Text

Forwards Draft Results of SG Tube Ruptures Concurrent W/ Steam Line Break Outside Containment Calculations LLW-05-92
	ML20128C320
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	03/11/1992
From:	Ward D; EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:	Hopenfeld J; NRC
Shared Package
ML18153D185	List: ML18153D184; ML20128C314; ML20128C320; ML20128C349;
References
	NUDOCS 9212040339
	Download: ML20128C320 (43)
	v • d • e

... -........ -.... -

m b

IN*E u.s.n. m u,~,,u w.,

March 11, 1992 Dr. Joram Hopenfeld U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 DRAFT RESULTS OF STEAM GENERATOR TUBE RUPTURES CONCURRENT WITH STEAM LINE BREAK OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT CALCULATIONS - LWW-05-92

Dear Dr. Hopenfe1d:

The attached report prepared by C. Heath summarizes the results of the calculations performed as you requested to determine the expected behavior of a Westinghouse RESAR III plant after a steam line break concurrent with a steam generator tube rupture. The calculations performed led to prediction of refueling water storage tank depletion (RWST) in a period of three to eight and a half hours depending on the number of tubes ruptured.

It should be emphasized that the time to exhaust the RWST could vary substantially due to operator action, thus the predicted timos are not absolute and are useful as scoping calculations only.

Please note an NPA mask was developed as part of the analysis should you desire to see the results displayed on the DEC 5000. 'Also, I have included, as a second attachment, a copy of the critical flow equations we discussed.

If you have any additional questions or comments please call me at 492-3688 or Chris Heath at 492-3691.

(

' Dr Leonard L. Ward t/INEL Program Manager for NRR Projects

Enclosures:

As Stated cc:

P. Norlan G. Berna (EG&G Idaho, Inc.)

9212040339 921124 PDR ADOCK 05000344 P.

PDR GGL'G \\aano,sne.

11426 Rockville Pike Suite 300 Rockville MD 20852

= _........

m.....

a STEAM GENERATOR TUBE RUPTURE CONCURRENT WITH STEAM LINE BREAK OUTSIDE CO Prepared by:

C. Heath INTRODUCTION At the request of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld of the USNRC, Office of Research, scoping calculations were performed for a double-ended rupture of a main steam line, outside of the containment, concurrent with multiple failures of steam generator tubes.

The failed steam generator tube break areas evaluated in this study included sizes equivalent to 1, 2.5, and 5 double-ended guillotine ruptures. A RESAR 111 Nuclear Steam Supply System model was used for the evaluation.

The results of these calculations show that without operator intervention, a steam line break, outside of the containment, concurrent with the double-ended rupture of a single steam generator tube in the failed generator results in The double-depletion of the refueling water storage tank (RWST) in 8.5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months .

ended rupture of five steam generator tubo results in exhaustion of the RWST inventory in about three hours. With operator action to throttle Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) injection flow, exhaustion of the RWST with five failed tubes is delayed to 7.7 hours8.101852e-5 days 0.00194 hours 1.157407e-5 weeks 2.6635e-6 months . While operator actions can significantly delay exhaustion of the RWS', timely accident management strategies such as those to replenish the RWST w)La borated water would be needed to prevent the accident from progressing to a core melt.

Because the secondary pressure of the failed steam ge 2rator decreases to near atmospheric conditions due to the large steam line rupture, operator actions to reduce reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure to a value below that of the failed steam generator secondary (to terminate the RCS break flow) may not be timely enough to prevent exhaustion of the RWST.

The results of the scoping calculations are discussed below.

DISCUSSION The SCDAPS/RELAP5/H003 code, version 7(o), was used in the calculations.

The calculations were performed on a DEC 5000 computer for a four loop RESA'l III PWR at a thermal power of 3400 MW,.

The RELAP5/M003 nodalization diagram is The model consists of two separate loops.

The single presented in Figure 1.

loop contains the failed steam generator with the broken steam line and failed steam generator tubes while the other loop combines the three remaining loops.

The calculations were carried out to one hour into the event at which time the primary and secondary pressure responses achieved a near quasi-steady state condition.

Three steam generator tube failure cases were evaluated consisting of break areas equivalent of 1, 2.5, and 5 double ended guillotine ruptures. The main steam line break size included a double-ended guillotine failure, outside of the containment, with an area of 4.9 ft.

With a steam line break outside of the 2

4 containment concurrent with a multiple failure of the steam generator tubes, exhaustion of the RWST inventory can potentially occur which could lead to a possible core melt.

