ML20211D579
| ML20211D579 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200003 |
| Issue date: | 09/05/1997 |
| From: | Bachrach U WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211D535 | List: |
| References | |
| WCAP-14308, WCAP-14308-R01, WCAP-14308-R1, NUDOCS 9709290178 | |
| Download: ML20211D579 (521) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:*N .M # g.. . . s e s :.
- rs.,A. 0ss..,..y> c ,- . g. .
t
. * ,"q. ~ ,. 33 r*
=
.',,.,1
. - C
- Il
- A.p.lp 1.3 ,
4* s ,, 'y %
' 'l-{. l';*<,,.*,,3,.-,J....
( 1 Fb. I *
. o. :p l), < d Q , .s
- l.
- G ( ; ,,,
,. 4
'? f; t,, .l ff, ; \ , j, .;. , *\,;f.)h.l f', * .(4h).):,. yl:, '*. ";!_Ylf' ,.l;l V: :' ' Qf:,llf Q.G.j;j,y,'6j',,l:1,r#*{ Q,'*/ l's wy&. p: '&, :*mm, . ;;, ;,,
. t
,.y:c : ,x: ; n _
3 :v,:Q.<..:y.;O.g;.', j g y n g;l2; y} y Q 'g ' c;?;j . . . i
- &w;fYY(Q~m ,m:{.%;p,q.%*g.m: n::g ;;p:ggg. ;9>y9. n . 7 . p*:
g .m,. q.,;..
.r. M; .. .
.:p. ;g.gs;
.:.e... ,. y .g .
- . v..
- .w.o,.. w v. 4g:m' ki.{ L;3 g,.Qf. !- lpl.5'f..~ . :; . ,. .c b
.h.
. , .)o.}
.n . -
A '. ,. ; . m:
?,
.,.,? > :Wl
,,s; <l9. *:.. ,ld l*
~ y ;'q, s '- p f.
+
.,b.
'# ,*;. .\.:;'., .,.y
. A-l<v.4. ;; p .,~'Y i '[. 4. , - ' . 'r
',y'L..,
, 'K ll
,fi Pf
. . , &?
, e . . ll'
.c;c '. i,Q
. . ,j.:
". l' l ~
-l./
f.. .
. [ l' f*.'c
* ( ()
- 2( ,~ , h 1,. N , ( q, ,(( . p.y'. ~' ,, cf :7,P,.1; g,li . r ,. a q,'* *. . \. y: , ,:. n,.,v., ***
e .,. f . "J t
' K ') .
s,f y h. i.3 [ I. , /g [.* h .? , . ' 8 'I ' * .
'.f. [. l'p :u[*. . ;>
>q.
ac .y.n;,. ;-
. t ..;..
, . ; ... ;.yj..
g .3 ...q;c.;r:.;', . :. ,g .
- ;n g 73 ,
,t
-fy 4. 5. . , . lc , , .c y ; .
-,3
- :;. .c e
, . . : >;; ,..c: . :, . ... (: , ,+.; r. .::p;, M, , ,;>. . ,,; +:. .r.
.j( ..:d' d , .9 .u ;e,;'i . ,- .;. *y*-iz., ~,,, ~.;. ;v ',- ; s
. - " ' .. i , ' , * * *3,,.. 5.r; . . ., ;. 1 . 's c.
f [ .: M; f,] [ I .' ..,e .,.s
- 8 T
'.$k , - [' , *
' F.r ,,
t,; ' t/. ;, . .. . , ;. 1
,5. " [. . I* 1 ' . . ' .*. . '
.,#'.':+(.'. *
~ #' e ,..$ 2.,,I *
( \IP
.;.j. .;~ : : .': l,N' .c,Q .* ', 3l .,'g, Q ';
. , i . ,
?..i";l:,1, . ,l:: . ). d ,. 'q. ;,,s.)\im.,l','e ? ' ' ' ' q,.[. , ;: . _ .,;, :' ; ?: : ;
,., ;-. ll".'y 1 [ ;:f,?;;q' ef}f@;&;,p.f
)fyf 'w. ' l'. k' .' '. - l 5Q. .c 'l{;&*S[
. y. . s
"?t I:.9,
- Q.h.e ;g3 .
n:..d m p : ; W.,.u,.;'.- m:. l};l,: . :. .: +\s?f- .;. L;
.. l., : a , 9)*:\j c l J.!. n7; 6..wAe
,Tp@h
' / 4.] . j'%.@fij:l y'p 2. U, . .n :
' web gi.nh M Yh u g,h,@9,:w&&@p:Ji.)h"5%',M$e b ywd @w.hi$y %jW ,+\ w.y.%w..n& w t,. % n w n :.tymk m.r . m$ d.g :. s k MW . u% NO
%m w. .u..g.g..s.~ :c.n m. ~..
l(yth;g'e. a .- . . m i ., . c. . . .. . . , ur s, >
%g. ~. <. .'t : n. Nm o u o.
v
," 2.. 'th' .. *..,' :. ' ! t,, 8y.: I ,' . y s. . -Jnr p .
ld . '((.YN.. J.JU c . 0)f .'?, i -E;to[.b ..,
! 8~,Ng w;,. l ; ,., " ,#
h hht IN!(,Df.k'.<r)hk;h)hM$hhh([^hfhhf))(hU d I h "U.Ph. k28egw"lc h .'I..'l1.'I n: hb)$h. wn. :.g 4. sq: p .g m.n. bdk 4fy .:v.w%::ma:w%a:. .i.P w <.c.+.a:ysn;.b.o -l w& 7.Wy.w&. k; . s gw%Wm.,..q~ . x .. >.:m a% p % ~. # % ~ ;r .
