u.#.su%.".w :

P.W*

  • u.. = -tw' u =
    • .t

=^..

a w

e*w, e..h.e.t, wee..:

u 1

m_.s+*

.e.v'n F>D>DD)

J '.

9. -

fi A.. ' -

. r--n; I,'

- ti

  1. 8

's.

.. 4 4

g g..

' L;;.. '

M.::?.'.

1.

I

. ej J

.,5 t.m L

'. '..)'

.+. '
  • l e

f

[

m

'l

, +

t"m.=

O O

. CtS co Cn 2

Pr

GIRAFFE He:ium Test Objectives Demonstrate PCCS operation in the presence of noncondensible gases that are lighter than and heavier than steam, including demonstrating the process of purging noncondensibles from the PCC condenser Provide a database for TRACG qualification Provide a tie-back test to repeat a previous GIRAFFE test, including appropriate QA documentation to reinforce the validity of the previous testing I

.'ws

?

1 k

-HELICM Test H-1

Purpose:

To provide a base case with 4% nitrogen in the Drywell, calculated for SBWR SSAR conditions one hour after a Main steam line break Initial conditions based on SBWR TRACG results :

- RPV pressure set equal to steam dome pressure

- Drywell, wetwell and GDCS vapor temperatures set equal to liquid temperature, and total pressures set equal to average pressure for each vessel.

- RPV heater power.is set equal to scaled SBWR decay power at one hour plus RPV stored energy and heat losses and D/W heat losses

. ~. -

r t..,

.._,4-.-..

-._.-.,...~-.

...._,,---....,.-e-.u

.. -.... - r 4.m-....#...

-.w.

v-.es-.

.m w-.m.,

e j

HELICM Test H-2

Purpose:

To investigate the effect of Helium on PCCS performance Helium replaces the volume of nitrogen in the drywell All other initial conditions are the same as test H-1 a-- - -.-.

x

-e

~.~,..

~.

a

--a.

Test H-3 ;M90 Meta: Water Reaction at one nour post LOCA 4

Purpose:

To investigate the effects of the maximum expected concentration of Helium on PCCS performance.

Initial Conditions: Except for the addition of Helium in the Drywell, all other initial conditions are the same as for Test H-1.

Mixture of Steam, Helium and Nitrogen in the Drywell to represent a 20% SBWR metal water reaction at one hour after a Main Steam line break Helium equivalent to 23% of Drywell volume is injected into the D/W m

m m

m.

--m m-

.m.

.. -, - -.,. m r, ww

,_2

....wrm+,. _

I Test H L 216 MW Reaction at one nour post LOCA

Purpose:

To investigate the effect on PCCS performance when the 23% volume of Helium is injected over a one hour time period into the drywell Initial Conditions: Same as for Test H-1 Total mass of Helium injected = H-3 initial mass of Helium in drywell Helium injection rate = 0.00027 kg/sec.

( total of 1 kg helium will be injected)

Tie-Jack Test T-1

Purpose:

Repeat a Post Phase 2 Test to reinforce the-l validity of the previous testing Facility configuration: PCCS tube length 1.8m, D/W l

a microheaters used, RPV heater power based on 2000mw.

SBWR l

Initial Conditions: Based on SBWR conditions at one hour after MSLB (28% Nitrogen in D/W)

Drywell to wetwell vacuum breaker is located in annular drywell region approximately at middle of wetwell airspace (In the present SBWR design, V/B is located at wetwell roof.)

GDCS injection at one hour post loca-(In present SBWR a

design GDCS injection is already completed due to increased nozzle size.)

e Test T-2

Purpose:

Widen the range ofinitial nitrogen concentration-in the Drywell to demonstrate that peak D/W-pressure is not sensitive to the initial nitrogen mass in the D/W Inital D/W nitrogen concentration : midway between that for Tests H-1 and T-1. (Total D/W Pressure =266 KPa)

Total nitrogen concentration in the system: same as H-1, therefore the Wetwell initial nitrogen concentration is less than H-1. (Total W/W Pressure =257 KPa) m

-..r-

GENuclearEnergy 25a5s,7 su so.20 REV.1 L

Table 9-1. GIRAFFE He Integral Systems Tests Initial Conditions -

l l

Parameter

'l Value

. Tolerance -

RPV Pressure (KPa) l 295 6KPa Initial Heater Power (Kw) l 46+heatloss compensation IKw RPV Water Level (m)"

l 12.0 0.150m Drywell Pressure (KPa) l 294 4KPa Wetwell Pressure (KPa) 2S5 4KPs Wetwell Nitrogen Pressure (KPa) l 240 4KPa j

1 GDCS Gas Space Pressure (KPa) l 294 4KPa-

.l GDCS Nitrogen Pressure (KPa) l 274 4KPa Suppression Pool Temperature (K) l 352 2K

'i PCC Pool Temperature (K) l 373 2K GDCS Pool Temperature (K) l 333 2K GDCS Pool Level" (m) l Suppression Pool Level * (m) l 3.25 0.075m PCC Pool Collapsed Water Level" (m) 23.2

' O.075m PCC Vent Line Submergence (m)

.l.

0.95 0.075m Refe enced to the Top of Active Fuel (TAF).

GDCS poollevel should be positioned in hydrostatic equilibrium with the RPV level (including an appropriate adjustment for temperature difference).

t N'$ llc [M A IIN 25A5677

' SH NO. 21..

REV.1.

]

t t

i Table 9-2. GIRAFFE He Integml Systems Test Matrix i

. Drywell Initial Partial Pressures (KPa) ( 2 epa)

'f GIRAFFE

. Helium l

Test No.

InJ'ection Rate Nitrogen Steam Heh.um (Kg/sec)

H1 0

13 281 0

H2 0

0 2S1

,- 13 i

.H3 0

13 214 67 7-i H4 0.00027 13 281 0

l f

l 4

i

-l l

I 3

1i 1

' t p

-[

h g

i' h ;

5

,:;.'%,+,,

7 N

OW

-25A5677 SH NO. 22 uv.1 -

O

-l 1

Table 9-3. GIRAFFE He Tie-back Test Initial Conditions

-l Parameter Value Tolerance ~

RPV Pressure (KPa)

- l 189

. 6KPa.,

]

RPV Collapsed Water Level (m)=

9.1 0.150m Initial Heater Power (Kw) -

l 96 IKw

- Drywell Total Pressure (KPa)

ISS

' 4KPa Drywell Nitrogen Partial Pressure (KPa) 53 1

4KPa.

l i

i Drywell Steam Partial Pressure (KPa) 135

. 4KPa l

Wetwell Pressure (KPa)

-174-4KPa

-Wetwell Nitrogen Pressure (KPa) 164 4KPa-GDCS Pool Gas Space ISS 34KPa.

