ML20197C598

Review of Convection Heat Transfer Coefficients Utilized in Fort St Vrain Main Steam Line Break Analyses, Technical Evaluation Rept

ML20197C598
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Saint Vrain
Issue date:	10/31/1986
From:	White M Battelle Memorial Institute, PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATION
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20197C566	List: ML20197C563 ML20197C598
References
FATE-86-117, TAC-42527, NUDOCS 8611060284
Download: ML20197C598 (21)

Text

_ _ . _ . . . _ - . --

)

Enclosure I ,

l FATE-86-II7 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT -

REVIEW OF CONVECTION HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS UTILIZED IN THE FORT SAINT VRAIN MAIN STEAM LINE BREAK ANALYSES OCTOBER 1986 M. D. White Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission represented by Norm Wagner.

APPROVED:

C. W. Stewart, Manager Fluid and Themal Engineering Section, Applied Physics Center .

Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory Richland, Washington. 99352 e6110%$$$ 0 DRAFT!.

- ^

I t

. CONTENTS ,

ost,act................................................................ ,

Nomenclature........................................................... 11 i

Introduction............................................................ 1 Methodology Review...................................................... 2 Conventional Methodologies.............................................. 5 Recommendations......................................................... 9 References............................................... h ......... 10 Appendix A....................................'......................... 11

=s+

4 e

s O

h

%3 e

• I #Mf r de' &; h a M a h am- M ah- == -

m . _. _ _ _ - . . _ -. ___

i .

ABSTRACT Sensible convective heat transfer coefficient determination methodologies were reviewed for applications during confined or contained main steam line break analyses. A review perspective of conservatism with respect to predicting maximum environmental temperatures and pressures was taken.

Concern specifically lies with the steam line break scenarios for the Fort Saint Vrain facilities technically addressed by the Publ,1c Service Company of Colorado. Pacific Northwest Laboratory reviewed the sensible convective heat transfer coefftetent determination methodology utilized by the Public Service Company of Colorado concurrently with other conventional approaches. Based on the present review and literature search, Pacific Northwest Laboratory concludes that the conventional approaches are preferred compared with the untested scheme forwarded by the Public Service Company of Colorado.

6 O

g O l

e a

1 __

m_.._. __ ._. - . . . _ - -

11 NOMENCLATURE -

Gr Grashof number DNT Nu Nusselt number Pr Prandt1 number Re Reynolds number g acceleration of gravity h average convective heat transfer coefficient k thermal conductivity 1 characteristic length -

mg mass of non-condensible gas 29 mass of steam vapor a mass flow rate q heat flux .

Q energy released (Btu) t p blowdown time (sec)

Tb bulk temperature is surface temperature T sat saturation temperature AT temperature difference v velocity V building volume (ft 3-) -

B thermal coefficient of expansion v kinematic viscosity '

o density n pi Subscripts '

cond condensation '

length i

max j

maximum sen sensible '

tot total (overall)

1 i REVIEW 0F CONVECTION AND CONDENSATION HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS UTILIZED IN THE FORT SAINT VRAIN MAIN STEAM LINE BREAK ANALYSES INTRODUCTION In conjunction with the Fort Saint Vrain Environmental Qualification Program, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested a technical investigation of several steam line break scenarios within the Fort Saint vrain factitties. The Public Service Company of Colorado (PSC) generated predictions of confirement buildings' environmental responses to such steam line rupture scenarto's with a version of the CONTEMPT computer program. The results of these simulations included average environmental temperature and a pressure time histories. The Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL), following a request by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),

independently made calculations of the pressure and temperature histories for the same Fort Saint Vrain steam line rupture scenarios. The Pactfic Northwest Laboratory's environmental responses were computed uttitzing the COBRA-NC code. Peak temperatures and temperature profiles predicted by PNL were markedly higher than those computed by PSC.

