ML20129F699

Justification for SPC 1986 LBLOCA Evaluation Model W/Interim Adjustment for Non-Physical Behavior

ML20129F699
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	10/25/1996
From:	SIEMENS POWER CORP. (FORMERLY SIEMENS NUCLEAR POWER
To:
Shared Package
ML19353D907	List: ML20129F668 ML20129F699
References
NUDOCS 9610290195
Download: ML20129F699 (32)

Text

_ _ _ .____ __ . - - - - .- - --- - - - - - -

-l ocT 257 % 12:12m 2 -

SEJ:96:0211NP'.38 )

Pagii l

! l i I e

l 7

4 Justification for SPC 1986 LBLOCA Evaluation Model With Interim Adjustment for Non-Physical Behavior i l

" Teb!, of contenta l

PJSA l

StGMD.Q 1 -1 INTRO DU CTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 ...........

1.0 l

2.0 DESCRifrrlON OF MODEL AND INTERIM ADJUSTMENT INTERIM EVALUATION OF 1986 MODEL AND 3-1 3.0 CONSERVATISM 3-1 i

ADJUSTMENT . . . . . .Method Description of Application . . . . .. ... .. .. ... .. ... .. ... .. .. ... .. ... .. ..31

. .. .. .. . . ~ . . .

3.1 Selection of Teste for Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 ...

3.2 Evolustion Against High Flooding Rate Tests {1.741.77 ..... in/sec) . . . . .

3-2 l 3.3 3-2 l

3.4 3.5 Evaluation Against Low Flooding Rate Tests (1

4-1 4.0

SUMMARY

OF CONSERVATISMS . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-1 ...........

f 1

5.0 CONCLUS10N8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

i s

1 i

n 4

)

h

(

i a

1 i

i l

2 4

9610290195 961025 PDR ADOCK 05000445 P PDR

SEJ:96:021(NP) P.39 Paga 11

< Llat of Tabina ESER i

..shla T ........... 2-3 2.1 Rangen of Calculated Parameters at PCT for PWR App!! cation

' 3-4 i i l 3.1 FCTF Test Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4 . . . . . . . . . .ji

' 3.2 FLECHT SEASET/FCTF Test Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , , . . I I

e 1

i l

4 4

l l

)

l I

i l

l

ocT 25 '% 1281 R P.40

SF.J

96:021lHP) p:go ill i

List of Flames P. ASS i

2-4 BSWA ...............

Heat Transfer Versus Reflood Rate t Data for for PWR Application 3-5 2.1 .........

f 3.1 Comparison of Predicted f Data Heat Transfer 3-6 Coeffic l

3.2 Comparison of Predicted HeatTransfer Coefficients or................

l for FCTF Test 2932 at 8.7 Feet to Date 37 j

. Comparison of Predicted Hest Transfer Coefficients......................

t 3.3-l for FCTF Test 3440 at 6.0 Feet t Data 3-0 l

3.4 Comparison of Predicted Heat Transfer Coeffloients o..............

f for FCTF Test 3440 at 8.7 Feet to Data l

i Comparison of Predicted ..................39 Heat Transfer

............ Coefficients t

3.5

for FCTF Test 3941 at 6.0 Feet to Data 3 10 l Comparison of Predicted Heat Transfer Coefficients.................. 311 3.6 l for FCTF Test 3941 at 8.7 Feet Rete at 6.0 Feet . . . .

3-12 l

3.7 Test 3440 Heat Transfer fl d Coefficients Rate at 8.7 Feet versus R f 3.8 Test 3440 Heat Transfer Coefficients t Data versus 3 13 Re oo l

i 3.9 Comparison of Predicted Heat Transfer Coefficients o..........

j for FCTF Test 0205 at 6.0 Feet t Data 3 14 i

i Comparison of Predicted Heat Transfer Coefficients o........ l

!. 3.10 l for FCTF Test 0205 at 8.7 Feet Data 3-15 l Comparison of Predicted Heat Transfer Coefficients to.......