With the break located outside of the containment, exhaustion of the RWST cannot be followed by a switch in ECC alignment to the recirculation mode of cooling. From an accident management perspective, the time to exhaust the RWST inventory is therefore of particular interest since in the event of no additional actions, core uncovery and melt could occur.

Table I presents a sumary of the results of the scoping calculations. The time to exhaust the RWST inventory for the three steam generator tube rupture sizes varies from 8.5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months for one failed tube to 3.1 hours1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months for five failed tubes. For illustrative purposes, no operator actions were assumed for these first three cases.

In estimating the time to exhaust the RWST, the capacity of the tank was assumed to be 350,000 gallons, which is approximately the minimum allowable technical specification value. Olearly, any additional borated water would lengthen the amount of time to drain the RWST.

Also, the time to exhaust the RWST is based on the injection flow at one hour into the event, which consisted of high pressure safety injection and charging flow. Low pressure safety injection was never initiated in our calculations and the safety injection tank (SIT) contributions were insignificant by this time for all cases.

While RCS and secondary pressure has stabilized at this tin, use of the injection or break flow at one hour results in minimizing the drain time for the RWST since break flow is expected to decrease during the latter portion of the events.

Since decay heat generation decreases with time, the operator could cortinue to throttle ECC flow to minimize RCS pressure and the resulting break flow, while maintaining a minimum of subcooling.

The last case presented in Table 1 shows the effect of the operator actions to delay drainage of the RWST. These actions included throttling the ECC flow to maintain a minimum of subcooling in the RCS, while cooldown of the RCS by opening the atmospheric dump values (ADVs) in the intact steam generators was also initiated.

As mentioned earlier, with the double-ended steam line break, cooldown of the RCS with the objective of reducing RCS pressure below that of tha broken steam generator requires many hours since the failed steam generator depressurizes to very low values early in the event.

Table I shows that throttling ECC flow to maintain a minimum of subcooling results in delaying exhaustion of the RWST from 3.1 to approximately 7.7 hours8.101852e-5 days 0.00194 hours 1.157407e-5 weeks 2.6635e-6 months after initiation of the event.

All the cases were run for six seconds at full power to reach equilibrium throughout the system and then the orcaks were opened and the reactor was scrammed.

The results from the final case of Table I which included operator action are discussed in the following paragraphs in detail. The results for the cases involving the rupture of 1, 2.5, and 5 tubes are phenomenologically similar and are included in Appendices A, B, and C to this report.

A sumary of the assumptions and initial conditions for these scoping calculations are provided in Table 2.

Figures 2 through 6 present the calculation results of the main steam line rupture concurrent with five failed steam generator tubes for the operator action Figure 2 presents the RCS and failed secondary steam generator pressure case.

responses.

Because of the large steam line break size, the failed steam

-~

.a..._..-..._............__.._.M_..,____..,__

+.

= generator depressurizes rapidly to near atmospheric co ditions. As a consequence of the rapid cooldown of the failed steam generator, the RCS also experiences an initial rapid cooldown, which stabilizes due to the activation of the ECCS early.

in the event. The sudden decrease in RCS pressure at about 750 seconds in Figure 2 is due to the SIT discharge which condensed the steam and collapsed " 3 voids which developed during the initial portion of the transient.- The conmosation caused the RCS to depressurize, increasing the SIT flow and further rm-g the saturation temperature and hence RCS pressure. Continued ECC 'ft.

then pressurized the RCS to the condition where break flow equaled the ECC injaction flow which occurred at about 750 seconds. At about 1000 seconds, operator action was initiated to throttle the ECCS, teducing RCS pressure during the latter portion of the event as shown in Figure 2. Note that without operator action to-throttle ECC flow, the RCS pressure will remain at significantly higher pressures as shown in Figure C1 of Appendix C.

The ECC injection and rupture steam generator tube mass flow r.ates are given in Figure 3.

The mass flow rate through the f ailed steam line is given in Figure 4.

Using the, ruptured tube break flow rate of about 105 lb/s from Figure 3 at-3600 seconds, the RWST is estimated to drain in about 7.7 hours8.101852e-5 days 0.00194 hours 1.157407e-5 weeks 2.6635e-6 months . The ECC flow, shown in Figure 3, temporarily decreased at about 3300 seconds into the transient as a result of the emptying of the SITS. Although the ECC pumped injection flow is lower than the break flow at the end of the transient shown in Figure 3, pumped ECC flow would be increased at this time to maintain RCS subcooling and-an RCS pressure of approximately 160 psia.