1 While both utility codes, COBRA-NC and CONTEMPT, are based on the conservation equations of mass, momentum and energy, the central issue of the present report involves the proportionality term which relates surface heat

'{

{

flux to the temperature difference between the bulk environment and condensing surfaces. Both utility codes contain this proportionality term (the overall convective heat transfer coefficient) in divided form. The general form for expressing the overall heat transfer coefficient appears below (see Equation 1),whereasensibleconvectionheattransfertermaddswithacondensation MAFT

. 'binL

~- - _ - . -. -

/

2 heat transfer term: .

ktotal"ksersible+kcondensation l total (Tb-Ts) " 5 sensible (T -T ) + 5 condensation (Tsat-T);

b s 3 (1) where for superheat conditions Tb>Tsat-The investigators of PNL noted that if the sensible convection portion of the overall heat transfer coefftetent given in schedule form by PSC was substituted for the natural convection based internally " computed coefficient, then the COBRA-NC code would yield results in good agreement with the utility'spredictions.(1) Follow-through work was proposed by the NRC for PNL to review the methodology applied by PSC to determine this sensible portion of the overall convection heat transfer coefficient. In response to the NRC <

proposal, this report specifically addresses the sensible convection heat transfer coefficient determination methodology proposed by PSC. The i

methodology is reviewed from the perspective of conservatism in predicting

' peak environmental temperatures following main steam line ruptures.

Additionally comparison is made between the PSC's methodology and other conservative approaches.

METHODOLOGY REVIEW '

~

The methodology utilized by PSC to detemine the sensible convection heat transfer coefftetents for the Fort Saint Vrain steam pipe rupture analyses appearsinattachmentstothedocumentEGP-306.(2) These two pages of methodology description are appended to the present report for reference purposes (seeAppendixA). Basically overall(total) heat' transfer coefficient serves as an area-averaged portionality constant relating heat flux on the confinement building surfaces with the temperature difference '

between the confinement building environment and surfaces. It should be imediately noted that such an approach requires the assumptions that the confinement butiding environment and structure may be represented by appropriate single tenperature values. The spectfics of the above assumption

. A

. 3 will not be considered in the present study. Both PNL and PSC further divide the overall heat transfer coefftetent into two components; one representing the sensible convection heat transfer, the second describing the convective condensation heat transfer. This review will specifically address the magnitude of the combined, i.e., overall coefficient and the relative magnitudes of the two components.

The methodology proposed by PSC implies that there exists the possibility of computing the sensible convection heat transfer coefftetent by differencing the correlations develo' ped by Tagami and Uchida. The crux of this methodology assumes that the Uchida correlation independently predicis the component of condensation heat transfer dependent solely upon the mass ratios of non-condensible and vapor gases. Uchida's empirical correlation was obtained from an experimental apparatus where the condensation environment was l consideredquiescent.(3) While velocity measurements were not recorded with Uchida's experimental results, corradini(4) later predicted that the experimental condensing surfaces probably were exposed to steam veloctties around 2 m/s. U'chida's correlation, therefore, should strictly be limited to quiescent conditions or perhaps forced convection situations with maximum free stream velocities equal to 2 m/s. Slaughterbeck(5) accords with this supposition, because he recommends utilizing the Uchida correlation as an overall heat transfer coefficient for the quiescent period (after the decompression of the primary coolant system) of a loss of coolant accident. i Analogous to sensible convection heat transfer coefficients, condensa' tion convection heat transfer coefficients are dependent upon the imposed free stream velocity. Therefore, it would not be expected that the Uchida

)

correlation (velocity independent) should predict the condensation convection I heat transfer during the turbulent blowdown period subsequent 'to a main st@eam Itne rupture. The effect of app 1ying the Uchida correlation as the sole condensation convection heat transfer contribution during turbulent blowdown periods, would be a severe underprediction of the actual condensation rate.

Moreover, with the PSC methodology, the sensible convection heat transfer coefficient would be overpredicted due to the' additive nature of Equation 1 of the attachments (see Appendix A). This point may be emphasized by considering that, given a specific overall heat transfer coefficient, a conservative DRMT

4 [ l condensation coefficient results in a liberal sensible convection coefftetent.

The sensible convection coefficient plays a significant role in predicting environmental temperatures.

As an example, consider the calculation of the sensible convec n heat transfer coefficient at the end of the blowdown for scenario H- An approximation of the steam vapor to non-condensible gas ratto after 13 sec equals 0.23 which by Uchida's correlation:

~

hcond=66.79(mg/mv)-0.707 Btuh/ft2 p (mg/mv) ( 20; (2) 1 yields hcond a 23.9 Btuh/ft 2 F. The Tagamt correlation:

h tot max

• P yieldsIitot, max 99.7 Btuh/ft2 F. As a conservative estimate the ratto (T sat-Ts )/(Tb-Ts) will be set equal to one. Substituting these values into Equation 1 of the attachments yields hcony = 75.82 Btuh/ft 2 F. Uttilzing conventional forced convection heat transfer coefficient correlations for the scenario HRH-2 with an imposed velocity of 80 ft/sec yields sensible convection heat transfer coefftetents equal to 13.4 Btuh/ft2 F. Maximum environmental velocities measured within the Carolinas Virginia Tube Reactor during the blowdown periods ranged from 10 ft/s to 30 ft/s.(6) This evidence suggests the sensible convection heat transfer coefficient calculated with the methodology proposed by PSC is large.

