ML20138P868

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Info Being Placed in PDR to Provide Open Record of ECCS Stacked Disk Strainers Meeting
ML20138P868
Person / Time
Issue date: 02/19/1997
From: Serkiz A
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To: Cherny F
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
References
RTR-NUREG-CR-6224 NUDOCS 9703050443
Download: ML20138P868 (61)
v • d • e


Text

y t

v1U%

. p +-

UNITED STATES y

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[-

=a'a=~ oneetiVED Februaryg,g91iPMI: 11 2

  • ..,+

PUBLIC DOCUMENT R00H MEMORANDUM T0:

Frank C. Cherny, Acting Chief Generic Safety Issues Branch Division of Engineering Technology Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM:

Aleck W. Serkiz, Senior Task Mana~ger Generic Safety Issues Branch l

1 Division of Engineering Technology Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

ECCS STACKED DISK STRAINERS MEETING

- Performance Contracting, Inc. (PCI) and Innovative Technology Solutions Corp.

l (ITS) staff presented information related to PCI's stacked disk strainer testing and data comparisons with the BLOCKAGE 2 code correlation for estimating head loss across a BWR suction strainer as described in NUREG/CR-62?4. Attendees are shown in Table 1, and the attachment "ECCS Stacked Disk Strainers" is the information presented by Messrs. G. Hart, Dr. P. Mast and G. Zigler.

l A copy of the attachment is being placed in the PDR to provide an open record of the subject matter discussed.

cc:

Attendecs w/o "ECCS Stacked Disk Strainers" attachment L. C. Shao w/ attachment M. Marshall, Jr. - w/ attachment

PDR 3 w/ attachment J

a 1

sguM 6Es

~

u##""

%g

($ 7030"ItQD N

}

r

  • TABLE 1 Attendee Listing ECCS Stacked Disk Strainers Performance Contracting, Inc. & Innovative Technology Solutions, Inc.

February l',1997 USNRC Rockville, MD - Room T9-F5 Participant Company & Address Phone No.

Aleck W. Serkiz USNRC/RES/DET/GSIB 301-415-6563 Robert Elliott USNRC/NRR/SCSB 301-415-1397 i

Carl Berlinger USNRC/NRR/SCSB 301-415-3627 Richard Lobel USNRC/NRR/SCSB 301-415-2865 Andrew Kaufmann Continuum Dynamics Inc.

609-734-9282 P,rinceton, NJ Robert Goss TRANSCO Products Inc.

312-427-2818 Chicago, IL Bill Houston Sequoia Consulting Group 904-461-8774 St. Augustine, FL Peter Mast ITS Corporation 505-254-1005 Albuquerque, NN Gordon Hart Performance Contracting, Inc.

413-441-0100 Kansas City, KS Gilbert Zigler Science & Engineering Assoc.

505-259-1005 Albuquerque, NN

ECCS StackedDisk Strainers PCI Full Scale Stacked Disk EPRI Tests Modified NUREG/CR-6224 Correlation Dr. Peter Mast & Gilbert L. Zigler Gordon Hart Innovative Technology Solutions Corporation Performance Contracting Inc Presented to the USNRC February 18,1997 f

f t

Agenda Presentation by Gordon Hart on the full scale PCI stacked disk strainer tests conducted at EPRI l

Presentation by Dr. Peter Mast on a modified NUREG/CR-6224 correlation and comparison with test data l

Discussion u-

.N 3

Review of PCI's Sure-Flow Strainer Head Loss Testing EPRI in December,1995 i

- conducted as part of the BWROG's strainer testing program EPRI in October,1996 1

- sponsored by PCI alone both sets of tests conducted by CDI-i

Features of the Test Strainer 24 inch NPS attachment flange and In:ernal Core Tube 40 inch outer diameter 48 inch active length and a 54 inch total length

~

2 170 ft total surface area (of perf plate) 2 56 ft of circumscribed cylindrical area i

KL

i Features of the Test Strainer thirteen disks, each 1.85" wide twelve gaps, each 2.00" wide (between the disk.s) with a total volume of 10.3 ft3 i

holes in the Internal Core Tube sized so as j

to provide equal Water Flow Rate from disk j

to disk.

l R3 1

1995 Strainer Testing Input Test M ass FG Mass CP N o.

Ib s.