-Total Pressure (KPa)

GDCS Pool Gas Space 151 4KPa i

Nitrogen Partial Pressure (KPa)

Suppression Pool Temperature (K) l

- 326 l 2K

{

s PCC Pool Temperature (K).

l 373 l

- 2K-CDCS Pool Temperature (K) 350

- 2K t

GDCS Pool Level" (m)

. 14.1 0.075m

~

Suppression Pool Level" (m) 3.5

- 0.075m -

PCC Pool Collapsed Water Level" (m) 23.2 0.075m l

PCC Vent Line Submergence (m)

. 0.90 0.075m j

-l Referenced to the TAF.

.i s

i i

1 T

= -,--

wg.

e.-

v cwes-w ee

-ry,.-,

rw-e e,

-r+v w-

E.

1

@MUclearErre 23a3677 334 xo,23 REv 1 e

Table 9-L GIRAFFE He Test T2 Initial Conditions j

Parameter Value Tolerance i

RPV Pressure (KPa) l.

267

. 6KPa RPV Water Level (m)"

12.0 0.150m Initial Heater Power (Kw) gf + Heat loss comp.

IKw-Drywell Total Pressure (KPa) 266 4KPa-Dr>well Nitrogen Partial Pressure (KPa) 38 4KPa Drywell Steam Partial Pressure (KPa) 228 4KPa.

Wetwell Pressure (KPa) 257

. 4KPa Wetwell Nitrogen Pressure (KPa) 212 4KPa.

GDCS Pool Gas Space 266 4KPa Total Pressure (KPa)

GDCS Pool Gas Space 246 4KPa Nitrogen Partial Pressure (KPa) 7

~ Suppression Pool Temperature (K) 352 2K-PCC Pool Temperature (K) 373 2K,,

GDCS Pool Temperature (K)

{

333 2K GDCS Pool Level * (m) l 0.075m <

Suppression Pool Level * (m) 3.25 l

- 0.075m PCC Pool Collapsed Water Level" (m) 23.2 0.075m PCC Vent Line Submergence (m) 0.95 0.075m

  • Referenced to the TAF.

"GDCS pool level should be positioned in hydrostatic equilibrium with the RPV level (including the appropriate adjustment for temperature difference).

I

t.

/

n' Test Initialization Procedures 1

Pressurize D/W to "200 KPa using house steam..

1 Feed hot water to RPVand use bundle heater to pressurize.

Pressurize PCC condenser to 200 KPa.

Feed hot water to GDCS Pool and pressurize with nitrogen.

Feed hot water to PCC pool.

Connect RPV, D/W and PCC Condenser. Adjust pressures using house steam.

Initialize Suppression Chamber. Use house steam to increase water. temperature.

Set Decay heat simulation using one loop controller.

4

S Test Procec.ures (continued)

Finalinitialization of each vessel. Adjust water levels and pressures in S/C, GDCS pool and RPV. Adjust D/W steam-pressure and then add the noncondensible gas.

Just prior to Test Start: Close PCC drain to RPV, Close PCCS house steam supply, Open D/W to PCCS steam supply and PCCS drainage to GDCS, connect PCCS to S/C.

Test Start.

Operator monitors-S/C and D/W pressures, opens Vacuum breaker when S/C pressure is 3240 Pa higher than D/W and closes when pressure difference is less than 2060 Pa.

S/C microheater adjustment during. test.

+

Presentation Goa.s Achieve consensus with the NRC on the following open technical items from the GIRAFFE Helium test audit / inspection:

V/B Cycling is not required to satisfy the test objective on demonstrating the PCC condenser purge / vent process.

S/C microheater adjustments during the tests,.do not adversely effect the test results.

Present Test Results, including gas sampling results.

~

PCC Conc.enser Purge / Vent Process During each of the helium tests, purging of noncondensible gases from the PCC condenser occurred.The LOCA vent remained covered during all tests.

Direct gas sampling results show that for each test approximately 50% of the noncondensible gases were vented by the PCCS to the S/C.

For Tests H3&4, 50% of the initial helium volume is equal to 30 times the PCC condenser volume.

1 The helium tests confirm that even for large quantities of noncondensible gases, the PCCS can purge the noncondensibles within less than one hour.

.m a i

...--m--,-e

.~

+---

w.,

-=4

-.,r.

- -. - - -. -e.

v 2-

-+-<--

Vacuum Breaker Cycling V/B only opened during Test H1, the 4% nitrogen case.

For Test H1, the nitrogen in the PCC tubes was mainly at the bottom of the tubes. As a result, the PCC heat removal was very high and within approximately one hour it exceeded the input decay heat. The drywell pressure dropped, and then the V/B opened two times when the S/C-pressure exceeded the D/W pressure by 3240 Pa. In each-case, the V/B only opened for several seconds. Therefore, t

only a small. amount of noncondensibles flowed back to the D/W and then flowed into the.PCC increasing the amount of noncondensible at the bottom of the tubes.

V/B Cyc:ing cic. not occur for all other tests For Test H2, with 4% helium: Helium was approximately uniformly distributed along the tube lengths. This resulted in a PCC heat removal rate less than that for Hl.Therefore, the PCC heat removal did not exceed the decay heat input during the first hour of the test. The D/W pressure did decrease, but it did not drop below the S/C pressure.

For Tests H3&4: The helium behaved similar to Test H2.

For Te.st.T2, with 14% nitrogen: The nitrogen behaved similar to Test H1, but due to the higher concentration of nitrogen, it took longer to vent the nitrogen from the D/W.

Therefore, the D/W pressure did not drop.below the S/C pressure.

l

...m m

m...

....~

,m.-

<~,

,r.

Suppression C lam aer Microaea:er Power Acjustments During Tests During heat loss tests the microheater power settings determined so that heat losses are completely compensated by microheater power.

Once the gas venting becomes intermittent, the gas space plenum temperatures are monitored. These temperatures are maintained at a constant value, by controlling the microheater power.

After gas venting is completed, the S/C pressure should not increase further. The gas plenum pressure is monitored and is maintained by controlling the microheater power.

1 4

Direct Measurement of Noncondensible Gas Concentrations Samples are collected at three locations: upper & lower D/W and at the S/C.

Samples are collected at one hour intervals.

Samples are measured using a gas chromatograph to determine the concentrations of each gas.