Figure 5 presents the primary and intact secondary temperature responses and show:: that RCS temperature has stabilized after one hour into the event. The failed steam generator temperature transient is given in Figure 6.

It is important to note that. there is a flow restrictor in each steam generator at the entrance of the steam line 'which is designed for a'2.75 psi pressure crop at a flow of 1051 lb/s. This estrictor had little or no impact on limiting the break flow through the broken steam line for the conditions calculated.

It should be recognized that other strategies or actions may be successful in further delaying exhaustion of the RWST or terminating the break flow through the failed steam generator tubes.

It should also be emphasized that break. flow and hence ECC flow can vary significantly depending: on the operator throttling actions to achieve the degree of desired'subcooling. As a consequence, the time to. exhaust the RWST can also -vary significantly.

The significance of the calculations should not emphasize the exact. times for exhausting the.RWST, but' that operator actions can extend the t we to drain the RWST. Other strategies that'may be considered could include:

1.

Opening the PORVs early in' the event to-establish sufficient inventory in the sump'to initiate ECC recirculation.

2.

Activate Residual Heat Removal and attempt to establish mid-loop operation to terminate the loss of RCS liquid through the break in the steam generator tubes.

3.

Replenish the RWST inventory with borated water at a rate greater that the ECC injection rate.

E

- CONCLUSION A double-ended steam line break outside of the containment concurrent with five-failed steam generator tubes results in exhausting the RWST in about three hours.

without operator action.

With operator action to = throttle ECC flow, the-exhaustion of the RWST is delayed until about eight hours' after opening of the break. Because the break is located outside the containment, the eventual loss of the RWST inventory will lead to a core melt since there will be no coolant in -

the containment sump to initiate the ECC recirculation mode of cooling.

The importance of these results are that operator actions can successfully delay exhaustion of the RWST.

However, to prevent a core-melt additional accident

- management actions during the long term would be needed to terminate the break flow or identify alternate sources of ECC injection water.

f e

-i L

i

Figure 1.

RELAP5 NODALIZATION DIAGRAM FOR SEABROOK ARV.

80V ARV SDV a

gM873 l Id

- d871 l Q 691l MGtV MSIV 65 h u _J ERV 365 TSV

=

g N$

690,I y

N 592l

{

300 I

e A

A SEP l sao 8:1 l

' l 450 SEP l l

20 H* 321 l t

1 t

S 7

12n t

ll 1

r~

=

PZR l

126 l

124 l

{

~

= - - - -

1 p

{

8i j

!l3ll f

_ pu a

nu i3 3

[

n 4

i i

cir, i

,9,

N E

l413 f l l 400 h

-!200 l 21o !

M sio l o

l.191 l

l f

CH "x

A CH

^ ^

A

,a

(~ r -

ACC i

ACC g

J,,Jr 1Sb.

i m

MCP 3 4 i,si H r.. H I:3.

22s m

ter 177 425 4 sol M44e %ssl M III e

jos_

ygt 175

'I#

"=

g_

w, 17s 3

172 g

12L

~'-

g.j ljt JIl y

rr' l

I

=

i e

E' TABLE 1 TIHE TO EXHAUST THE RWST FOR A STEAM LINE BREAK C0!1 CURRENT WITH STEAM GEllERATOR TUBE FAILURES S.GMTUBES'

' AREA (ftz)

-H OPERATORAti10NSE^ '4 TUBE!BREAKE

$N00RS'.TO L ' FIGURES S[D$5}bi..

juBE' BREAK T ISiL; BREAK JAREA :(f t ):

t# M TFL0tM(1b/s)-

FEMPTY RWST(

2 1

0.004 4.9 tione 83 8.5 Appendix A 2.5 0.010 4.9 flone 155 4.1 Appendix B 5

0.020 4.9 flone 200 3.1 Appendix C S

0.020 4.9 Opened intact steam 105 7.7 2-6 generator ADVs, throttled charging pumps, and terminated 5'

HPSI and LPSI after I

18 minutes.

i 1 The steam aenerator tube break flow rate is based on the value at 3600 seconds.

i i

6 e

G 1

l l

g

TABLE 2 CALCULATION INITIAL CONDITIONS AND ASSUMP1 IONS 1

Simultaneous break in main steam line and rupture in steam generator tubes.

2 Instantaneous scram of reactor coincident with break initiation.

3 Intact staam generators isolated.

4 All ECCS consisting of HPSI, LPSI, and

.;I, as well as charging pumps actuated.