Ib s.

1 95-1 0

0 95-2 17 85 95-3 25 100 i

95-4 3

100 95-5 50 100

e 4

1996 Strainer Testing Input t

T est M ass FG M ass C P

~

N o.~

lb s.

Ib s.

96-1 0

0 96-2 25 100

+

S S RMI 96-3 100,150,200, 0

2 5 0, and 3 0 0 96-4 100 100 1

96-5 200 100 i

1

%T

..m

=

I Summary of Test Procedures Start with tank of clean water with pump l

operating at a constant flow rate Add dry CP and allow 5 - 10 minutes to mix Add fiber slurry, scattering them around the tank top Continuously measure Head Loss till its value stabilizes with time, about 50 minutes at 5000 gpm K&

1

Summary of Test Procedures I

(cont.)

Reduce water flow to 2500 gpm, measure HL, then increase to 3750 gpm, measure HL,...., till we reach the max. value Perform add'l testing, such as cutting pump and restarting to determine whether debris drops offpassively i

FIGURE 2 NEASlRED, CALCULATED, Af0 CORRECTED VALLES OF EAD LOSS ACROSS TE BARE STRAIER TESTED AT EPRI, OCTOBER 28,1996 9

W 2.00 y

ACTUAL TESTDATA o

~e A

e

- - -REGRESSION EQUATION e

o E'

  • Io

- - -NO STRAINER i

$ @ 1.50 z F.

CORRECTED (NO ELBOW, NOTEE) oc 4 m3 m*#

E$

f f 1.00 5

/

m 0.50 g*

l

  • ,. E 'l

~

~~.

  • *. - * *r -

- --j -- ' ' T ~

7

-l:

I a

0.00 ::

O 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 WATER FLOWRATE,GPM

i L

I Simmtry R: port ca the Perf:rmtree cf Perf:rmmce Cc tracting, Inc.'s S:re- -

Flow" Suction Strainer with Various Mixes of Simuistal post-LOCA Debris,.

Rev.0 02/1W97 TABLE 2 Summary of Actual Head Loss Test Data from EPRI 1995 and 1996 Measured Data.

All IIcad Loss Values in Feet of Water TEST NO.: 95-2 95-3 95-4 95-5 96-2 96-3A 96-38 96-3C 96-3D 96-3E 96-4 96-5 l

l i

mass 17 25 3

50 25 100 150 200 250 300 100 200 FIBERS (Lasa mass ce 85 16'O 100 100 100 0

0 0

0 0

100 100

[

(Las.)

AREAoF 0

0 0

0 800 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

FOIL (FT')

WATER 57 58 59 58 69 69 70 71 72 73 69 70

]

r

[

TEMP,

  • F 2500 gpm 0.58 0.83 0.00 2.29 0.96 4.S5 6.15 8.32 9.65 5.40 10.73 I

3000 gpm 13.00

~

l 3500 gpm 16.67 3750 gpm 1.01 1.46 0.01 3.81 1.60 7.58 10.58 13.66 16.16 8.66 4000 gpm 16.58 19.17 l

5000 gpm 1.53 2.13 0.16 5.42 2.33 6.08 10.00 13.83 17.75 12.25 i

6250 gpm 14.75 l

7500 gpm 1.67 2.42 0.27 8.08 2.95 l

10000 gpm 1.67 2.58 0.00 10.17 4.34 l'

(-

T' e

(

s I

i k

p

.1

^

3 l.,

o-L

e FIGURE 3:

EPRITESTS WITH Af0 WITHOUT SS FOIL:

EAD LOSS VS. TilWE WITH 5000 GPM OF ROOM t

WITH 25 LBS. SMtEDDED NUKON & 100 LBS. CP PARTICLA. ATE

)

CORRECTED FOR 60 DEGREES F WATER 3

l l.