The accuracy of the measurement is +/- 3%.

l

1 e.14 6

e.:

g a

.E M.,t

~'

e ma oso - - f -

[. fig 2so Fig-2. I Equipcent and instru:ents for rater sa:pling

( Samph volume s 3 A)

G O'

's 2

G.I4

-1 2

l E

N

.M_%

l-i k--

iso asa Fig-2.2 Equipment and instru:ents for non-condensable gas saapling (Sample. volume A I A)

NO.

Tite l

Quality Remarks Bass SUS 304 OD:356.ID:15.76 2

pipe s.

SUS 304 1/23.SCH:40 3

l pipe l

SUS 304 3/BB.SCH:40 4 -1,-1 lstopvalve SUS Bali Valve 5

lpressuregage SUS AEU3/SPT.10Ig/cs2 6

pipe SUS 304 3/BB.SCH:40 7

Needle valve l

SUS 8

absorption Battle l Glass Filling up CaCl? and poly-vool 9

Cock Glass 10 l Cooling Bath SUS Filling up CaCl? and Dry-Ice

+

n 11 gassamplingBag1l PVF caxieum 2 litters 12 gassa:plingBag2l PVF

=axieum 2 litters 7

w

'a7 % vJt ad ; 1m. s.m r rwal 7n> 71 W LDJ A>+3O+* # A'/2-IU v'dlledt:29dDj791 rd. dd i

s Repors' on RestiIf"of~ME5Mnrement Analysis Report No.KKS 0706-0 3136 June 7,1995 To: GE Nuclear Energy KOKAN KEISOKU Measurement certification business concernedwititconcentration b'*

'., y x i,:y;;Eesiytration No.,'

Kanagawa Prefecture No.90-Y

1-1 Minamiwataride-cho,

~

'.. ~.Y...'

Kawasaki-ku,KAwasaki-b1(210)

Tel*044-277-8008, Fax:044-277-8179

., y The aesult of your requested measuremeat* analysis;.will be reported as follows:-

~

1.Sub.iect

Measurement analysis of noncondensable cases and steam TOSHIPA Cbi@055$~0$.'NAMAKAWASAKI ' FACIORY
2. Site of Measurement:

~~

~

NUCLEAR ENGINEERING LABORATORY

- ~

4-1, Ukisima-cho Kaeasaki-ku,Kawasaki-shi 210, Japan r

3.Date of measurement: May 30, 1995....:...

4.Name of Test'...c

H1-3

. t...M_'T3 Jytf. und 9S,f % y-frar 5.Results of measurement analysis 1

3?

h, F1, NZ.-)

y 7,. 9 pq.

5.1.LDW(LOWER DRYWELL) l Sample Passage Helium Nitrogen.

.. Steam Water vapor'veight No.

Hotirs ?Ih' '

(%)~

  • 'N)""

- 3)

- - (g)

)

1

0 Ori -'

--4 4l--

95.5 2.23 (in 2.8611 2

~17

- 0.-l.

- - A25 E 82.4 1.11 (in 1. 671) 3

.' 2 0.1.

_.$2.0'~

'77.9 0.92 (in 1.471) 3"

<0.1 30.3 69.7 0.79 (in 1. 411)

^

4 7

5 4

<0.1 28.4 T

71.6 0.83 (in 1.441) 6

' 5-

< 0'. 1

. 34. 7 :

'65.3 0.63 (in' 1.181) 7

'4

<0. h.

......32.2 -...67.8 0.69

,(in 1. 261) 8 7

('O.T' E '~28'7" "' 71. 3 0.87 (in 1. 521) 9 8'

<0.1. : 7 33 8 Y 66.2 0.64 - ' (in 1. 201)

~-

~

.m

Luso-ci-La La:a r.c n

,nm *n en) n>+ c+ v o r su ca uaca uz m L

.. e.2 Hi 5

crs iniki unL 1sb z s%442 M 5.2.UDW(UPPER DRYWELL)

Sac:ple Passage.

Heliu:r--

Nitieren-Steam Water vapor weight

(%)

(g)

No.

Hours (h)

(%) ' - -'- -'(%) --"

1

'O

< 0.~ l '

' -.'"I. 4~.

98.6 9.97 (in 12. 61)

~2 1'

' O. 2 i I Tf0'~i ~~

99. 8 14.91 (in 18.61.1

~

3 2

"O.1 70.T'

99. 8 8.38 (in 10.41; 4

3

'O.1? O ~. '. 0.T ' '

99.8 3.89 (in 4. 851.i I

5

.4

<0.1.

3 [0. i 99.8 1.31 (in 1.631) z.

6

. ~5

0. 2.
0. 2..

.99.8 1.43..(in 1.751)

... -7

. _. 6 --

O.1 -

' l '031 ~-

99.7 1.54 (in 1. 921) 8 T

0. 2 _' -

'-f 0.7'

'99.6 1.62 (in 2.031)

; 81.

. 0.' 1" - -

" <0.T ~,

.99.8 1.95'.'(in 2. 42D -

9 i

...Tk $D$ hlj d bon l56NSNY) 0h2 So N b b

8 7 5 2 8'5-'/'./ h 5.3.SCCSUPPPISSION CHAMBER)

Se::: ale Passage Helium.

. N.i.trysen

. Steam Water vapor weight No.

Hours. (h)

(%).

.. (%).

.(%)

(g) 1 0

< 0. 1 - --.. -. 86e8_. -

13.2 0.11 (in 1. 031) 2 i t- -

<0.1 -

-- -95 7-- -

-- 14. 3 0.12 (in 1.041) 3

~~.2

<071' '

~ ~ ~BS 8 - "

'14.2

0. 12' '(in 1. 051)

._.g.

. 13.9 0.12 (in 1.071) 5 4

<0; I

~ 86.9 13.1

0. 11 (in 1.041) 6.

5'

< 0.'T

'.' ~b 7'. $~~~ '

" 12.5 0.10 (in 0. 981)

.7 6

<0.1 87.4 12.6 0.10 (in O.991)

{

i 8

7'

< 0. 1 85.5 14.5.

0. 12 (in 1.031) 9 8.

< 0. 1.

. 86._7 13.3 0.11 (in 1.031)

z.,

e

. n.

y;.

.. s,

.y-

...... j.

~

~ ~. - -

~.

."..hN

.9 M.p.

..e.

+

es O

u y

q mp a. mp

.e

s..t 3 :9 : =

non

=,n n ns n a. v w w -

~

Report on Result of Measurement Analysis

s..

Report No.10C5 0706-0 3140 June 9,1995 To: GE Nuclear Energy KOKAN KEISOKU Measurement certification business concerned with concentration Registration No.

t Kanagawa Prefecture No.90 1-1.Minamiwatarida cho.