5 Tim,e to exhaust RWST based on break flows one hour after break.

6 No operator action (except for last case) 9

+*

s Figure ~2. Primary and. Broken Secondary Pressures,5 DEG, Operator Action-J' 3

[psla] x 10 2.60 Primary RCS

~

Broken SG

.tt 2.40 l

}

1, a

i 2.20 j

t 6

'2.00 a

9 1.80 1.60 1

1.40 t

1.20 1.00,

.\\.

O.80" l-I I

0.60

(

0.40

~

t 0.20

' ~ - - - - - - - - _ -

3 l

- [s] x 10 O.00 0.50 1.00 1.50-2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 l

t

l..

Figure 3. Steam Generator Break and ECCS Flows,5 DEG, Operator Action 3

[1b/s] x 10 j

ECCS SG Break i

g 2.40 2.20 2.00 1.80 l

1.60 1.40 i

1.20 1.00 I'

O.80 I

l

]

0.60 0.40

'(

k

'L-. k.%_,vg l

O.20 4

i, i,, u s

0.00 I

3

[s] x 10 0.00 u.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

,' lr.

,4 c

ii

)is;;; !

P s

.~i'lr

!?

'1l:. -

e 1

4 I

30 1

x

]s

[

lt w

0 5

3

'no i

tcA 0

w r

0 i

o 3

t v

arep 1

O 05 2

G ED 5

0 0

w 2

o lF kae 0

T r

5 1

B e'n iL 0

m 0

1 ae tS n

ia 0

5 M

0 i

4 er

\\

u k

0 g

0 i 3' 0

F0 1 x

0 0

0 0-0 0

0 0

]

b 0

8 6

4 2

0 8

6 4

2 0

8 6

4 2

0

/s 1

3 2

2 2

1 1

1 0

0 0

O 0

[

}

i:

);i i-

Figure 5. Primary and Intact Secondary Temperatures,5 DEG,' Operator Action

[deg F]

-660.00 Primary THot -

Secondary 640.00 620.00 600.00

,' 580.00 560.00

'540.00

-(\\

.520.00

\\\\

500.00 g

t 480.00

. \\.\\

460.00 i

i 440.00

.D...i.y 420.00 400.00'

i..

\\\\

38'0.00-NZ 360.00 -

Ns 340.00 fb g 320.m 300.00

,q %,

280.00 m

'i+.

T 260.00

, / g-3

. [s] x 10 -

O.00'

~ 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

- 2.50 '

3.00

3.50

i;,-

-l 6

.t t

>Ili g

1I 3!:!*

'I I 1Ii

~

l l',! J ;

't 2

30 1

x

]

n s

[

o 0

i 4 ' 5 tc 3

A ro ta 0

r

' 0 ep

. 3 O

E

^

G 05 D

~

2 5

,e ru t

0 a

0 r

2 ep m

e T

0 r

5 g

1 o

tarene 0

G 0

\\g 1

ma e

t

\\

S 0

n 3

\\

e 0

k o

\\

rB

\\

6

.I\\

0 0

e 0

rug 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F]

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i

F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4-e 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 g

6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 d

[

ll ll

e.............

... 4 -

4 APPENDIX A 1 Double Ended Guillotine Tube Break talculation Results i

[

Y I

e O

e e

t

]

A p'

J J

B S

I

'l e

P b

+

'4 p

-k.,w,,m 1r-.

,n--

ev -,

a'.,

-5,.w, e-,-%,

-.ur-

---~~-+3 aey, - --- -

--+-wwr.+--ir...e.-.e.---m -ei

v. w g v [c,,4

-<.#,r i evv-wwe

'< +- f t

I'

~

30 1

SC x

G

]

k R

s S

[

a

-y n

s-e e

k r

n o

i B

r r

P B

e bu 0

T 5

3 GED 1

00 3

s e

russ 0

e 5

r 2

Pyra r

d 0

n 0

2 oce S

n 0

e 5

/

k 1

or B

d 00 n

/

a 1

/

yra m

0 i

5 r

0 P

1 A

\\-

,)

s 0

\\

e3

k

0 r0 0

1 ug ]x i a 0 0

0 0

0 Fi6 4

0 8

6 4

2 0

8 6

4 2

0 sp 2 2

2 1

1 1

i 1

0 0

0

[

,\\

llfl

!lillll!1l!

