ML20100J032

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Submits non-proprietary Sbwr Highlights & GE Slides from NRC 960215 Meeting
ML20100J032
Person / Time
Site: 05200004
Issue date: 02/23/1996
From: Quinn J
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To: Quay T
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned), NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
MFN-026-96, MFN-26-96, NUDOCS 9602280200
Download: ML20100J032 (21)
v • d • e


Text

I f

i

(

GENuclearEnergy J. E. Oulnn. Projects Manager GeneralElectric Company LMR and SBWR Programs 175 Curtner Avenue, WC 165 San Jose, CA 95125-1014 408 925-1005 (phone) 406 925-3991 (facsimile)

February 23,1996 MFN 026-%

Docket 52-004 ,

Document Control Desk U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Washington DC 20555 Attention: Theodore E. Quay, Director Standardization Project Directorate

Subject:

SBWR - liighlights and Transmitte of Non Proprietary GE Slides from the GE/NRC Meeting February 15,1996.

This letter is written to document highlights from the Subject meeting, and to transmit the Non Proprietary GE Slides as an Attachment to this letter.

PANTIIERS: The results of the PANTHERS Testing will be used for global qualification of the TRACG Code; the basic data from the University of California, Berkeley, (UCB) were used for correlation development. TRACG predicts perfonnance of the PCC over a wide range of conditions. The TRACG post-test analysis results show good agreement with the test data. The ,

NRC consultants' analyses are also showing good predictions of the PANTHERS test data. GE believes no further data are needed to characterize PCC performance. Detailed discussions i

provided clarifications on what was measured and which instruments should be used for specific data. The discussion was deemed quite useful by the participants in understanding how the data was taken and how it is being used to validate TRACG.

Scaling: The schedule for the review of the Scaling report was discussed. The testing is virtually complete. GE would like to receive agreement from the NRC to the effect that the facilities were scaled properly to capture the phenomenological behavior in the various phases of the LOCA tnmsient, and that the data are appropriate for validation of the TRACG code for SBWR design and analysis. The NRC Staff stated a need for final validation of the scaling by the test data. GE believes the NRC should review the report and comment on the acceptability of the methodology, subject to final validation by the test results. The NRC Consultants presented their findings to date. Review of the Scaling Report is nearing completion and written feedback from the NRC to GE is expected March,1996.

TRACG Model LTR The TRACG Model Licensing Topical Report (LTR) was submitted to NRC February 23,1996. NRC agreed that they could respond as to the acceptability of the report for review and confonnance to NUREG-1230 and that it addressed previously identified issues by NRC/ACRS within 60 days, April,1996.

Should you have any questions concerning the attachments please contact Bharat Shiralkar of our stafron 408-925-6889.

Sincerely, / i d+t $554&

ames E. Quinn 270008 i s 9602280200 960223 PDR ADOCK 05200004 A PDR

. i t

7 .

GENuclearEnergy

Attachment:

Non Proprietary GE Slides from the GE/NRC Meeting February 15,1996

~

MFN 026-96 cc: P. A. Boehnert (NRC/ACRS) (2 paper copies w/att, plus E-Mail w/o att.)

I. Catton (ACRS) (1 paper copy w/att. plus E-Mail w/o att.)

S. Q. Ninh (NRC) (1 paper copy plus E-Mail w/o att.) ,

D. C. Scaletti (NRC) (1 paper copy w/att. plus E-Mail w/o att.) .

A. Drozd (NRC) (1 paper copy w/att. plus E-Mail w/o att.)

4 1

t j

i

'l 1

i

1 GENuclearEnerpy MFN 026-%

J bec: . (E-Mail of transmittal letter only except as noted) j J. A. Beard 1 R. H. Buchholz T. Cook (doe) (2 paper copies w/att. plus E-Mail of transmittal letter only)

R. T. Fernandez (EPRI) 3 J. N. Fox P. C. Hecht M. Herzog ,

J. E. Leatherman

, J. E. Quinn T. J. Mulford (EPRI) (2 paper copies w/att. plus E-Mail of transmittal letter only) ,

F. A. Ross (doe)

B. Shiralkar R. Srinivasan (EPRI)

J. E. Torbeck GE Master File (1 paper copy w/att plus E-Mail of transmittal letter only) i SBWR Project File (1 paper copy w/att. plus E-Mail of transmittal letter only) t t

4 l

t t

4

GENuclentEnergy MFN 026-%

tac: [E-Mail]

E Lumini 8-011 39-10-655-8279 S Spoelstra 8-011-31-22-456-3912 V Cavicchia 8-011-39-68-509-8601