Kawasaki-ku, Kawasaki-shi(210)

^

Tel*044-277-9008. Fax:044-277-81'79 The result of your requested measurement analysis will be reported as-follows:-

I. Subject

Measurement anal sis of noncondensable gases and steam
2. Site of Measurement: TOSHIBA CORPORATION.HAMAKAWASAKI FACTORY NUCLEAR ENGIhTERING LABORATORY 4-1,Ukisima-cho,Kaw2saki-ku.Kawasaki-shi 210. Japan 3.Date of measurement: June 2. 1995

[72.17" Spec. lhiff,t/ Cett/tk _7Ef 3 Shvt 4.Na:e of Test

H2 l;/.L //e,)

5.Results of acasurement analysis g

g gg4 tf 5.1.LDW(LOWER DRYWELL)

Sa=ple Passage Helium Nitrosen Steam Water vapor evight-No.

Hours (h) 5)

3) 3)

(s) 1 0

1. 3

<0.1 98.7 2.66 (in 3.361) 2 1

9. 3 0.' 1 90.6 1.96 (in 2.691) 3 2
9. 2 0.1 90.7 1.61 (in 2.213) 4 3

10.8 0.1 89.I 1.56 (in 2.181) 5 4

10.1 0.1 89.8 1.82 (in".2. 521) 6 5

9. 7 0.1 90.2
1. 44 (in 1.991) 7 6
9. 3 0.1 90.6 1.69 (in 2.321) 8 7
8. 8 O.1
91. 1 I.70 (in 2.321)__

9 8

7. 8 (O.1 92.2 1.84 (in 2.481)
w. ~ uu n.

r.ca N4

{ TC.S f Sp ec. Ev]ial M /r}) > 'l5813h) 4 4 % He 5.ym(uma oRmu.)

Sample Passage Helium Nitrogen 5:ea:o Water vapor weight No.

Hours (h)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(g) 1 0

1. 5

<0. I 98.5

1. 73 (in 2.191) 2 1

0.1 (O.1 99.9 1.91 (in 2.381) l 3

2 0.1 (O. I 99.9 1.65 (in 2. 061) 4 3

0. 2 (O.1
99. 8 1.41 (in__1. 761) 4 5

4

0. 2

<0.1 99.8 1.49 (in 1.861)

I 6

5 O. 2

<0.1 99.8 1.58 (in 1.971) 7 6

0. 2 I

(O.1 99.8 1.78 (in 2.221)

B 7

0. 2

' 0.1 99.8 1.50 (in 1.871) 9 8

0. 2

<0. I 99.8

1. 38 (in 1.721) 5.3.5C(SUPPRESSION CHAMBER)

Sample Passage Helium Nitrogen Steam Water vapor weight No.

Hours (h)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(g) 1 0

1. 4
84. 8 13.8 0.13 (in 1.181) 2 1
2. 8
84. 5
12. 7 0.10 (in D.981) 3 2
2. 8 83.7 13.5 D.12 (in 1.101) 4 3
2. 8 83.4 13.8 0.12 (in 1. 081).

5 4

2. 8 83.2 14.0 0.12 (in 1.071) 6 5
2. 8 83.5 13.7
0. 12 (in 1. 091) 7 6
2. 8 83.7 13.5 0.12 (in 1.111) 8 7
2. 8 83.5 13,7
0. 12 (in 1.091.1 9

8

2. 8 64.4 12.8' O. 11 (in 1.071 1

(Tc3y ycc_. lh/hl 6C+V b hkl2 7-> AIZ-)

1.EB%sA)

Prs 7ASYPn

1-95-06-22 22:09 TRCM

OrMnC:0 r.AcoW c:r/* TO 001140892 m 91 P.22 Report on Result of Measurement Analysis Report No.KKS 0706-0 3165 June 22,In95 To: GE Nuclear. Energy..

~

KOKAN KEISOKU

...,.g.-.-,,

Weasurement certification business concerned with ccacentration Registration No.

U Kanagawa Prefecture No.90 e.,

1-1,Minaminatarida cho, Kawasaki-ku, Kawasaki-shi(210)

Tel:044-277-8008, Fax:044-277-8179 a

J The result of your requested measurement nalysis will be reported as follows:-

1. Subject

-~

Measurement unriysis ofm ancandensable rases.and steas
2. Site cf Measurement: TOSHIBdCORPDRATION,HAMAKAWASAKIFACTORY I

NUCLEAR'ENGIEERING LABORATORY 4-1,Ukisima cho,Kawasaki-ku,Kawasaki shi 210, Japan 3.Dateefmeasurement:[ June 16,?1995 4.Name of Toat

s H3

~

h-f-c Q' g

jfjm ; ~)2, $ */o d

~

5. Results of cieasurement inalfsis---[ ".f..*g.. yM p4 2 2, Mo 6

...y.

5.1.LDW(IDER DRYWELL)

I

' Sample Passage Helium Nitrosen steam Fater vapor weight No.

Hours (h) 3)

M) 3)

(r) 1 0

18.1

! 2. 4$ '

79.5 0.70 (in 1.101)

- * " ' ' ~

'2 1

38.6 5.fbF'.

56.4 0.35'. (in 1. 211) 3

'2-47.2 '

i S.5l.

46.9 0.38 (in 1;011) 4 3

39.6'

3.82 ~

._ 55. 6 0.63 (in 1.411) i.-01 2

- 54.7 0.56 (in 1.281) 5 4

40.'34 5

6 5-40.2' I 5. 0/

54.8 0.62 (in 1.411) 7 6:

34.5-

' WI9.

60.6

0. '60 ' (in 1.231)'

' 3:4J '.

69.5 O. 66 -(in. L 181) 8-

~ 7 '-

'26.8-

.e 9

8 26.6.

3.4..

69.9

0. S7...(in 1.191)
v:. f*'~

~

c r

,n k995-06-22'20':10 FROr1 27tr/rf nCh),rAoW*L*2rr: TO 00114089253991-P.03 y -3 3

l US.iat &}: 72,6 % sk Z2 t% k,

5. 2. UDW(UPPER DRYWEl.I.) -

Sample Passage Hel.ium.,

N.tggst,L Stees Water vapor,. weight

{

No.

Hours (h)'

3)'

, 3) '

3)

(s)-

1 0

6. 6

... _0. 7..

.92.7 3.'96 (in 5.321) 2

'I ' '.

0. 5 _. _20.1

$..' 99. 5

3. 40.... (in 4. 231) f

~

3 2

0.'3

<d.1 99.7

f. 64 (in 3.291) 4 3
0. 2 (0.1 99.8 2.75-(in 3.431) 5 4
8. 3 (67 1 99.7' 3.12 (in 3.891) 6 5

O.3'C Co. l.'