!Ilil l

,)

ii,l1 l

jll 1

l

'l;;: i: ! ij!I :

,j; -

30 k

1 ae x

r S

1 C

B k

[

C G

a E~S erB 0

e l

5 b

3 uT GE 00 D

3 1

s wo 05 lF 2

S CC A

0 E

0 2

dna kae

\\

0 5

r x

1 B

r

\\

o

\\

\\g\\

/

ta 0

r 0

e

\\

k 1

\\

n 3

e G

\\

/

m a

\\

5 0

e s

0

\\

tS 2

!4k A

.il1 ;.

0 0

e

.v' r

0 ug i

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l

8 7 6 5

4 3 2 1

0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a l

1 1

1 bO i

\\

., :, : ': ! l: : =

? !! i i tiI g':} ?!,

il fl 30 1

x

]s

[

05 p

3 kaerB 00 e

3 buT G

0 E

5 2

D 1

w,

{

o 0

lF 0

2 kaerB 0

e 5

n 1

iL ma 0

e l-i 0

tS A

1 n

ia M

0 3

5 0

A e

ru

\\

g i

0 F

0 3

0 0

1 x

]s 0 0

0 0

0 O

0 b 0 8

6 4

2 0

8 6

4 2

0 8

6 0

/

l 3

2 2

2 1

1 1

0 0

O

[

2 l

F Figure A4'. Primary and Intact Secondary Temperatures,1 DEG Tube Break

[deg F]

1 Primary THot 660.00

~

l 640.00 ~

Secondary g

i 620.00 j

,-600.00

, 580.00 4

4 560.00 540.00 i

l' 520.00

\\\\

500.00

\\.\\

t 480.00 y'.

1 460.00

\\1 1

440.00 i\\s 420.00 i

\\\\

l 400.00 1

.\\.

i 380.00 ks.

J i

360.00 i-

?

- 340.00 q 4.

it j

320.00 i

l d

300.00 w

280.00 l

260.00 0

240.00

[s] x 103 t

0.00' O.50 1.00 1.50 2.00-2.50 3 00 3.50 l

I, f

l;i

)lIl' fll.

l\\j' ii

.? iii > 4i :-!'

l li f.

.!1\\!

,3 0

1 x

Is

[

k 05 8

a 3

erB e

bu 00 T

3 G

E

~

D 1

05 2

eru tare 0

p 0

m 2

eT r

N~

o 0

ta 5

r 1

ene G

m 0

a l'

0 e

tS

\\

nek 05 o

i x

0 rB k

5

\\

A

\\

e

\\

0 k

r 0

0 ug iF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

~

0 0

$0 F

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J

4 2 4

6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 8 g

6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 e

d I

9 fffl 1l

'l'l1lIllIlf l

ll\\

l\\'L

1

,..- ~.

APPEl4 DIX B 2.5 Double Ended Guillotine Tube Breaks Calculation Results O

e b

_-_--.---------.-.-------------_----.-------J

1ll i1 fj

l1

i

! ! i 30 1

SC x

G s

R

]

k S

s

[

y r

n a

a e

e m

ko r

ir r

B P

B e

bu 05 T

3 G

ED 00 5

3 2

~

ser u

0 s

5 s

2 erP 7

y 0

r 0

a 2

dnoce 0

S 5

n y

1 e

d ko y

r B

00 d

1 na y

r 0

a 5

m 0

ir P

=,

1B

,k-00 3

O e0 1 ru ]x a 0 0

O 0

0 0

0 is 6 4

D 0

8 6

4 2

0 8

6 4

2 gi F [p 2 2

2 1

1 1

0 0

l

i r

Figure B2. Steam Generator Break and ECCS Flows,23 DEG Tube Breaks

[lb/s]

ECCS 220.00 SG Break I

9 200.00 r

', 180.00 N

N u

2

~

160.00

.fi?

m.

I i

140.00

/

I I

120.00 II;

[

i 1i f'

i 100.00 2,,,y

~

80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 3

^

[s] x 10 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 1

s..

.._m__

ll, Ft i

!1i 30 1

x

]s I

05 3

s k

a e

r t

B 00 l

)

e i

3 buT G

0 E

5 2

^

D

~

5 2

w 0

o 0

l 2

F kaer 0

B I

5 1

e n

i L

m 0

a 0

e A

1 tS n

iaM 0

5 3

0 B

er

\\

ug 0

i 0

F 0 0

1 x

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

]

b 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 8

6 4 2 0 8 6 4

2 0

/s l

3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1

1 1

0 0 0 0 0

[

i-I

1 Figure B4. Primary and Intact Secondary Temperatures,2.5 DEG Tube Breaks

. l

[deg F]

i L

Primary THot l

660.00 Secondary 640.00 620.00 600.00 4

580.00 560.00 540.00 h

520.00 i

t

\\\\

l 500.00

. \\:.