! 3.11 l for FCTF Test 2230 at 6.0 Feeti ts to Data 3-16 l l Comparison of Predicted Heat Transfer coeffic en..................

3.12 for FCTF Test 2230 at S 7 Feet r us Reflood Rate

.: 3.13 Tests 0205 and 2230 Heat Transfer Coe at 6.0 Feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

s Re!!ood Rate I

l 3,14 Tests 0205 and 2230 Heat Transfer Coe l

et 8.7 F e et . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

e

,f i

a i

I l

i

~ - . _ _ . _ _ ,

SEJ:96:021(Nf, '81 i Pogo IV List of Flouros (continuedl Ea91 Einsa 3-19 3.15 Flooding Rate Effect of FLECHT Heat Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <

3 20 3.16 Comparison of FLECHT and FCTF Heat Transfer coefficiente et 6.0 Feet . . .

3- 21 3.17 Comparison of FLECHT and FCTF (Interim Fix) Heat l

i 1

l l

1 2

= ocT 25 >% fang SEJ:96:021(N$

Pago 1 1 l

4 Justification for SPC 1986 L8LOCA Evaluation Model With Interim Adjustment for Non-Physical Behavior Letter from R. C. Jones (NRC) to H. D. Curet (SPC), Telecons

Reference:

il Concerning Siemens Power Corporation 11,1996. Large Break Loss of Coolant Accident Analysis Methodology, dated October 2)

FLECHT SEASET Program Final Report. NUREGICR 4167, Novembe 1986.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In the Reference 1 letter, the NRC informed SPC of an unacceptable e 1986 LBLOCA evaluation model. The errord tois1.77 in the FCT over the range of reflood velocities between approximstely 1.00 inches /seco inches /second. In this range the correlation exhibits C ff'sthe non-physical position transfer coefficient with increasing reflood rate. SPC is responding to the NR and is continuing to assess the impacts of possible solutions. [

]This 986 evolustion restriction is alwsys conservative with respect to both measured li data and model and eliminates the non-physical behavior in the FCTF dl reflood h being questioned by the NRC. The following discussions describe Also included are relevant data points to demonstrate the and the non-physical trend. d of FCTF conservatism of the model compared to the an:tus! FCTF data d asand the tre calculstions with FLECHT SEASET test data (Reference d SPC. 21. This requested by the NRC staff in the October 16,1996 meeting with affec

- . _ _ . _ _ __ = _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ ._.._,___m_.._ . . _ _ . . . .

( ~ OCT 2$ '96 12114ft1 P.43 f SEJ:98:021(NP) l P:g2 21 I

'. 1 i 1 1

2.0 DESCRIPTION

OF MODEL AND INTERIM ADJUSTMENT l

l The heat transfer coefficients calculated by the FCTF heat transfer cor i

1986 LBLOCA ECCS evaluation model very with time fficientsduring will the refloo l transient. The expected behavior, as stated by the NRC, is that hosttransfer co PWR l Increase with increasing reflooding rate over the expected range of refloodi l

FLECHT data show this trend, and FCTF data ii trends ing the FCTFare similar to l j

that early in the reflood time period, the predicted host transfer coeff c ents us i

4

' correlations are calculated to decrease as the reflood rate inc '

l 1

! i i

1 l

l 1 ,

i l

1 f

l The range of conditions calculated to occur from i the f the beginning o model f calculated peak cladding temperature is importantd lintheassessing ranges of the cons application. For current PWR analyses using the ff 1986 PCT areevaluation those mo f calculated parameters are given in Table 2.1. Conditions which strong I

f occurring prior to the calculated time of PCT.

i 1

h time of i

i Figure 21 illustrates FCTF calculated results d atfor threeconditions different typ l calculated peak cledding temperature (PCT). The resultsversus f r coefficients were calcula times from beginning of reflood for the conditions shown. Heat trans e

'i 1

I i

4

1 ccT 25 '9s 12:1441 SEJ:96:021(NP) )

P:93 2-2 l

flooding rete are shown et 20,40, and 60 seconds from the beginning the FCTF correlations and the interim model.