i j

u

.w l

e

.5 2

=., _

a e,,

m i

r j<g

..-- - e 2

s

,,.n,.<,,,

s w

j m

1

u. 1.5

}

=

s o

uf

/

  • - WITH 800 SQ. FT. SS FOIL - TEST NO. 96-2 o

$1

[*'.,#

- * -WITH NO FOIL - TEST

/, ;,

NO. 95-3 I

I 0.5 -

l Ou L

L L

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 l

TIME FROM START OF TEST (MINUTES) i i

I, Srmstry Report c2 the Perf:rmarca cf Perf2rmarce Cectr::ctirg, Irc.'s S2re-l Flow" Section Strainer with Various Mixes of Simulated post-LOCA Debris, i

Rev.0 02/14/97 i

FIGURE 4:

HEAD LOSS VS. FLOW RATE FOR THE SURE-FLOW STRAINER WITH FIBROUS DEBRIS AND NO CP PARTICULATE

,, _ HEAD LOSS VALUES CORRECTED FOR 60 DEGREES WATER l-l

"-100 LBS. FlBROUS DEBRIS i

18' ~

j E 16 a 150 LBS. FsBROUS DEBRIS y

p.

[

  • 20CLBS. FIBROUS DEBRIS 5

- 250 LBS, FIDROUS DEBRIS

/

a a

p 12 a

/

W 300 LBS. FIBROUS DEBRIS

/

f

/

n o

,,,e c

to :

,, ?

ea -

Q e:

,, r- / 'E**s#

/

  • [.,, '

4 f/ ',,

,, =

,,,,,,c y z 4:

e=

/*', f,,,,,bh I

o-0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 WATER FLOW RATE, GPM FIGURE 5:

HEAD LOSS VS. MASS FIBROUS DEBRIS FOR THE SURE-FLOW STRAINER WITH FlBROUS DEBRIS AND NO CP PARTICULATE i

HEAD LOSS VALUES CORRECTED FOR 60 DEGREES WATER 1

l in =

a E,e :

2 g

~2500 GPM e

/

< 'd "

g

-

  • 3750 GPM y 12 -

- 5000 GPM i

c

10

=

e 1

  • g.

-./

a o

s-e g

/

I dc g

,-g+*t a.

0 I

0 S0 100 150 200 250 300

?

MASS OF FIBROUS DEBRIS, LBS.

e M 11 T

i Summary Report c2 the Pcrf:rm:nce cf Perf:rmance Cc trccting, Inc.'s Sxre-Flow Section Strainer with Various Mixes of Simulated post-LOCA Debris, 4

Rev.0 02/14/97 FIGURE 6:

- TEST DATA ON PCr8 SURE FLOW STRAINER AT EPRI:

HEAD LOSS VS. FLOW RATE FOR SEVERAL QUANTITIES OF FIBROUS DEBRIS, WITH 100 LBS. OF CP AND S0 F WATER n

/

1. -

- 25 LBS FIBROUS DEBRIS a

50 LBS. FIBROUS DEGRIS

/

f 16 g

- " 100 LBS. FIBROUS DEBRIS I

N $4 -

--* 200 LBS. FIBROUS DEBRIS a

g E

/

> 12 -

e

,r #

/

g b, 10

,/

m g,

a

/

j

,a*

i 6

o

^,.

4^

/

I

,a n

e

,,a g.

,s'.-, e. i' AY i

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 WATER FLOW RATE, GPM i

FIGURE 7:

TEST DATA ON PCTS SURE-FLOW aiRAINER TESTED AT EPRI:

4' HEAD LOSS VS. MASS OF FIBROUS DEBRIS,100 LBS. OF C.P., ANO 60 F WATER n-h

/

e

/

it:

-2500 GPM r

3000 GPM g

" 3750 GPM

,/

a N 94, 4000 GPM s#

y.

,,,a f

5000 GPtX

> 12 4 e

/

r

,,o*

l

/

  • L p

w 10 -

, 'f

/

e

  1. ~ I #

O 8:

/ a* // Q g*-g p a

e-f I ** -

,3,/, y p,#

4-

'~

4 0

0 50 100 150 200 MASS OF FIBROUS DEBRIS, LBS.