1 480.00 i

\\1 460.00 i\\s 440.00

\\.s.

420.00 si l

\\'N 400.00 Ni.

i 380.00 Q.-

360.00 340.00 Nd-320.00 4

300.00 ~

%=

l 280.00

~

260.00 240.00

[s] x 102 i

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4

O

- m.

l t!

i 4

t c

.IT[

+

~

30 1

x

]s s

[

T-' 5 k

0 ae 3

r B

e e

bu 0

T 0

i 3

GED 5

0 2

5 W

2

,eru tar 0

e 0

p 2

meTro 05 t

1

=

a 1

r ene G

0 m

0 1

ae tS ne 0

k 5

0 or 3

B

\\

5 1.

B

\\

0 k

e 0

0 ru g

i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F ]F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 g

6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 e

d

[

q i

'I

r--

APPEl(DIX C 5 Double Ended Guillotine Tube Breaks Calculation Results e

9 0

4 8

y 9 s-

- cwe -

y e-

* =

avo-y 9--g

-yme-y<.

n v-w--

v--

g

,W

,!I.

4 W

. j l ! !I i !,

30 S

1 C G x

R

]

s S

s k

y

[

r n

a e

ae m

ko i

r r

rP B

B e

b 0

u 5

3 T

~

GE D

00 5

3 s

~

er us 0

s 5

e 2

rPyr a

0 d

0 2

noce S

05 n

e 1

k orB 0

d 0

n 1

a y

ra 0

m 5

i 0

rP 1

\\

.l.,

0 C

.ij I

0 e3 0

0 r1ux g ]a 0 0

0 0

6 4

2 0

8 6

4 2

0 8

6 4

2 0

i i Fsp 2 2

2

'2 1

1 1

0 0

0

[

lIllllllll llll\\I lI

L

1 Figure C2. Steam Generator Break and ECCS Flows,5 DEG Tube Breaks 3

[1b/s] x 10 t

ECCS l

i:

[

2.60 SG Break I

I i

4 2.40 t

i

,2.20 2.00 1

1 1.80 l-1.60 t

)

1.40 i

1.20 b

1.00 0.80 s

4 0.60 i --

0.40 g-f M

0.20 r

w w

i i

0.00 4

[s] x 10 l

3 0.00 0.50 1.00 LSO 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 t

i

.I i

I i

i i

w

+ uov -u vr

v,$

i

!l

\\

il1jll ll 30 1

x

]s 1

[

l' 05 3

skaer 0

B 0

3 e

buT G

05 E

2 D

5 wo 00 lF 2

kaerB k

0 J,

5 e

1 n

i L

ma e

00 tS 1

n A

ia M

0 5

3 0

C s

eru

\\

g

\\

i I\\

0 F

0 3

o 0

1 x

0 0

0

]/s b

0 8

6 4

2 0

8 6

4 2

0 8

6 2

0 I

3 2

2 2

1 1

1 0

0 0

0

[

ll llf l

l!l l

ll ffJl

Figure C4. Primary and Ir. tact Secondary Temperatures,5 DEG Tube Breaks i.

[deg F]

I N**'YW' 660.00 Secondary 640.00 620.00 4

[

600.00 r

i

' 580.00 t

i 560.00 3 -

540.00

-h' l

I 520.00 1

\\i.

a Sw.m

\\,1 l

480.00

\\\\-

l 460.00 i

\\.1 i

440.00

-i e

.y(

(

jL 420.00

\\

I 1

400.m

%.~

380.00

\\ '\\

\\-

j.

360.M i

1

-340.00.