99'.7 3.35 (in 4.181) 7 6

0. 4

'..k0..I 99.6 4.15 (in 5.181)

I 8

7

0. 3 " "

' " ~<0.i "" ~ -~ 99. 7 4.99

'(in 6.231) 9 8

0. 3 (c. I 99.7 4.20 (in 5.241) j i

i 2

i S.3.SC(SUPPRESSION CHAMBER)

Sample Passage Helius Nitrogen Stena Water vapor weight l

m)

M)

(s)

No.

Hours (h)

N) 1 0

3. 2 82.I 14.7 0.13 (in 1.101) 2

' 1 11.2

.75.6 13.2 0.14 (in f.321) 3 2

12. O M6

'10.4 0.10 (in 1.201)

'f i

4 3

12.0

'76.6 11.4

0. II (in 1.201) 5 4

12.0

'75.3 12.7 0.13 (in 1.271)

'i 6

5.

12.3..

.. 76.i

11. 6 0.12 (in 1.281) l 7

6-12.3 -

  • " 75;2w -

12.5 0.13 (in 1.301) l i

8 7

12.6 74.9

12. 5.

0.13 (in 1.291) 9 8

12.8 75.I

12. 1 0.13 (in 1.341) l

. (.h.f. Sp6 L n$k_l hh_ jim;}S,67a s$

\\

l._. Q.;:.

84, 2 % N2. ).

I_._d. 5. C,.~.. O = 2 89 A T

.)

. H.. c..-.

.,/.
-

i

w..,.....

q,.,...

2._

.-- :, 7 e...

m.-w

v:.it.3.

/

1995-07-11 08:42 F:ECr1 com74 MCn) m+ s?** k* a,"n*

TC-20114089253991 P.02 yy g +=

e Report'on Result of Weasurement Analysis Report No.IIS 0707-0 3181 July 5.1995 To: GE Nuclear Energy ICIAN IEISOIU Neasuresent certification business concerned with concentration Registration No.

1, Ianagava Prefecture No.90 1-1.Minaalvatarida-cho.

Iavasaki-ku.Iarasaki-shi C210)

Tel:044-277-8008. Fax:044-277-Bl?9 The result of your requested seasurement analysis vili be reported as

.follows:-

I 1.Sub)ect

Measurement analysis of noncendensable gases and staam t
2. Site of Measurement: TOSHIBA CORPORATION.HAMAIATASAII FACTORY NUCLEAR ENGINEERING LABORATORY i

4-1.Ukisiaa-cho.Invasaki-ku.Iavasaki-shi 210. Japan

~

3.Date of measurement: June 27. 1995 (Tc.sf Sp idkl ccuhky 956 % &

4.Name of Test,

B4 5.Results of measurement analysis g

5.1.LDI(LOVER DRYTELL)

Sample Passage Belius Nitrosen Steam Vater vapor weight No.

Hours Ch)

(5)

(K)

(5)

(c) 1 0

0. 3
8. 3 91.4 2.14 On 3.171) 2 1
6. 2 24.5 69.3 1.06 (in 1.901) 3 2

10.8 25.6 63.6 1.10 (in 2.151) 4 3

11.6

'26.5 61.9 0.87 (in 1.751) 5 4

11.2 24.4 64.4 0.93 (in 1.801) 6 5

11.5 24.8 63.7 0.93 (in 1.821) 7 6

12.3 26.3 61.4 0.98 (in l'. 991) 8

,7 12.2 26.2 61.'6 0.88 (in 1.78')

l 9

8 11.2

-24.2 64.6 1.00 (in 1.931)-

h

.t955-a7-Lt w.s e.<ca

nnywnCn) n>+co** v

>?*.. T0 adLL M S253591 P.a3 i

My crs add adLA: 9a L sA 5.2.1TDW(UPPER DRYTELD

,. #: t?

h, 4-70 M z. ).

i Sample Passage Helium NNrosen Steam Water vapor weight-l No.

Hours (h)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(g) l 1

0

1. 9
  • 1.1 97.0
8. 29 (in 10.61) l 2,

1

2. 6

<0.1 -

97.4 10.44 (in 13. 31)_

3 2

0. 3

<0.1 99.7 8.76 (in 10.91) 4 3

0. 2

<0.1 99.8 2.26-(in 2.821{

5 4

0.1 0.1 99.8 2.38 (in 2.971,)_

6 **-

5

0. 2 0.1 99.7 2.15' (in 2.681) 7 6

0.1 0.1 99.8

2. 08 * - (in 2. 5911 i

8 7

0.1 0.1 99.8

1. 98 (in 2.471) 9 8
0. I
0. I 99.8 2.20 (in 2.741)_

l l

5.3.S::(SUPPRESSION CHAMBER)

Sample Pusase Helium N11irosen Steam Water vapor weight i

No.

Hours (h)

(%)

- (I)

(%)

Is)

J 1

(-0.5)

<0.1 79;1 20.9 0.18 - (in '1'. 071) f 2

0

0. 3 85.0.

14.7 0.12 ' (in 1.0211 3

1 13.7 74.8 11.5 0.13 (in 1.411) 4 2

14.9 73.1

12. 0 D.14 ' (in 1.461) 5 3

14.9 72.5 12.6 0.14 - (in 1.381) 6 4

15.0 73.2

11. 8 0.13 ' (in 1.38 i

<l 7

5 14.8 72.6 12.6 0.14 (in 1.361)

I 8

6 15.0 72.9 12.1

0. 13 (in 1.341) 9' 7

15.1

'73.3-II.6 0.13 (in 1.40 10 8

15.1 73.5 11.4 0.12 (in.1. 301) lTest~ S ac

.7ndial CondfYM : 15n70 S]m>

f 84:za%)

k e

I

2 TO 20814099253395

-P.35 r

1995-07-1& 08:52 Rort 0?nnf *n cn) trsocoo " / r rr 1

we p

a r a: ::.

Report on Result of Measurement Analysis Report No.KKS 0707-0 3182

-July 5,1995 To: GE Nuclear Energy KOKAN KEISOKU Weasurement certification busimss concerned with concentra :Lon Registration No.

Kanagaea Prefecture ib. 90 1-1.Minamiwatarida :ho, Kawasaki-ku,Kawasaki-shiGIO)

Tel:044-277-8008 Fax:044-277-3179

~

The result of your requested measurement, analysis will be reported as follows:-

,,.7 ',,,

, *',' y:

Weasurement analyiris ch noncondensable gases and steen

... c > i.,

~

1. Subject

.c.