On the second page of the attachments the PSC presents an' example of a calculation to obtain a value for h tot, max with the Tagamt correlation.

Unfortunately the Tagami correlation is incorrectly represented (the quantity within the exponential should have been divided by the time period during blowdown,thatis13sec.). The example calculation also deviates from the Tagamt correlation listed in Slaughterbeck(5) in the choice of constants.

Slaughterbeck recomends a constant equal to 72.5 for use in conjunction with English units while PSC chose a value equal to 2; with the justification of it ORAFT

5 being a conservative approach. Perhaps the choice is conservative with the proper Tagamt correlation, but as applied here the result seems quite meaningless. In , fact it is not evident whether a sensible convection heat transfer coefficient approximately equal to 7.5 Btuh/ft2 F as calculated by PSC here is a conservative choice. The value of 7.5 Btuh/ft2 F represents one half of the 15 Btuh/ft2 F reported for the maximem overall heat transfer coefficient of scenario HRH-2 (see Appendix A).

CONVENTIONAL HETHODOLOGIES Krottuk and Rubin 7)demonstratedthatthedirecta'pplicationofeither the Uchida or the Tagami correlations in conjunction with the CONTEMPT-LT Mod 26 computer code.to calculate overall heat transfer coefficients underestimated the heat removal rates measured during the Carolinas Virginia Tube Reactor natural decay test. Moreover, plots of containment pressure and temperature computed utilizing the overall heat transfer coefficients defined by the correlations of Tagami and Uchida overpredicted the corresponding measured values from the CVTR experiments. Slaughterbeck(6) recomrnends a sequential program application of the two overall heat transfer coefficients developed by Uchida and Tagami for conservative approximations in the prediction of environmental pressures and temperatures. Slaughterbeck's specific program is to apply the Tagami correlation in the extended form  !

(where the transition to the maximum heat transfer coefficient occurs in a linear manner with respect to the time between pipe rupture and the end of coolant decompression) during the transient blowdown period. Subsequent to decompression, Slaughterbeck's recomendation for predicting an overall heat transfer coefficient is a smooth transition from the Tagami correlation to the Uchida correlation. Slaughterbeck's recomendations do not include an initial sensible convection heat transfer coefftetent of 5 Btuh/ft2 F.' Rather the rationale behind the recomendations states that the expected behavior for the overall average heat transfer coefficient "should start at values of about 5 Btuh/ft2 F and increase as the blowdown progresses." The Slaughterbeck recomendations supported with the comparison work of Krotiuk and Rubin suggest that the overall heat transfer coefficient methodology in concurrence with the Tagami and Uchida correlations conservatively predicts environmental temperatures and pressures for loss of coolant accidents within buildings.

ORMT

Krottuk and RubinU) further demonstrated that with several simplifying assumptions the overall heat transfer coefftetent could be divided into two separate components; one describing sensible heat transfer, and the other describing mass transfer (i.e. condensation). This approach is identical to the methodologies followed in both the CONTEMPT computer code utilized by PSC and the COBRA computer code maintained by PNL, and requires the calculation of both sensible convection heat transfer and convection mass transfer coefficients. Correlations are available which allow the calculation of either heat and mass convection transfer coefficients. Natural convection correlations generally depend upon the driving potentia 1's across the boundary layer while forced convectica correlations require some knowledge of the surface velocities. The crucial aspect of predicting conservative transfer coefficients during the transient decompression period, typically marked by turbulent flows, becomes estabitshing appropriate average surface velocities.

With the split transfer coefficient approach utt11 zing " standard" coefficient correlations Krottuk and Rubin compared the computer predicted environmental physical conditions with measured values from the CVTR blowdown experiments.