9 O

6

ocT 25 >ss 2a,1 , ,

P.45 i

SEJ:96:021(NP) i Pege 2 3 l

^

t i

Table 2.1 i

i l

, I Ranges of Calculated Parameters at PCT for PWR Appilsat o I

i j I Minimum ~  :

Maximum i Parameter .

__.I

_1

• Pressure (pslal I

(

Inlet Subcooling ('F) ,

l Maximum Rod Power (kW/ft)  !

f l , Minimum Reflood Rete (in/sec) l Time of PCT from Beginning of Reflood (sec) .

i 1

I A l d

3 1

i h

i i

d i

i

6CT'Es~'96 12:14Af1 P.46 SEJ:96:021(NP)

Page 2-4 l

l i

l l

l 1

l l

l Figure 2.1 Heat Transfer Versus RaSood Rate for PWR Appilostion

OCT 25 '96 12:15AM P.47 .

SEJ:96:021(NP) l Pcgi 3-1 I

3.0 CONSERVATISM EVALUATION OF 1988 MODEL AND INTER f

The FCTF correlations were justified by comparison of predicted results to exper The comparisons showed that the carryover rate fractions (CRF), quench times; transfer coefficient predictions are conservative or best estimate. i I

l 3.1 Descriotion of Aoolication Method The FCTF heat transfer coefficient correlation was designed to predict th energy plus decay host) which must be removed to quench lthe i rod. As such,l to know the quench time in order to predict host transfer coefficients. The FCTF ,

were evaluated against test data using the FCTF quench time correlation (

conservative as presented in the topical report.

3.2 Salaction of Tests fer Comoarlson j

it is appropriate to demonstrate the overall conservatlam of the 1986 LB j model and the interim model. Five high pressure FCTF test results are l LBLOCA methodology. These five tests are the most representative in current SPC's licensing analyses. Table 3-1 shows the test conditions fo In/secl 3.3 Evaluation Aeminst Hiah Floodire Rate Tests (1.74-1.77 Heat transfer coeffielents are computed at the 6 foot and higher elevations. [

1

OCT 25 '96 12:15AM -

SEJ:96:021(NP)

Page 3-2 I

1 The conservatism of the calculationa compared to data for both the correlation and the interim model can also be shown by computing heat transfer coefficients versus reflood rate at specific times for the FCTF tests. [

1 3.4 Evaluation Anninst Low Floodina Rate Tests (1.15-1.17 in/aac1 The evaluation for the two low flooding rate tests was done in the some manner as fo high ficoding rate tests. [

3.5 FLECHT/FCTF Comnarimons The non-physical trend in reflood heat transfer coefficients predicted by the F correlations can be characterized as decrees!ng heet transfer coefficients with reflood rate or, conversely, increselng heat transfer coefficients with decreasing The physical trend f or heat transfer versus reflood rate is expected to be a as observed in the FLECHT SEASET data shown in Figure 3-15.

1 OCT 25 '96 12:15ft1 P.49 SEJ:96:021(NP)

Paga 3-3 l

In Figure 3-16, FLECHT SEASET date from three experiments conducted at similar conditionl to FCTF Test 3440 (See Table 3-2) are compcred with FCTF correlations calculated results to show data trends. (

) However, using the trend of the FLECHT data with reflood rate os ,

a reference Indicates that the ( ) in Figure 3-17, the FLECHT data are compared with the interim adjustment model heat transfe I

coefficients (

) The comparison of the FLECHT data in Figure 3-17 and the interim heat transfer coefficients indicates the FCTF correlat  ;

)(

interim adjustment are more conservative ( l 1

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

OCT 25 '96 12 16Ari P.50 i

SEJ:96:021(NP) i Paga 3 4 i -

]

Table 3.1 (

FCTF Test conditions i l i

l Peak Peak Initial initial l Initial Subcoollng Temperature LHOR l Reflood Pressure (kW/ft) l'F) (* F) l (psis)