2. Site of Weasurement: TOSHIBAtbEPORATION.R4MAKAWASAKIFACTORY.

w-r.:

NUCLEAR ENGINEERING 1.ABORATORY

-a-4-1,Ukisime-cho,Kawasaki-ku Kawasaki shi 210.' Japan 3.Date of measurement: June 29,'1995 4.Name of Test

T2'

[ g y g g c, 7g g in / cf w f h o ; O f 7 %.5 k p

//,3 % A/g-)

. D. ~C-~24 f X At f

S.Results of measurement analysis -

/

5.1.LDW(LOWER DRYWELL)

Sample Passage Helium Nitrosen

/ Steam Water vapor weight No.

Hours (h)

(%)

t%)

(%)

(g)

~

1 0'

<0.1

~1'4. 4/

85.6 1.04 (in 1.511) 3' [2 '

68.8 0.72 (in 1.301) 2 1

(O.1 1

3 2

< 0.1 59.1 60.9 0.57 (in 1. 261) 4 3

<0.1 '

39.3 60.7 0.54 (in 1.111) 5 4'

< 0. 1 46.3' 53.7 0.44 (in 1.021)

~

6

'S

< 0. 1 48.3 51.7 0.43 (in 1.041) 7 6

< 0. 1 45.7 54.3 0.54 (in 1.241)

I B

7 (O. I 49.6 50.4 0.43 (in 1.061) 9 8

< 0. 1 48.4 51.6 0.43 (in 1.041)

)

i. 1,2 **g5 &

i

1995-d/-i1 e 52 reci 27ns w ncn) n>+:w v rn*

70-ea11ca89253391 7.36 T~L i

{]53 f}~'/Q. 5!) h'.l CO!1$1'0' 6 N Hj; 3 2 NzJ z

5.2.UDW(UPPER DRYWEI.L)

.a.'...

See.ple Passage Helium Nitrogen Steam Water vapor weight i

No.

Hours (h)

(%)

3)

(%)

(g) 1 D

< 0. 1

- 3.1 96.9 4.91 (in 6.301) 2 1

<0. 1

' O. 2 '

99.S 6.25 ' (in 7. 801) 3 2

< 0. 1

. O. 2 99.8 3.58 (in 4. 461) 4 3

< 0. 1

. O. 2 99.8 4.42 (in 5. 511) 5 4

<0.1

0. 2 99.8 3.78 (in 4. 711) 6'-

'5

< 0. 1

'~

~ '0! 5 99.8 5.99 (in 7.471) 7 6

(0.1 0.1

  • 99.9 3.49 (in 4.351) 8 7

< 0.1

0. 2 99.8 5.89 (in 7.34D 9

8

<0. l '

"O. 2 99.8 6.77 -(in 8.44 D S.3.SC(SUPPRESSION CHAMBER)

]

Sample Passage fielium

Nitrogen,

', Steam Water vapor weight

.i No.

Hours (h)

(%) :

.c 2.(%I. O ' V. N)

(g) 1

(- 0. 5)

< 0. 1 -

it'.' 'S e' 4.'- 25. 5 O.20 (in O.971) j 2

0

<0. I 8E6[

15.4 0.11 (in D.891)

{

f 3

l'

<0. I

84. 1 -

15.9 0.11 (in O.861) 1 4

2*

<0.1 ' */

84.~8 "'

15.2 0.12 ' (l'n 'O. 981) 5 3

(O.1 '

85.6 14.4 0.11 (in 0.951) 6 4

<0/1 85.1-14.9 0.11 (in D.921)

I 7

5 (0.1 85.3 4

14.7 0.11 (in 0.931) i 8

6'

<0.'1 ^

~

~ 5.'5 -'

0.il (in O.951) 1 8

14.5 I

9 7

(O.1 V.'85)2 '

14.8 0.11.

(in D.921) 10

-8

<0. I'

' 84.' 6 '. '

15,4 0.10 (in 0,801)

./

(

ff,,,$f

& C. l Do

/

O b

)

/

szs z> M Pr = I.2Sn Ps..

t

9 9

l m

U3 0

>=

e

<C 1C O

l-CD JJ lI l

i

/

l

l l

m Z

(D 0F 9

k<

O F-(D

.lJ I1 i

l i

i N

.m Z

U20

>=

l i

I

<C

}C O

l-u)

JJ II i

i

w-l l.

l 1

l 1

m In O

>=

O F<C O

F-CD UJ F-4 II i

i l

l I

1 i

l t

i' m.

Z (n

O

>=

<C k

Q 1-CD UJ I

l-J

t 1

i ct 1

m Z

(a 0

L I--

l l

l l

<C lC 1

l O

l W

i CD LU f

N I

l-l 1

I l

l 1

i l

l l

l l

i I

i t

PANDA PCC/IC IIEADER INSULATION EVALUATION J. E. TORBECK 22 AUGUST 1995 1

s' '

,x PANDA PCC/IC HEADER INSULATION EVALUATION SCALING EVALUATIONS - COVERED BY BOB GAMBLE ANALYSIS OF EFFECT OF HEADER INSULATION STEADY STATE TRACG CALCULATIONS TRANSIENT TRACG CALCS FOR TEST M3 ADDITIONAL STEADY STATETESTS EFFECT OF REDUCED PCC POOL LEVEL -

INVESTIGATION OF TEST RESULTS REPEATABILITY 2

r-3 ANALYSIS OF EFFECT OF HEADER INSULATION STEADY STATE TRACG CALCULATIONS HEAT REMOVAL FROM UNINSULATED HEADERS IS APPROXIMATELY 15% OF THE TOTAL PCC HEAT REMOVAL HEAT REMOVAL FROM INSULATED HEADERS IS APPROXIMATELY 8% OF TOTAL INSULATION CHANGES TOTAL HEAT REMOVAL BY 3 TO 8% DEPENDING ON AIR CONTENT TRANSIENT TRACG CALCS FOR TEST M3 DRYWELL AND WETWELL GLOBAL PRESSURE RESPONSE IS ESSENTIALLY UNCHANGED VACUUM BREAKER OPENING IS EFFECTED INSULATION HAS SMALL EFFECT ON TOTAL PCC HEAT REMOVAL AND INTEGRAL SYSTEM RESPONSE 3

~

6

.E

- CONCLUSION DECISION TO PROCEED WITIIOUT HEADER INSULATION FOR PANDA TRANSIENT TESTS IS SUPPORTED BY:

SCALING EVALUATIONS TRACG ANALYSIS ADDITIONAL STEADY STATE TESTS 6

GENuclearEnergy SBWR Vacuum Breaker Single Failure-l Open" Exemption" Request Presented at the GE/NRC SBWR Testing /TRACG Mtg.