12.

Results of Regression Analysis:

Head Loss w/ fibers and CP HL = A + B * (Q/A,) + C * (M /A,) + D * (Q/A,) (M /A,)

r r

Q

= strainer flow rate, gpm A,

= strainer's cylindrical surface area, sq. ft.

M

= mass of NUKON fibers, lbs.

~

r HL

= strainer head loss, feet of water where A = 0.7696 i

B = -0.02292 C = -0.5406 D = 0.08916 and R2 = 0.9828 for this analysis

Conclusions of Test Program Bare strainer HL is proportional to V2 and j

includes an elbow and a tee Between 10 ft and 20 ft ofNUKON fibers I

3 3

are needed to fill the gaps, after which thick beds are formed i

l HL is essentially linear with Water Flow I

l Rate and Mass Fibrous Debris for a given J

range of conditions x n 1

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

.. - -, ~ ~.,

Conclusions of Test Program (cont.)

HL behavior can be modeled with regression equations for this strainer geometry Thick beds have a filtration efficiency of l

almost 100%

1 Addition of 2.5 mil SS RMI foil increases HL about 0.5 ft. water (20%) at 5000 gpm 1

i Rw

., - _ -... ~ _,

Conclusions of Test Program

~

(cont.)

Fibrous bed showed a compaction of about 24 %

Horizontally mounted strainer would not cavitate, even when half uncovered 8

l t@ l (,

m

,es...

3 me m

.,A4

.ws g.

m-

.a

.--------------------v,-.m-1 -

t t

a LU 4

O O

2 s

= i j,

9.

,/

lg 8

8 s

o

/

(

g e

j g

I

.m

?

Q L

o.

1 a

e

Comparison of Head Loss Model Based on NUREG/CR-6224 with PCI Full-Scale Strainer Test Data t

Peter Mast & Francisco Souto Innovative Technology Solutions Corporation Presented to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission February 18,1997

!.T.!

1 E

n v

=.

Purpose of Presentation Present Suggested Approach for Extending Basic Head Loss Methodology Outlined in i

NUREG/CR-6224 to a Broader Range of l

Strainer Geometry and Debris Characteristics

)

ITS l

g i

~

E

Purpose of Development Effort Head Loss Model with the Following Attributes:

Applicable to a variety of strainer geometries Applicable for heavy and light fiber loads Applicable to a variety of(non-RMI) debris types Sufficiently accurate / conservative to be acceptable to NRC 2

.l

l Overview

Background

Extended Head Loss Model Description Criteria for Assessing Head Loss Model Performance Validation of Extended Head Loss Model L sing EPRI PCI Strainer Data Conclusions IIs E

9 Head Loss Determination Options Measure performance of actual strainer under actual conditions expected Use strainet-specific " Correlation" to interpolate from within " Prototypic" data Develop "Model" that combines explicit treatment ofkey application-specific variables with use ofgeneric " Correlations" l

1st principles "Model" i

l I.I.E E

s Conclusions (cont.)

. The extended ITs model conservatively predicts

- the head loss across a stacked disk strainer when subjected to " intermediate" debris loads.

A single, unified model can be used to reliably

\\

predict head loss results under a wide range of debris loadsfor an arbitrary stacked disk strainer.

!1h

-l

!E!.

.==

~

ITS Approach Use NUREG/CR-6224 " semi-theoretical" correlation as a basis Determine shortcomings of" simple" application of that correlation ~

1 Develop model for generic stacked-disk strainer and extend correlation for that application Validate new model to EPRI PCI strainer data Develop insights into PCI strainer performance

!.Is E

m

l I

Review of NUREG/CR-6224 Methodology Models head loss as a functiori of debris thickness, debris bed porosity, surface-to-volume ratio Models head loss as a function of fluid properties AH = K, K,S,2 (1 - c,,, )" l + K (1 - c,,,)'

U+KS,

-'" p,.U 2 gg 3

4 E,,,

compression = 1.3[AH I AL['"

c,,, = f(compression) 1

  1. 6" where:

AL =

and U=

l A,

A,

!!!E!!

c=

I Advantages of NUREG/CR-6224 Methodology Form of correlation, correlation parameters based on years of data, wide variety of applications Readily applicable to a variety of debris types Only requires debris physical characteristics (size, density, etc.)