Test Rate (in/sec) _

I' Number s

I 0206 2230

' 2932 I 3440 l

! I 3941 _ l d

l 1

4 Table 3.2 ,

I

' FLECHT SEASET/FCTF Test conditions Subcooling l T Reflood Mate Pressure (* F)

I (pels) (of (Power kW/ft) (in/ser.) _

I. Test FCTF l 3440 i.

4 FLECHT SEASET

. 31504 4

FLECHT SEASET e'

' 31203

- l

' FLECHT SEASET 31302 1 ,

4 1 4

i t

1

, OCT 25 '96 12 15AM P.51 SEJ:06:021(NP)

Page 3-5 i

1 1

i '

I 4

t t

1 Pigwe 3.1 Comparison of Predicted Heat Transfer Coefficients to Data for FCTF Test 2932 et 6.0 Feet

ocT 25 '% 12:1stri P.52 SEJ:96:021(NP) i Pago 3-6

, 1

?

I 1

l l

I Figure 3.2 Comparison of Predicted Heat Transfer Coefficients for Data for FCTF Test 2932 at 8.7 Feet

.. _ . . _ . .. _. _ . = _ . _ . . _ . _ . .._ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . .._._. __ _ .. _ _. ._. __ . . . _ . . . .

l.

OCT 25 '96 12816AM P.53 SEJ:96:021(NP)

P ge 3-7 3

3 i

i 1

i j

5 .

i i

i Figure 3.3 Compadeon of Predicted Heat Transfer Coefficients to Data for FCTF Test 3440 at 6.0 Feet

OCT 25 '96 12817At1 P.54 SEJ:96:021(NP)

Pega 3-8 a

i 4

)

3 1

i I

i l ,

i i

a

)

A i

i i

4 4

l

/ Figure 3.4 s

' Comparison of Prodleted Heat Transfer Coeffloients I

to Data for FCTF Test 3440 et 8.7 Feet J

t 4

i

OCT 25 '96 12817AM P 55 SEJ:96:021'.NP)

Pag's 3-9 1

4 1

I 4

i

l-i.

i i

~

l

, 1

'I i j 1 a

i J

l I

l

i 1

4 i

4 i

1 1

1 d

1 4

i I

-I k

Pigure 3,5 Comparison of Prodoted Heat Transfer Coefflaients

l

' to Data for PCTF Test 3941 at 6.0 Feet d

i e

i I

1

OCT 25 '96 12:17AM ,

P.56 SEJ;96:021(NP)

Pago 3-10 e

l Pigure 3.6 i Compadson of Predicted Heat Transfer Coefficients to Data for FCTF Test 3941 at 8.7 Feet i

i i

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

OCT 25 '96 12:17AM P.57 l-SEJ:96:021(NP)

Page 3-11 2

l 3

4 J

4 i i i

I i

n l

i I

1 l i

1 1

1

.i Figure 3.7 l Test 3440 Heat Transfer Coefficients versus Reflood Rate et 6.0 Feet t

4 d

+

q

OCT 25 '96 12:17Ft1 P.58 SEJ:96:021(NP)

Pm 3,12 l

i i

l 1

l l

Figure 3.8 Test 3440 Host Transfer coefflolents versus Reflood Rate at 8.7 Feet

- - - - - l CCT 25 '% 12818AM .P.59 i SEJ:96:021(NP)

P;g3 3-13 I

I 1

1 i

Figure 3,9 Comparison of Predicted Heat Transfer Coefficients to Data for PC1F Test 0206 at 8.0 Peet

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

OCT 25 'SS 12818Ar1 p_ g SEJ:96:021(NP)

• Page 314 l

)

4 l

1 .

i j

i j

1 I

i 4

Figure 3.10 Comperleon of Predicted Heat Transfer Coefflaients to Data for FCTF Test 0206 et 8.7 Feet

OCT 25 '% 12:1aAN P.61 SEJ:96:021(NP) l P:gs 315

?

?