The results revealed that average surface velocities between 10 ft/s and 15 ft/s conservat$ely predicted transfer coefffctents which 1n 3 ,

turn,resulted in elevated environmental pressures and temperatures compared with the measured values from the CVTR. tests. Maximum surface velocities'of 15 ft/s to 30 ft/s following the simulated pipe rupture were measured by ,

ultrasonic anemometers during the CVTR experiments. Transfer coefficients based on the largest measured velocities, however, differed greatly from the measured values, in a non-conservative direction. The problem of choosing appropriate surface velocities during the transient decompression stage thus remains. ,

After the decompression period, natural convection coefficients become appropriate, because the environment returns to approximate quiescent conditions. The COBRA computer code considers, for the purposes of calculating sensible convection heat transfer coefficients, the transient decompression period to be quiescent, that is to say natural convection correlations are utilized even during the transient period. Obviously, this approach is rather conservative due to the larger transfer coefficients expected during the turbulent blowdown period.

MFT

BMT -

Several velocity prediction methods and resulting sensible heat t ansfer coefficients are shown below for the steam pipe rupture scenario HR v These calculations are shown in an effort to resolve the question about conservative sensible convection heat transfer coefftetents. First, consider the quiescent case with the driving force being a reasonable maximum environmental temperature and the initial wall temperature. For this case, natural convection correlations are utilized to compute the sensible convection heat transfer coefficient.

Approximate gas properties 9 8 sec. into blowdown 5' film temperature:

, va = 6.37 x 10-5 ft 2/s kr.= 0.009 Btuh/ft F Pr E 0.89 .

S = 1.57 1/R.

A volumetric hydraulic diameter was calculated as:

A = 6(volume)/(heat transfer area) 215 ft.

With the parameters shown above, a sensible natural convection heat transfer coefficient may ha .atned through the following series of equations:

Gr = g 8 @TM = 1.097 x 10 13 v2 l

u = 0.10(Gr Pr)1/3 = 2138 i

licony

• Nu k = 1.3 Btuh/ft2' p, L f'r= (4)

This value sets a conservative standard for comparison with the other forced convection derived sensible heat transfer coefftetents, consider the confinement building as a pipe with an incompressible gas passing through it.

llWT '

The continuity equation based on the incoming st mass and an. exiting homogenious vapor-gas mixture is applied to roximate an average velocity.

The pipe diameter is defined as the hydr ic diameter given above. Again the calculations are performed for the HRH upture scenario 8 sec. into the blowdown:

steam mass injection rate = 2.427 x 106 lb/hr density of homogeneous mixture 2 0.072 lb/ft3 v=4" = 13 ft/sec. '

2 (5)

! upt This velocity translates as follows into a sensible convection heat transfer coefficient: .

Re = Y1 = 3.06 x 106 Re}5x105 .

turbulent o 0 NTg = 0.036 Pr .43 (Re .8 - 9200) = 4.970 hcony = N = 2.98 8tuh/ft2 p, (6)

Consider now the maximum measured vel les within the Carolinas Virginia Tube Reactors of 30 ft/s as defin the appropriate average surface veloc'ity.

Using the previously calculat homogeneous gas properties at 8 see into the rupture period of the HRA-7 enario, the following sensible convection j

coefficient is obtained:

Re=y=7.06x10 6 Re1105 ,.

. turbulent o

E =g 0.036 Pr .43 (Rej.8 - 9200) = 10,008 hcony = Nug k/t = 6.00 8tuh/ft2 p, ,,

{7) j

~

. 9 It should be noted that the choice of a characteristic length is of minor importance in the calculation of a heat transfer coefficient, since the resulting effect is proportional to f0.2 Even the sensible convective heat transfer coefficient resulting from a 30 ft/sec flow field is less than the value of 7.5 Btuh/ft2 F reported by PSC. While the results of the Carolinas Virginta Tube Reactor do not necessarily reflect the environmental conditions which would exist during one of the Fort Saint Vrain steam pipe rupture scenarios, it must be questioned whether a sensible convection heat transfer coefficient equal to 7.5 Btuh/ft .s2 as suggested by PSC is conservative. The methodology created above where the confinement butiding was considered as a pipe, stands without experimental vertfication. The met'hodology was utilized without pretense as an academic approach to obtaining surface velocities and should not be promoted for loss of coolant accident problems until examined.

l RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations from this review are dependent on the transfer coefficient approach used. If overall transfer coefftetents are required by a loss of coolant accident computer code, then the Slaughterbeck recomendations of sequentially applying the Tagami and Uchida correlations appears as a conservative approach.