~ JJ Pena 8-011-34-1-347-4215 K Maubach 8-011-49-721-987-7257 C Witteman 8-011-31-48-841 2128 A Zimmermann 8-011-49-406-396-3661 J Yamashita 8-011-81 29-423-6750

. W van der Mheen 8-011-31-26-351-8092

- A van Dijk 8-011 31-20-580-7041 O Yadigaroglu 8 4 11-41-1-632-1166 K Petersen 8-011-49-201 122-4092 H Tonegawa 8-011-81-33-597-2227 F Kienle . 8 4 11-49-69-630-4420 P Masoni 8-011-39-51-609-8639 W Mizumachi 8-011-81-33-597-2227 G Varadi 8-011-41-5-698-2327 R Tavoni 8-011-39-51-609-8688 H Blaesig (site) 52700 J Faig (site) 52700 A Toba (site) 52700

ATTACHMENT TO MFN 026-96 GENuclear Energy GE/NRC Meeting on PANTHERS Data GEPerspective on PANTHERS PCC Tests B. S. Shiralkar .

February 15,1996

_ . . =___- - -.-. _ . _ . -

s .

GEPerspective on PANTHERS PCC Tests

  • How is PANTHERS PCC data being used for SBWR Certification (TRACG

. Qualification) ?

  • How accurately does the PCC performance need to be predicted ?

I v

I l

. _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ __ --m -- - . ,-vs,

l -

o .

Howis PANTHERS Data being Used ?

l

  • PANTHERS data :: ' rot being used to develop basic correlations
  • Used for validating performance of prototype heat exchanger with existing correlations -
  • Correlations based on basic single tube data taken at UCB and MIT

- Nusselt type correlations

- Multipliers for shear enhancement and noncondensible degradation

  • PANTHERS data only used to choose better of available correlations

- Changed to Kuhn-Schrock-Peterson correlation from Vierow-Schrock 1

- Recommended by UCB

- Changed to pool boiling correlation from Chen correlation on pool side

- Supported by technical opinion  ;

- Better agreement with data

  • Use of data does not require more detailed instrumentation

- Instrumentation and measurements were reviewed in detail with NRC/ACRS prior to testing _ _

_ _ , . . .... .=. . . . . _ , _ _ . ~ ...-,#~ . . . . . - - --4

How accurately does PCC perfonnance need to be predicted ?

  • Overall SBWR system performance needs to be considered
  • Early blowdown : majority of flow is through main vents; about 15% through PCCs

- Noncondensible concentration drops exponentially because of dilution effects

- Steam pass through is minimal

  • With excess capacity, PCCs become self-regulating

- Feedbacks from PCC pressure and noncondensible content

- Noncondensibles accumulate in PCC such that heat removal matches decay heat

  • System response behavior demonstrated by PANDA and GIRAFFE tests
  • Pressure drop is set by steam flow rate

- Reactor vessel and dryweII operate at wetwellpressure + delta-p

  • Only criterion is that main vents do not open in the long term

- Pressure drop margin is ~ 9 kPa vs. PCC pressure drop of 6-7 kPa at I hour

  • An accuracy of 15% in htc and 1 kPa in pressure drop is adequate forpredicting ..

system response

PCC " System Response" Characteristics i

  • PCCS tends to maintain a balance between heat removal and decay heat

- PCCs have excess heat removal capability under pure steam conditions

- Feedbacks on noncondensible holdup and dryweIIpressure stabilize response -

Reduction in heat removal increases PCC pressure Noncondensibles are pushed out through PCC vent ATforheat transferincreases Heat removalincreases '

Blanketing by noncondensibles reduces heai removal Drywellpressure increases Helps to purge noncondensibles to wetwell r

- Normally enough noncondensibles remain in drywell to reduce PCC heat removal to match decay heat PCC volume is 0.16% of drywell volume

- Noncondensible accumulation may occur preferentially in one of the PCC units, i but overall heat removal matches decay heat t

, . - , , - , - . - e , - - - ,w- . ,,- -

-x___ __ _. ________.m_______ _ _ _ _ _ . _

l GENuclearEnergy t

I I

PANTHERS-PCC Post-Test Analysis l .

ByJim Fitch NRC/GEMeeting Bethesda, Md c February 15,1996 ..

i .

Outline t

e Objectives ofpost-test evaluation i e Testsselectedforpost-testevaluation e TRACG model of PANTHERS-PCC test facility t

~

e Changes in TRACG heat transfer correlations e Update on results ofpost-test evaluation  ;

+ SS pure steam tests ,

+ SSsteamlairtests s Processing of tube waII temperature instrumentation I

e Containment analysis with light gas i e Summary M1 i 031595 l

t m, - , ., , . _ - , . . . . . . . _ . _ . . _ . . . .- _ . , . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _

Objectives ofpost-test evaluation 1

e Evaluate applicability of TRACG correlations for calculation of PCC performance l

+ tubeside l

+ poolside  ;

e Evaluate applicability of " lumped-tube" input model of PCC for use .