Does not require " application-specific" data except!

Ils

! Ell!

- ---e-'

e-

l Limitations of" Simple" Application ~

of NUREG/CR-6224 Methodology NUREG/CR-6224 developed for flat disk strainers In reality fluid velocity and debris thickness are functions of:

i

- Available surface area

- Strainer geometry

' Blind' application of the N~ DREG /CR-6224 head loss l

model to a stacked disk strainer under heavy fiber loads i

significantly underpredicts strainer head loss.

- " Discrepancies" as large as 80% were observed and major trends were not predicted.

[Ts 1

mum E

i 1

5 Illustration of Changes in Strainer Area at High Fiber Loads r,6WN E81-M u U".%i%i

  • u-a*tSt,

1%

i%_Ii t%'f*fbt..gh'(C((Vg h*ts,

^

g

1 its ile iil!

@lt 4

^^^^T X RE!'^^~

3!$i!!E J2EBEE

$$tNBA iBl;2Mes?)

Fi el

!It Mi:

4 T::2 C^l^~

xine!E seemc DBM:n m ust li el ti i:ig

'?

e.

l

f. <

_m.

.3_;pgg 97

.,s,.,

l

..... a li il ji >

il i;

t l

~ l^^l'. '22 CL^l'"~

3EM SE2E si aIRBMBM i

^

I:

41 11 !

ift gg s:

EME E

E EME

[

Stacked-Disk Partial Loss Approach to i

Surface Area ofInner Surface Circumscribed Cylinder I,_TS I

ITS Extended Head Loss Model Light Fiber Load For V such that a

l AL(V,. A,) & M,,,

A = fullstrainer surface area, A, V=V s AL = AL(V, A, flat geometry)

U = U(flow, A)

AH = AH(AL,U) i i

___.-.---.---.--,,-.-.__.-_-__--_--.-.__.-__-_--._..___________---______.__-____--_-_--__.__.-___.__-_-__--_---__..___._----_--.-a

,-----,ew---

e

i ITS Extended Head Loss Model Heavy Fiber Load For Va such that l

AL(V, A,) k h,, / 2 s

g i

A = circumscribed surface area, A c V = V - V,,,

s AL = A.L(V, A,cylindricalgeometry).

U = U(flow, A) i AH = AH(AL,U)

ITS Extended Head Loss Model Intermediate ~ Fiber Load AL,,, 2 AL(V, A,) k li,, / 2 -

s g

1 V, = V (M,,,)

s AH, = AH(AL,,x,U,,, flat geometry) f V = V (li, I D l

2 s

ga l

AH = AH(h, / 2,Ucirc,cylindricalgeometry) 2 gc V - V' AH = AH + (AH - AH ) V - V, i

i 2

ITS a

eE i

Criteria for Assessing Head Loss Correlation Performance Variability in measured head loss ranges from 10 %

to 25% depending on the data considered.

- Variability tends to be smaller in tests repeated in the same facility, and larger for tests of the same conditions conducted in different facilities International working group concluded typical measurement variability to be 20-30 %

  • Correlation performance within 20-30% is i

acceptable provided results do not consistently under-predict measurements.

y i

  • OECD document NEA/CSNUR (95) I1, February 1996

Examples of Test Data Variability aso

_ 3a 120

-,.. _. = _

..s

_m,

=

.../

o

, _ _.,o._,

y AB5i*,ge v

200 f

d

- is s E 60

= iso i

k

  • 'I to f

,oo P,

40 mmo, % %

Qg?c%

s so

=

a-ior(+55 c)

  • ---o-20 v

]

c = 100 kg/m*3 o

j e

to no 0:

ve -r 0

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Approach Velocity [m/s]

Mineral Wool

  • NUKON~*

OECD document NEA/CSNI/R (95) I 1, February 1996 Refs:

Impact of Uncertainties on Model Prediction i

}

. +/- 1 degree F in water temperature t

+/- 1.5% in head loss i

. +/- 0.1 lb/cu-ft in insulation density

+/- 7% in head "oss (Representative values calculated for test 96-3C at 3750 gpm) l l

I..T_S 1

Available EPRI Test Data for PCI Stacked Disk Strainers

. December 1995: Full Scale EPRI Test

- Test selias P2, P3, and P5

- Fiber mass of 17,25 and 50 lbs with sludge mass of 85 and 100 lbs October 1996: Full Scale EPRI Test l

l

- Test series 3A - D,4 and 5

- Fiber mass of 100 to 250 lbs (no sludge)

- Fiber mass of 100 lbs with 100 lbs sludge

- Fiber mass of 200 lbs with 100 lbs sludge g

g

.. ~

Comparison for Tests 96:3A-D Heavy Fiber Load w/o Sludge i

Experimental data (CDI report values)

ITs model predictions with NUREG/CR-6224 debris bed compression fc mulation ITs model predictions w/o compression

. No adjustment of correlation parameters to match experimental data!

mumm c-a

Comportaon Between Model Predictions and Experimental Data (PCI Stranier for Mf = 150 lb, Ms = 0 lb) 14 12 10

,AC

  • *
  • No Compression I

8

)

e Compression Y

x l x Test 96-3B E

3 3

6 4

2 0

2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Flow Rate (GPRI) i E

o O

. - - +

n

.e

.--e.a

=

Cr oorleon Between Model Predictions and Experimental Data (PCI Strainer for Mt = 200 h, Ms = 0 h) 18 16 14 X

e.

12 8

.m

~

3 x

30

,~

b e

g g

a e

O t

x Test 96-3C i

6

- - - No Compression j.

Compression

=t 4

2 0

2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Flow Rate (GPM) l i

t I

t x

,__..____.____m________.__.________m._.

m.

m.

m.

m_-__ _ _ _,

4,,__-

w to W

4 CW Bewteen Model Predictions and Experimental Data (PCI Strainer for Mf=250 lb, Ms = 0 lb) 2s 20 H

e

$. 15

^

B 33 10 e

a y

5 x Test 96-30

  • No Compression Compression 0

m 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Flow Rate (GPM)

- -a-

.. mmm.

m.

a.

i.

..a. L.

m-m

-mm i-w

=-

--w-,

e-

+-==

te.

M h

-+2

+

4 h

8 m.

4.-

8 d.

Comportson Between Model Predictions and Experimental Data (PCI Strainer for Mf = 300 lb, Ms = 0 lb) 2s 20 o

1 y

X g15 e.

R b

g 1

s 10 g

k 5

x Test 96-3E i

i i

i" *

  • No Compression j t

i Compression 0

2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Flow Rate (GPM)

l, a

t a

Dt e

t d

se o T M X

{i 0

0 n

3

)

e g

d u

l S

0 o

8 N

2 h

t i

W M

P 06 G

2 0052 X

ta 0

r 4

e 2

n ia r

tS IC 0

P 2

(

2 a

t

)

a b

D I(

l s

a r

t e

n 0 b i

e 0 F 2

m fo ir s

e s

p a

x M

E d

08 n

1 a

s n

o itc i

0 d

6 e

1 rP le do M

04 n

1 eew teB n

0 o

2 1

s irep mo C

00 1

0 9

8 7

5 4

3 2

1 0

1 IyE 3 l

Comparison Between Model Predictions and Experimadal Data (PCI Strainer at 5000 GPM With No Sludge) 2s 20 I

c 15 3

E Y**

g a

e f 10 ip JC 5

I X.

Test Data l

No Compression ';

," = =

}

i

. Compresskm 0

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 Moss of Fibers (Ib) 4 m

m.

m-

+

u.

-==m

-e.c-v.

w

Comparison for Tests 96:4,5 Heavy Fiber Load with Sludge Experimental data (CDI report values) rrs model predictions with NUREG/CR-6224 i

debris bed compression formulation ITs model predictions w/o compression-l No adjustment of correlation parameters to match experimental data!