If the overall heat transfer coefficient is divided into two components, one sensible the other condensation, then an appropriate i prediction.of an average surface velocity is required to generate transfer coefficients through " accepted" techniques. In the absence of appropriate velocity prediction methodologies, the conservative choice of natural convection based sensible heat tranfer coefficients appears reasonable although probably notably conservative. There is no justification for subtracting the Uchida correlation from the Tagami correlation to obtain sensible convection heat tranfer coefficients. '

L .. - - _ _ ~

10 REFERENCES

1. Wheeler, C. L., R. E. Dodge, and J. R. Skarda, " Independent Calculation of Pressure and Temperature Profiles for a High Energy Line Break Outside Containment Fort Saint Vrain Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1" FATE-86-114 Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory. August (1986).

2. Dahms, F. C., September 16,(1986). Letter to Mr. Fred Tilson transmitting attachments to document EGP-306.

3. Uchida, H., A. Oyama, and Y. Togo, " Evaluation of Post-incident Cooling Systems of Light-Water Power Reactors," Proc. Int. Conf. Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy,13, 93, A' CONF:28/P436, International Atomic Energy Agency (1965).

4. Corradini, M. L., " Turbulent Condensation on a Cold Wall in the Presence of Noncondensing Gas," Nuclear Technology, Vol. 64, pp.186-195, Feb.

(1984). ,

5. Slaughterbeck, D. C. " Review of Heat Transfer Coefficients for Condensing Steam in a containment Building Following a Loss of Coolant Accident,"

IN-1388, , Idaho Nuclear Corp.- (1970). -

6. Whitley, R. H., " Condensation Heat Transfer in a Pressurized Water Reactor Dry Containment following a Loss of Coolant Accident," MS Thesis, UniversityofCaliforniaatLosAngeles(1976).

7. Krotiuk, W. J. and M. B. Rubin, " Condensing Heat Transfen Following a Loss of Coolant Accident," Nuclear Technology, Vol. 37, pp.118-128, Feb.

(1978).

. .M.

n

e .

1

.. i GA Technologies Inc.

. 1 Pa 80x 4560s .

SAN O.Eca CALF 0PNtA 92138 -

1 sm 4ss.xoo .

l l

. I l

September 16, 1986 EGP-306 Mr. Fred Tilson -

Nuclear Engineering Division  :

Pubile Service Company of Colorado 2420 Vest 26th Avenue, Suite 1000 '

Denver, CO 80211

Subject:

FORT ST. VRAIN ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION PROGRAM References GP-2869 Dear Mr. Tilson The referenced letter transmitted two documents requested '.i n the 09/11/86 HRC/PNL/PSC/GA conference call. Since we were asked to transmit the documents directly to PNL, we limited the techalut discussion in the cover letter.

,l.

Enclose.d by Art Barsell.

for your information is a:more extensiv,e discussion prepared -

You may want to forward it to NRC and/or PNL after' review at PSC. -

'~~

Jess Lope:: Is on vacation until October 4. If you have any questions on this, contact me at (619) 455-3970 or Jack Kennedy at (619) 455-4116.

Yours truly,

. M F. C. Dahms, Manager Plant Projects UtiIity' Services Enclosure .

e, .

l u ..~..i =<.... _ s.N i$ndO&b w.O 24w3 r .

~. .a -i- - - - ~ <

[ .

~

Attachment.to i EGP-306 page 1 of 2 BASIS FOR HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS FOR, FORT ST. VRAIN '

_ . ____. STEAM PIPE RUPTURE ANALYSES 1

The Slaughterbeck report is used as the basis for the overall heat transfer coeffic'ents, h tot, defined on pages 1 and 2 of that report as the area-averag,d proportionality constant between the total heat

, - flow to the surface and the temperature difference. between bulk gas

~

l

. and heat sink surface. The Uchjda . correlation is used for condensation heat transier alone (based on the difference between the saturation temperature aid the surface temperature). Convective heat transfer coefficients (siven in a previous transmittal) are the difference between the overall coefficients and the Uchida

. coefficients. In equation forms h tot = heony + hcond

[Tsat-Ts)

(I) b -Ts) where Econd is the Uchida. heat transfer coefficient h'ony c is the convective heat transfer coefficient

. . ,}

T ,e is the saturation temperature Tb is the bulk gas temperature .

Ts is the heat sink surface temperature In the CONTEMPT-G progran:, hcond is Internally computed and he ony is input (valuespreviouslytransmitted).