}

in containmentsystem analysis.

+ paralieimodule effects -

+ paraIIeltube effects

+ Condensation with heavyllight non-condensables 4 e b

Tests forpost-test evaluation Test Test Type Data Comparison 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. air inventory 76 TR - nc buildup inlet pressure vs. helium inventory 78 TR - nc buildup inlet pressure vs. air / helium inventory 55 TR - water level inlet pressure vs water level JRF 4 02rtS16

TRACG modelofPANTHERS PCC (Ann pressure)

___ _ _ _ __.1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

i bI g_____ _ _ _ _ _

Inlettine r ,

~~~- [~-}~~~-

~

~~~: -
'=

1 <, .

ICpool

& = =

Ventline Drainline f Y

Spectacle f ndensa tankJh

~ ~ ~

flange

( Venttank D JRF 5 Obtsf)6

l ~.

Changes in TRACG heat transfer correlations e Tubeside

+ Incorporate results of final UCB single-tube tests and correlation (Kuhn- -

Schrock-Peterson) e Poolside

+ Use pool-boiling correlation in place of Chen .

Thbeside Pbolside TRACGU2 Viemw&1mck Olen (Tsukuba")

TRACGB4 Kuhn-Sdirock-lMerson Pmlboiling (KSP) (Forster-Zuber)

Steady-statesteam/airtests 1

L t

'IESrCONDfIIONS

! Test SteamFlow AirF1mv AirlWss Inlet Inlet No. (kg/sec) (kg/sec) Itaction Pnssuin Teimperattue ,

WA) (Q '

15 5.00- 5.10 0.165-0.167 0.032 300-790 140 - 176 l 23 4.97 - 5.03 0.85 - 0.87 0.146-0.148 298-584 135- 160 L

l 1 I

Processing of tube-waII temperature data e Instrumentation

+ Fourtubes .

l + Nine axiallocations on each tube

+ Two embedded wall thermocouples at each location e Pure-steam tests used for evaluation -

+ Axially uniform tube andpool-side fluid temperatures

+ Significant heat transfer at aII axial locations e Measurements " norma llzad" by scaling 4-tube average heat removal to overaIIcondenserheat removal e Measurements used to infer tube waIIsurface temperatures e Inferred film drops indicate that TRACG htc is too Iow on poolsise and too high on tube side ..

1 i

Containmentanalysis with lightgas e PANTHERSITRACG comparison indicates modeirevision is required to predict condenser behavior with light-gas in a " dead-end" configuration.

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

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 Calculation of condenserperformance during light-gas purging with a system-type (e.g.., single-tube) modelis an achievabie objective.

oItb v, , . - - - - , - - - - - - - , - - - . - , - . , , - - - - - - - . - - _ - - . . . _ , - - - n -- - - - ---,- -- .- - - . - - - .

Containmentbehaviorforlightgas e PCC vent opens wheneverperformance is degraded MSLB 40 30 Puging require'; pressure difference to open vent 20 purging not required

{

6 9

10

. .)

. ........... .. . ... ................p'.............................

0 -

I

-10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (1E3 sec)

J M 16 031596

_ m 4 __-__a - __ _ _ _ - - t _-. -2 _- - ._______m__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Containment analysis with light gas e Data available

+ Heat transfer characteristics forlight gas underpurging conditions weII -

defined by UCBIMITdata

+ GIRAFFE, tests show light gas will be purged from PCC by DWIWW pressure difference i

+ GIRAFFE tests show pressure history is similar for nitrogen and helium purges e A~nalysis approach

+ Use conservative degradation factor based on single-tube data i

+ Modify model, as necessary, to account for distributional effects

+ Perform calculations to determine mostlimiting purging transient, e.g..  ;

Long purge with dilute hydrogen mixture ..

Short purge with rich hydrogen mixture .

2"

l

. .. , 1 Summarf e Post-test analyses of PANTHERS PCC steady-state data completed e Calculations are conservative forpure steam and steam / air tests '

. + Heat rejection rate underpredicted by 10-15%  ;

l 1 l + Data trends captured e TRACG correlations modified

+ Kuhn-Schrock-Peterson (KSP) on tube side  ;

+ Poolboiling (Forster-Zuber) on poolside i

e Processing of tube-waII temperature instrumentation has provided support for changes in TRACG correlations e Procedures forlight-gas analysis being developed

+ GIRAFFE and PANTHERS data willsupport modeling approach

,

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20100J032&oldid=2777451"