By H. A. Upton on 8/22/95 p

]

i

e HistoricalBackground BWR S/P Steam Bypass Leakage Requirements:

- Traditionally covered by SRP Sec. 6.2.1.1.C

  • Based on early Mk I,11, and illpressure suppression testing
  • Leak rates established for earlierplants not appropriate for passive plants

- Industryposition on passive BWRs found in URD Chapter 5, Sec. 7.2.26

  • Based on achieving very tight, essentially zero leakage barrier to 1

bypassleakage during blowdown

  • 1 car (AfM) established as bases for evaluation of wetwell 2

designpressure (May 1992)

HistoricalBackground(Contd.)

2 To reliably meet 1 cm requirement SBWR needed

- A newleak tight / reliable vacuum breaker design

- A weldedsteelbarrierbetween wetwelland dryweII

- Absolute minimum number of wetwellpenetrations Vacuum breaker design, development and testprogram was undertaken in July 1992 Vacuum breakerprototype built, testing complete and finaltestreport written by 12/94

SBWR Vacuum Breaker Simple poppet type check valve with one moving part I

Double barrier seal to ensure leak tightness

- Seal design provides single seat failure protection Inlet and Outlet screens to protect seals from LOCA debris Anti-Chatter ring to prevent excessive seat wear l

Designed to meet PRA failure rate of 3 x 104 failures / demand 2

Design leak area = 0.02 cm (2% of allowable WWIeak rate)

Passive operation - normally in the closedposition Direct valve disk position monitoring with MCR alarms i

l 4

I l

VB Loads ReducedbyDesign

\\

  • SBWR WWdesignedleak tight

- with weldedsteelliner j

- Limited number of sealed penetrations Only 3-20 inch diameter vacuum breakers are installed (compared to 8-20 inch VB forABWR)

- only2 required to operate following DBA Vacuum breakers located away from hydrodynamic loads 1

high on the diaphragm floor andprotected (similar to ABWR)

Valves are predicted to lift < 20 times following a DBA and onlyafterblowdown Vacuum breaker DBA loads and stresses are far below valve capability

Overview of TestResults Prototype vacuum breaker has been built, tested and environmentallyqualified Leak Tightness - As built leak tightness demonstrated to be bubble tight (~ 0.0002 cm (A6{} with hard seat alone) 2 Performance Testing - Lifted at required DP, performed smoothly, opening and closing with minimum amount of chatter. Valve stroke

\\

had to be increased to increase capacity.

DBA Leak Tightness - Valve aged by radiation, high temp., and vibration the equivalent of 60 yr. life. Valve was shockedperiodically with cold water. Valve icekage remainedzero.

Reliability Testing - VB cycled 3000 times without a failure even with ingestion ofsandblastinggrit. PRA reliabilitygoalmet. VB maximum allowable leak rate never exceeded.

l Planned Surveillance TestProgram 1

  • SBWR vacuum breakers willbe subject to operational

(

testing andsurveillance

  • DWto WWbypass leakage testing:

- Surveillance interval: Every refueling outage

- Procedure: Isolate S/P from DW, pressurize to 2.7psiabove WW, record WWpressureRemperature/ level for ~ 30 min. Final value must be less than TS acceptance criteria.

l

  • Localleak rate test:

- Surveillance interval:If DWto WWbypass leakage testing failed

- Procedure: Remove VB outlet screens, seal exhaust port with specially design flanges, pressurize sealed chamber with N2 or air to ~ 2 psid and monitor pressure decay

  • Inservice Inspection:(See attached Table)

A*..

PlannedInservice Inspection 1

i SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY 7.1 Opening Setpoint: The opening setpoint will be Once every 2 years verified by manually lifting the disc and measuring the opening force.

7.2 Free Movement and Dash Pot Surveillance: De Once every 2 years disc will be dropped from the full open position and the closing time shall be monitored and compared to an acceptance Criteria.

7.3 ISI by ASME XI for Class MC Components:

Once every 2 years Visual examination of accessible surface areas and seals.

7.4 Elastomers

The seal clastomers will be changed Once every 6 years periodically.

7.5 Visual Examination: The vacuum breaker body, Once every 2 years exhaust ports, inlet and outlet screens, disc and seal will be visually examined for external damage or debris.

7.6 Instrumentation Surveillance: He proximity Once every 10 years or as sensors will be changed periodically to prevent a or as required failure during reactor operation. A failure of any of the sensors is detected in the MCR through an alarm at any time during operation.

l r

\\

Conclusion GE successfully designed, built and tested a new vacuum breaker to stringent SBWR requirements i

SBWR VB installed in protected locations Operational testing and surveillance requirements will insure valve operability Mostprobable VB failure mode is failure to open -

accountedforin SBWR design Vacuum breaker testing demonstrated proper functioning despite all credible conditions meeting single failure l

exemption requirements of ANSI /ANS 58.9 l

l Vacuum breaker testing was conducted with close NRC l

scrutiny

4 i

W Conclusion 4

SBWR vacuum breaker testing and final report was completed andsubmitted to NRC 12/94

/

"SBWR Drywell to WetweII Vacuum Breaker Valve White Paper" and Single Failure Exemption Request submitted 2/95 Large sunk investment by GE and NRC in vacuum breaker developmentandreview GE needs to disposition prototype vacuum breaker Request closure on 2/95 single failure-open " exemption" request GEPosition: SBWR VB should be exemptfrom single failure-open requirement i

i

P D

GE Nuclear Energy i

L 2

NRC Meeting on Containment Analysis Containment Analysis Roadmap i

l B. S. Shiralkar August 21,1995

.C t

4 5

I- # lb l

l lldl1 I

l 5

i--

lgl,lr-~7b(p'-:

! 'k l

sa/h_--

Q.a r

si l l l 2 o';e e ':

IJ

,ei l aC

e' L', 'eel 4

_,, y_

m

~~!!k:le

(

i' g

I 1;

T i

~

w ly o

e e

e,-

=

ct

'e e is l'

l 24H I-n 1

, r C

li T T ' 'v u_g_'____ _,

'h k!j i

_kll l l klI

%g

_______2 C

i e

b

su O

Q OO 9

Gb.C 1

Documentation Summary

  • TAPD Rev. C (August 95)

+

- PIRT, data needed for assessment, test and analysis program

  • TRACG Model LTR - NED 32176 Rev.1 (Dec. 95)

- TRACG models, basis and range of application (reactor vessel and containment)

  • TRACG Oualification - NED 32177 (Feb. 93) + Supplement (April 96)

- Includes PANTHERS, PANDA, GIRAFFE post test analysis

- Discussion of applicability to SBWR

- Quantitative comparisons of predictions vs. data

  • TRACG Model Application to SBWR - NED 32178 (April 96)

- Design application methodology I

l l

?