The recommended approach by Slaughterbeck is to start with a total heat transfer coefficient of 5 stu/ft2-hr-or at time zerp. This value

• Is attributed to natural convection, per Eq. 1. As' the blowdown i .-~.-~~~:~--~".

t.. *

. .... . .i$1.;Mi?L$$$is. .w: WSA

... . .... m p .q.L. &; & ?gg.'..;:.7.T. ..-.-.-=

,.w.- &

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

. i I

Attachment.to EG?-306 page 2 of 2

- - . - . progresses, the total heat ' transfer coefficient increases to a peak value given by the so-called Tagami correlation, which was discussed in the previous f*5V equipment qualification document, Gulf-GA-A12045, Appendix 0 with respect to the variation with volume. In the present submittal, we are not dealeng with different vclumes, but the Tagami I

correlation is also a function of energy released, which is a function of time: i htot, max = c (Q/V)0.62 (2) where q is the cumulative energy release, 8tu V is the building volume, ft3 .

e is a constant, conservatively chosen For the scenarlo HRH-2, the maximum total HTC is 15 stu/f t2 -hr OF at about 13 sec, about equally proportioned between convective ,and condensation terms. This value is about ten times lower than the I lowest Carolinas Virginia Tube Reactor test data Indicate or as recommended ,by slaughterbeck for) typical vilues of c used 'In PWR analysis. For HRH-2, c is equal to 2.

. M'  :

Except for added conservative factors to ensure low heat transfer coefficient values, this approach (including use of the Tagaml correlation) is the same as required in Standard Review Plan 6.2.15 for calculattens of the minimum contalnment pressure ,for PWR ECCS performance. . 1

{

\

l l

t *.

~ ~ ~ - - . . . . . . . - . . c.y.NYh k5&}k *),'y.h,,;;&

. Enclosure 2

. BMFT Simulations 2, 4, and 5 were performed to explore the sensitivity of peak temperature with respect to inside wall heat transfer coefficients. All input parameters were identical to simulations to inputs with the exception of the inside heat transfer coefficient. Inside heat transfer coefficients used in the simulations are summaried in Table 4.

TABLE 4. Comparison of Peak Temperature Results hi (a) Peak ATp (b) t p(c) 2 (Btu /hr-ft _oF) Temperature ('F) ('F) (seconds)

CONTEMPT-G 5.0 ~375 0. ~9 Simulation 1 ~1.0 487 112. 10 Simulation 2 5.0 396 21. 10 COBREE Simulation 3 5.9 381 6. 9 Simulation 4 7.0 366 -9. 9 Simulation 5 6.0 380 5. 9 (a) Inside Wall heat transfer coefficient (b) Difference between peak temperature and peak temperature calculated by CONTEMPT-G (c) Time at which peak temperature occurred 10

>l o

o -

In .

Contempt-G

,, 8 Simulation 4 it v

.e f, -

Simulation 3 m )%g .....................

3gmulation 2

$ j %, Simulation i

s. o ta _ ht S 'oO T.

in.

m C $i o

.p o _

}(,., ' .

.s.

e tu t

e

\ \;.

s.

O  !

E'

, \.%.'k' o2h

~____.__--

>Oo ,

es P

O il i I I I I I I D C 0 20 40 80 n%

wJ M 80 100 120 140 160 ~%

22= M Time (s) M FIGURE 5.

Reactor Room Bulk Temperature '

Comparison of Simulated Results ~

. . r 1.8 i i i i i N f O 1.6 -

I '

.c i i

3 1.4 -

4  !

e O

• u u 1.2 -

C O

u

" I0

%e TLD_O Q %??? 2 '2 -2 2 -2 :2 2 2 -2 2 2 2 2 e n n n g_^

.c L

o

@- 0.8 - -

C"3 4'a g - S- 0.6 ' ' ' ' '

D 0 20 40 60 80 10 0 12 0 ,

Q* -

time, seconds 4:::3 D

__. h

=;3 FIGURE 6. Vapor Heat Transfer Coefficient - Simulation 1 M

, 1 l I1

! i ' i 4

3Q =3 CEw=yW

., 0' 1

3 -

n o

i t

a l

u i

m ,

8 S

e i

6 r u

s s

e

) r

(

s P

_ k l 3 e B n u

m o i mi T ot oa Rl u

a 4 rm oi tS c

ar eo Rf 7

E

. R

_ U

_ G X

. I F -

I 2 -

~

f

- - - - - t 0 O.vu n.0e o W. n*n* oiw n

8 n.ew odw -

i.

s N& eh. ei 3

C"3=

3 -

E -

>