LT!

mum E

W h Model Predictioets erwi Experimental Data (PCI Strainer Mf =100 lb, Ms = 100 lb) 9

.18 16 14 C

12 r

a 3

I 10 5

x e

3 8

T

X Tut %4 6

,e j* *

  • No Compression ;

h

. Compression x

4

)

2 0

2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Flow Rate (GPM) i

J

-h--4 4

r, a

4 e

a r

r 7

. E.5

=10 8da Eeb

~

k 8

8.

,l e

5 4

.g E

I I

2 i

o i

i 1

h

  • M E

t s

Q

}

f e

  • M

=

y

]

  • M i

i t

4 t

t i N i

6 4

s i

g-g g

g_

g

, m O

m O

(,< m-M) sool pe*H i

I

f Comparison for Tests 95:P2,3 Light Fiber Load with Sludge Experimental data (CDI report values) i ITs model predictions with NUREG/CR-6224 debris bed compression formulation ITs model predictions w/o compression No adjustment of correlation parameters to match experimental data!

same i

t J.

Compwison Between Model Predictions and Expwimental Data (PCI Strainw, Mf = 17 lb, Ms = 85 b)

L 2.5 2

)t

5. 1.5

,1...

I a

x Test 95-2 2 t

  • X

(* *

  • No Compressioni I

Compression a

f 0.5 i

0 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Flow Rate (GPM)

4:

I '.i

.e:

.E.5 '

gg hs N 8 e

o a

i l

I t

4 i

N M

4 9

t 4

6 8

t t

t t

M t

U 1

t I

t t

t t

t t

t t

t t

t g

c t

4 5

5 t

e en o

N q

(Jetem-u) sool peoH

.s

e -

Comparison for Tests 95:P2,3 Adjusted Filtration Efficiency 1

l l

Experimental data (CDI report values)

ITs model predictions with NUREG/CR-6224 debris bed compression formulation i

with filtration efficiency of 0.75 for P2 with filtration efficiency of 0.90 for P3 m

c=

l

a

.a a

e-w,.

4 ee

~~

6, N

NI l~

1 E-K l

g E

m a

i D

x n

i 5

R.

R 1

O MJ e.

I I

i 1

}

i

)

6 6

j (Jetem-W) stol pe*H

14-.

a A

e A

AJ A

W 3

j' b

S O 6 h

t

?!

fe?NI

's (i -

g N

-j i

i S

h 8

X 4

N M

.,1 5

R, i

t-e=

g b

i 1

ii I.

I I

1 i

I

}

i N

an o

(Jelen) sool pooh 1

Comparison for Tests 95:P5 Moderate Fiber Load with Sludge Experimental data (CDI report values)

ITs model predictions with NUREG/CR-6224 i

debris bed compression formulation ITs model predictions w/o compression No adjustment of correlation parameters to match experimental data!

ITS

,,L.

b u

4, 4

J A

s4.,b JJ---,.4A, e

e, p

.E.5 e>a i

I Sj$

Ee5 1

Me t

e-t h

8 h

I s

1 t

t i

M s

11 g

I 4

wj g

t 4

M S

o g

b w

t r

4 I

4 L

4 h

en cv e

o Ch CD 5

to W1

O l

l Conclusions i

t The "un-modified" NUREG/CR-6224 head loss model conservatively predicts the head loss across a stacked disk strainer subjected to small debris loads with varying amounts of sludge.

i The "un-modi / led" XUREG/CR-6224 head loss model provides excellent agreement for such conditions when less than perfect filtration efficiency is accounted for.

i ITS muss K

1

-..n

-u.m

.--, -. < - --.. - -, -~.. -

w -

n-,

r-.. - -.,-.,.,,

-r

v---

E i

Conclusions (cont.)

An extended model developed at ITs, which i

accounts for changes in available strainer area as ~

debris accumulates within the gaps of the stacked disks and which accounts for the strainer cylindrical geometry, provides excellent agreement for heavy fiber loads both with and without sludge.

~

1 i

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20138P868&oldid=4196418"