.---..v

_.v-v,,-,.-,-

.- __ ~-_.__.. - -, - -.,--,- _ _.__

w. - - ___,,,

,-,a,

_____,-w

+

TRACG Application for DBA Analysis (contd.)

SSAR calculation basis 102% of ratedpower Loss of a/c power Initialpool temperature at maximum value (43.3 C)

Drywell to wetwell effective leakage area of 1 cm i

i

't 1

m r-

- m. +- -e-

+-was-

-e

.,..we-e

+e

.-ne w.--

ee.+

,.---+ + -.

.**-e-,

r- -.

v.----e m-~

__--_,-i __

GENuclearEnergy l

PANDA Scaling - PCC Header Insulation

(

ByRobert Gamble k

l NRC Meeting San Jose, CA Aug. 22,1995 REG E22%9

PCC Header Heat Loss - System Considerations i

e Total PANDA PCC heat removalincreased by approximately 10%

+ Onlyimportant when Decay heat is within 10% of PCC maximum capacity since PCC will self regulate to balance steam generated from decayheat e Scaling measurementis QpcclQdecht

+ Parameter can vary from ~0 (PCC full of n-c's) to 3 in SBWR during time frame of PANDA test. It will vary over similar range in PANDA.

e Fill time constant will vary by same percentage (~10%)

+ Not a significant amount for nominal value of 29 seconds i

4 i

REGR72%10 i

w sif PCC Heat Transfer e PCC heat transfergiven by e=jm-%)

A is the header surface area and R is the total " resistance" to heat transfer given by R = R_ + R, + R_

a where 1

R_, = h_,

R, = D,In('%)

a 2k,

a I

R_ =

REG 8r22%12 u

i PCC Header Heat Loss - Bottom-up Effects i

e Key parameters effecting PCC behavior are: blanketing, shear enhancement and degradation due to n-c's e The time constant for blanketing (fiiling) has been addressed above.

No bottom-up mechanism has been identified that would indicate a significant distortion in blanketing from the increased header heat removal.

e The shear enhancement and n-c concentration parameters vary over a wide range of conditions over the length of the tubes and the various system conditions in the SBWR

+ Ranges willbe similarin PANDA REG 8G2%13

4 m.

PCC HeaderHeat Loss - Conclusion e Scaling effect of uninsulated header considered from system, component and bottom-up perspective Scaling does not indicate any significant distortions from uninsulated header l

T REGirt2%14 l

l

GENuclearEnergy 1

i i

l i

GIRAFFE /He Scaling ByRobert Gamble NRC Meeting San Jose, CA Aug. 22,1995 I

REG &E%1 i

[

i GIRAFFE Scaling-IdealScaling e Desired scaling for methodology used on SBWR is l

+ ry = Hg = 1 s-

=a~n

+ Qg = Vg = Ag = Wg = R

~ ~ ~ ' " " ~ ' ' "

e NominalR for GIRAFFEis 1:400 l

e Two distortions in GIRAFFE results in compromises

+ Large heat losses in Lower DryWeII (LDW) (18% of scaled decay heat)

I

+ PCC heat removalscaled less than nominalsystem scale (1:690) e Also,

+ DryweII aspect ratio very large in GIRAFFE 4

REG 8/22/95-2

GIRAFFE Scaling - DryweII Heat Losses e DryweII heat losses are compensated by additionalsteam generation in the RPV e The result is that from a top down perspective the energy entering and exiting the GIRAFFE DWis balanced similar to the SBWR and the net heat flow to the PCC is scaled properly (~1:400) e Condensation of steam at bottom of LDWresults in downward gas velocity e Therefore the dryweII mixing in GIRAFFE may not be representative ofSBWR e Probably not representative anyway because of tall thin facility REG 8/22%3

l l

1 GIRAFFE Scaling - DryweII Heat Losses (Cont'd)

+

l l

e Does not significantly effect PCC conditions Non-representative amount of n-c's may be trapped in LDW but sufficient n-c's are present to fill PCC many times (~30)

Therefore PCC will have many throughputs of n-c's as they are moved overto file WWasis expectedin SBWR e PCC bottom-up parameters are n-c fraction, Free stream Re, Condensation layer thickness (Re film)

These will vary over similar ranges in SBWR and GIRAFFE as discussedlater e Therefore DryweII n-c distribution not crucial to test objective of demonstrating PCC performance in presence oflighter and heavier than air n-c's l

REG &72%4 4

..-m.

GIRAFFE Scaling-PCC Sizing e Two possible options to accommodate smallPCC are:

+ Use PCC heat removal as nominal Q scale (1:690)

+ Use volume scale as nominal Q scale (1:400) e The latter was selected for GIRAFFE /He e This has the following results

+ DW fill time constant (pressurization rate) is maintained at 1:1 i

+

Several PCC parameters are distorted L

l l

REGF41%5

\\

GIRAFFE Scaling - PCC Sizing (Cont'd) e The top down parameter ofinterest in the PCC is QpcclQdecht

+ The GIRAFFE range is similar to the expected SBWR range Ranges from 0 to ~3 in SBWR Ranges from 0 to 1.8in GIRAFFE

+ PCC generally regulates to a value of ~1 e The bottom-up parameters ofinterest are: blanketing, shear enhancement and degradation due to n-c's

+ The key parameters reflecting these phenomena are: the film Re, the I

free stream Re, and the non-condensible mass fraction, Yn-c

+ The ranges for these parameters are similarin SBWR and GIRAFFE neamss l

i

g "9'+

Variation in PCC Bottom-Up Parameters {SBWR) 1 e Film Re varies from smaII value at entrance to large number at exit

+ from ~0 to 1500 e Free stream Re varies from large number at entrance to small number when all steam is condensed (with small amount of n-c's)

+ from Order 30k to 0 e Yn-c varies based on inlet conditions l

Variation in parameters due to PCC sizing is much smaller than variation due to axial variation in conditions REG 87T1%7 i

GIRAFFEScaling-Conclusions e Two distortions in the GIRAFFE /He facility were considered: higher than desired heat losses in the Lower DryweII and a smaller than desired PCC size e The GIRAFFE /He test objectives of demonstrating PCC performance in presence oflighter and heavier than air n-c's is not adversely effectedby these distortions i

l REG 8/22%8

_-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20087L487&oldid=4343222"