1 i.

h i

320.00 s

6 I

300.00 y

j'

^% _

i j

280.00 i

i i-260.00.

i 3

[s] x 10

[

0.00

'O.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 t

{

t

30 1

x

]s

[

s 0

k 5

I l'

a 3

erB e

b 0

u 0

I T

3 GED 5

05 q

2 eru tar e

0 p

0 2

me Tro 0

ta 5

1 re ne G

m 00 g

a 1

e tS n

\\

e k

0 o

5

\\

0 rB

\\\\

5C

\\

0 e

0 r

0 ug i

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

]

6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 g

6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 e

d

[

Athchmerit 2 Hotos on Critical Flow Rate Estimation The Darcy equation is applicable to incompressible steady-stato flow through a constant diamotor straight pipo where the pressure differenco is given by APa f5 9Y (1)

D 2ge Roarranging and expressing the flow as a a mass flux:

s " 29ebP (2) t1 7v If the flow through in desired through a length of pipo with a flow lous coofficiant K, the above equation becomes:

G= 2 (P -cP,,,( T,)

(3) u o

Tho Zaloudok correlation for subcooled critical flow is given by

<2 I'

(4)

G=c

(P -P,,t) y i,

vf f

for the range 400< p, < 1800 psia and where dischargo coefficient c

=

upstream pressuro P,

=

P,,, a saturation pressure v,

specific volume of saturated liquid

=

g U

~. -...-

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

If the Zaloudek correlation is modified to predict a frictionless Moody flow at saturation, thus:

G-f (P -cP,u (T,) ]

(5) u Where c is a coefficient that matches the Zaloudek flow rate with frictionless Moody critical flow at naturation.

If the upstream pressure of Eq.

i equals the downstream pressure of Eq. (2), and the mass velocities are the equal, Eqs. (2) and (3) can be combined to yieldt

}

44

~'

(6) a.

v,(K+1) where tha pressure in in psia and c = 0.85.

P,

= system pressure, psia 1),,, = saturation pressure of subcooled liquid at temp. T, F,

psia 3

y

= specific volume, f t /lb g,

= gravitational constant, ft/sec/sec K

= flow loss coefficient, dimensionaloss L

= flow length, ft D

= hydraulic diameter, ft f

= friction factor 2

G

= mass flux, lbs/sec-ft AP

= pressure difference Pressure losses due to area changes and bends etc. can be accounted for through changes to K, the flow loss coefficient. The upstream pressure of the Zaloudek correlation (P,) eqaals the dowl. stream pressure of thd Darcy equation (P

so that the flow rates predicted by each formulation are equ,)al.

The Zaloudek estimated

1

..a. -._

-. ~.

flow. *2als the frictionalocu Hoody flow at saturated conditions.

(6) in applicable to cubcooled and caturated fluid dicchargo.

Eq.

For the critical flow of superheated steam, Murdock and Dowman la used wherot I

(7)

G=44.5 v e

i t

f h aa r a emii i.i

t j

A rr A c A New 3

Es rints re OF dan'hc e To 6 Tagg5

/_ e A k A p q V rk TIlc Vt c ttut G ep 12 re A

E Ro s i o1o 4

7-zu.,,, (W" ~ ~ k f exk. )

/

//

t

/Tv be l

A.-

(

i

,/

Af nn.

L n/4-tvbe [!

/

^I Vidnih *fo(, c WL E

cms.

ve w y s.oy 1.

vn ow x=

y m uyr a u;[ de ~Q_.

__ GKost on

% fG

- 2.

~

._-,,__...,._..-.-,.__r...

.4.44-m'h--A 4

Ala 4

4..

A..

,ne-J 82m maam u M.Am A

&J A.m==A

_a4a ee sae

-.4...c.

-m ea.e__+e>4-wA4*.+.,a&J2M.2 4 A4 4 J_:ra__--_.s4,.=.._62-J 4ac hh.i-A L.A.,gg._.ag a

amm 4me 4-4d._aa,.,,,em g,_.sp,

' ' ******+-. ~.........

g f

6 (,,,,,

4. 3 +.

/0 q< e Se

=

t 4.34-4.3 F

)c'-

fp

=

.p rnn ua Q = Voian e

- 7 A N ' r o 9 h p o.5

d Arew.,

~

O F W M gyg' T*

M'YY Vo.0%5 aF t%0 was J A ray. V k sas sa w. Vg.dly. 4 ~ o

=

of penefc 4 m y== dq(A er A'H4 au,a i

ense v

- x q,e._

y

,, s. w v

m Mx1

...._..__.._...__..................._................_....._..._t

' L3 f e

100c hN IO O

. /

s1 IO e

~

fk

. o r xx/

/ 5 e c.,

I Y='O+ in d

l MK

.cl 7.

f.=

?

I l O de.c..

ev fe,jy

( 06G00

~

+

TiMs sc3LEr oF TET-EgostoQ I'S ow 7-H e.

O fpe4 oP

-- M 14.etv tuu.M -/g4M

[WS y

v ensc<

er-L.<ro w c r a s.V RM$

st,fr &.

t.

b

=

0 32 B f1b

-F 6.0

/S-2

~

3C

=

r EADY..