4 l 4

(

i I

l I

l l

Figure 3.11

- Comparison of Predicted Heat Transfer Coeffiolents to Data for FCTF Test 2230 et 8.0 Feet

o[25 '% 12:1em p,e i SEJ:96:021(NP) l Paga 316 i,

I i

i j- .

Figure 3.12 Comperleon of Predicted Heat Trenefer Coeffielents to Data for FCTF Test 2230 at 8.7 Poet 4

_ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . . . . _ . . _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ - . _ _ _ .._._....m. . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . . - ...__ . . _ _ _ .

OCT 25 '% 12:19AM P.63 i

SEJ:96:021(NP)

Peg) 3-17 j.

i j -

i I

1 4

1 ,

4

)

s

+

t i

j -

4 k

i a'

1 l

4 i

I 1

i i

1 Figure 3.13 Tests 0205 and 2230 Heat Transfer Coeffklants vwous Reflood Rate et 6.0 Feet 4

4 J

(

i OCT 25 '95 12:19Af1 P.64 SEJ:96:021(NP)

P:ga 3-18 l

l 1

l I

l Figure 3.14 Tests 0206 and 2230 Heat Transfer Coefflolents versus fleflood Rate at 8.7

. . . . _ m.__. _ _ _ _ _ . ..._...m_. __..._~._ ___ _ . _ . . . . ._ - . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . .

OCT 25 '96 12:1541 P.65 I t

SEJ:96:021(NP) 1 Page 31g i

4

\

}

- 70.2e Ano _

/

........................./..........,r.......o r/ . /....c/

/ /

o / ,e /

/ >

aso . . . . . . . . . . .p .#. . . . . . #. . . .p+.>. #

. . .p.+. .>.,,. . .p.+. >.p.+. . . . .

-so soo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

\

f 280 ...... . . . . . . . . . . . -4o too .... ........ ................. ............... .......... -oo ,

1

..**. ***. .* .***.=*.**===*****.*===.**********. 1

==..**=******

19o - * . .

-so  !

j ,

-10 ,

to- . .. ................................................................ 1 o

4bo DM

o. 1ho 26o 30o 0

Time (see)

Mgure 3.16 Mooding Rate Effect of FLECHT Heat Transfer

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

OCT 25 '96 12*19AM P.66 i SEJ:96:021(NP)

' Pega 3>20 s ,

i t

1

)

i 4

J t

i i

1 i

J Pigure 3.18  !

Comparison of PLECHT and FCTF Heat Trenefer coefflaients at 6,0 Feet i

i l

J

OCT 25 'E5 12819AM P.67

> SEJ:96:021(NP)

Page 3-21 a

i i

i i

4 4

3 e

s I

5 1

N e

i

.i i

1 1

1 i

Figure 3.17 Comparison of PLECHT and FCTP (Interim Fix)

Heat Transfer coefflaients at 8.0 Feet i I

i l

OCT 25 '96 12 20Ari P.68 SEJ:96:021(NP)

Ptge 4-1 4.0

SUMMARY

OF coNSERVATISMS The conservatisme in the FCTF heet transfer correlation and the licensing applications are summarized below:

I

1. The FCTF correlations are generally conservative compared to the date. The SER states that the FCTF heat transfer correlation is conservative, or best estimate, for 93 of 112 data points. This statement is based on comparisons'csiculated with the FCTF l quench time correlation.

2. [ l

3. [

l

4. I 4

0 1

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

~

OCT 25 '96 T2: m P.69 SEJ:96:0211NP)

Peg) 5-1

5.0 CONCLUSION

S The information presented above leads to the following conclusions:

4 1

1.

SPC's 1986 EXEM/PWR LBLOCA ECCS evaluation model as applied in licensing

! analyses is conservative with respect to the available data.

2.

The trend of decreasing heet transfer coefficients with increasing reflood rates ex

): In the methodology but een be eliminated by using SPC's interim adjustment. The interim model is conservative with respect to the correlation.

3. -

[

i 3

i

4. [

1 1 .

i l

l l

1 l

I t

a