2250 580

,S'. W LZQUZD STAT,R-PROPER

'S 580.0000 F

\\ 1250.000 PSIA T

=

P

=

585.7833 BTU /LBM

=

45.<a113 LBM/FT3 H

=

RHC 576.4855 BTU /LBM 0.7806864 BTU /LBM-R U

=

S

=

0.0000000E-01 0.0000000E-01 ALPHA 4

=

X

=

Heli CAPACITY 0.7246101 BTU /LBM-R CP

=

1.335268 BTU /LBM-R CV

=

1.842232 CP/CV

=

VISCOSITY 1.812E-06 LBF-SEC/FT2 MU

=

-THERMAL C0110UCTIVITY BTU /HR-FT-F 0.320 K.

=

20979.43 LBM/S-FT2 GCRIT

=

EADY...

/

4 CrAr /@

6

~

0 e

v g.f.

..-n-,

.-,.-,,-y,y 7,.--..,%,9.,

.,-9.,x

-g

,,,,sw%,,-+..,,,-_,_,.,g

,4.-.w_,.,m.

,-.-....,.s.

wm%.,,..w,,,

ae-

. ~..

...,7-...-.

d 0.39

/b K

=

7 CR T 3

6 LBM a-FT2 EADY..

500 300 h[

$ W

LIQUID STATE EROP ES/

300.0000 F

500.0000 PSIA T

=

(D. 4092 6 P

=

270.4979 BTU /LBM LBM/PT3 H

=

Rl!O

=

268.8862 BTU /LBM 0.4363126 BTU /LBM-R U

=

S

=

0.0000000E-01 0.0000000E-01 ALPliA

=

X

=

HEAT CAPACITY 0.8490872 BTU /LBM-R 1.026471 BTU /LBM-R CV

=

CP

=

1.208911 CP/CV

=

VISCOSITY 3.847E-06 LBF-SEC/FT2 MU

=

THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY 0.396 BTU /HR-FT-F K

=

15072.92 LBM/S-FT2 GCRIT

=

EADY...

1CO t

3 j/l' l'S~~ y / 0 2

3oo i7 M~

7-I 4

4 O e I

C ] h,

dN I i

a I

b b7 AT1 GTI ( A C

[ dN f C CC fj

(

P.5 \\Y JLOG k

$ fEC Yug,yg h tIb 0])

S C

C I@2GB4Epf) 7pa M o o c= c 8 o/ M ac S e

r 7

+

w

'y

?

er T-

-e-

---~,--eve

---i-r-

<<ww r

-, = - - - -

-a.

- ~

er--t-,+wr--

l

~. _. _

January 29, 1992 TO:

Warren Hinters TRRU:

Jim Glynn FROM:

Les Lancaster

SUBJECT:

Confidence Lines For the Bobbin /LeakRato data I ran a sisple regression taken from a R

computer package called STATGRAPHICS.

I borrowed the package from Dick Robinson and quickly learned how to use it and quickly ran the regression on the data.

On presenting the results to you a question emerged on the resulting confidence bounds which I shall attempt to answer in this' note.

R STATGRAPHICS gives tuo limits which they call confidence limits and prediction limits.

It turns out that their ' confidence limits' is the confidence limits on the predicted mean and their ' prediction limits' is the confidence limits on the prediction of a single observation.

a The bounds closest to the fitted line is their ' confidence limits'.

See attached three pages taken from 11UREG/CR-4004.

Using this information I can answer your original question, which prompted this exercise with the following table (Remember, your original question was:

At a specified confidence, how big can the Bobbin be to expect a =ero LeakDa Using Using Confidence Prediction Limits Limits 50% Level 6.5 11.7 95% Level 9.1 27.2 R

From the attached plots, printed from the STATGRAiRICS run, note that your commented oboervation or question on the number of points lying outside of the bounds would hold for the ' prediction limits' if the fit had been better.

b.

p h

forck,I,<pn aa ~s L. L.~

4 h fu pn A

tu e..r,

y f'/w n7w l-

1

-U s g7

a. / _

dsgom j% p A., L, f. <~ r a

~ i L/-

rL

,17.,- r

_

ML20128C320

Contents

Text

Dear Dr. Hopenfe1d:

Enclosures:

SUBJECT:

Navigation menu

ML20128C320

Text

Dear Dr. Hopenfe1d:

Enclosures:

SUBJECT:

Navigation menu

Search