.A . .
j w.n 4+s ;; :
,99 l
[f ( vr *. ;. , .; '.7.j .; , . 2 . :; , T. t. ~
. , . nn wy c -c. :
3 sMEMjdMd;MM%u, $dM@g, d ,;.y$;;,@;q.1.Q,p<;y;.g;.y..gM;c
;;.,, 3!
- m. esawwmm. m-.e.
r ., .. .
,e s u m.. < t @ .. . ~ w . m. m.%% ~.cm. M i mangw$$0ERON &gwnw Mp6W
~
MhT w we Cwwe
#we ,
<n t r U+ .
wNR' p ~t . . u . . .
. m?
'. s eq , s, ' 4nw l,p.W
- v. -w ' ' * '
.* ue U
' ^ Jl* '
' iT*? }h )%Qi'it n Y d' . y .
'.Mll: M YNI$s k h%. i. 4 sf.
. e ., . .
a_. .. . J. , L. ~ .
9 .
!: m
.. , . J & j
- 4 4 g i .. . g e . .
~.m y:: ,:: ..W: sm .y y; :.:i"..:f,
; a: y w .: m ; w %y u x % m g a ' n w+ f 7w%wk ; .,
.; :yy.M -
- x. f 7a ::a? :.:t :4h 3 ;;; y -sh: yM;.:
ru ,y;;'i::' *;.eyl: 3 N p C.QQ;. yn.f,i ti 9 ;,,_f i-i . ;Q,...,f.*., .m,:& :i ,;'N'.y u. :. ::. g:. ;v .WW:.,:t QS;;. w .m,,-Q;p
+1;;.y.;;fi;; QM ~Q 77 o .s.,
- M.q.e.gE f% ,,,%.
. i Q;Q '
Q.. 7
% ;: .. n y f N i;.r..O: :
;::..;$b ,f@g,. ,
.CL('.>y.',:.:*%,.,'(.J).'.y&:hf]}Q&.v
.'lpl)::f@!
- i , . . c.QWhglgn.
Ni lfYf. }l
~ '
Wl.lff.: .;Q 4 %%
?w%:w
, . . .: . :. 7; .; ..a j b a M@%w%}Q)w? w m&w:f2:, W. r. p: ", ? w::- y p^4J.:gk: M Q:. en k QS .Y v
. . ~ z:. .
. i.:'::,,
f.
. . . i,
*~S..G.:.?.llVGM:':.%,f.bfR'Y!&,.%s:n&..f...
p..?w&.lh&m. Nf.6
. : .~
v a v . .g,2 ...:.-v.4<. k .,,4 ,~cn V m yg %.y :kWh,khfN$;:: NW "Q;yy .,,y . ;h . .
.wc q;;n* a.a.x..,.w.;<:;,.: g lll, . ' Y':r "1..?.~d:V"$h:k?::l;)Ylll
.3
.w. n, - e). u..a.,;
,.e y: O . .< :.. '.
- :; .:<'y ':.s..:. 3 5 s Q{ :h %,Q. ,>({:'"Q'W .h; & & & h 4;y.g::fi l,f9;;.& 7 yp;.lt]>;.l%&?:% iR((h
?;ht %. ,
(;l)?W:;:l;Y.[;;$Q&hD Y & g:b.h.' l aR$% *hi fee %gm%4.c
%$m;e.5%:.w g::$ .aj.m:%.;.
.w.
. ,. yew w .:,. g. . ., + ~ -
w a m:&. u . <s g 4 W. g. . ff$h. s .hh?g . .m i ..N!?l,ahJ ? hk. r Wh hn b;h? . 9:.us v . .
- MqN.ghyk "
; . b_.* Tt,dyk-lgM.
m, V b,' h <' 4 gp
~
.> .wygg > s
_ ugg
. g g. n g r..q i g [ . .
< y e d~. gw .- -
vA $nb%.K.a; E 6 v e .g a : l M~ : n mgpM
. q;$$+gn .
&y s.3 M -ip k
% ".wN
- v '-
3 1 p. . . p.sy *
#p '. >- kJ{s QL . 14 6
'. M'%)>B.Q.45;Q' U*u : kj 3 b:.?n 07 't.
l; .b$hk ' ' i!"
' U. kh U. j -
- y '"4
~
. - n.a .
I ' i sf. e - l M . i { .e
- v. g . .
'h)g".' hr ..
~.: . '
~
9 ; .. i. ggl 9 g
+ 0 - '
'" g
. pp_ ; .
y
, j{3 n -
.. } -'
d-i .
,; y 3 ,. l '
.p;I{ - 4
= '~
Ml '
. , : Av .
4 . l)t:S36 3 ., , ; '"l, i .9 j%.$ $ . '3;;;; - - '* T .FW ; .t
..b
. .A.
t
' g ,
t
' ~
-p R* .y , ,.
*6
'V * .
4 - ( , ' b' ,
~
- k. _ _ _ f.
e
. 9
, ,,;.ej f
'.- .] , ;,
- l . f. ., ,. ,,y8 .- s y.s .; . ,.Q J' ( .,
'f .
.,3, g7 w(.(';?4-lf$. . I
- blf;' .f',.l o * 'l:
. .hs . .
;5;'t fg. ;l ' g.a f5,?): u ' .;t * -
j f. : , ' ll;h, ; . ' .
- } C;W,'.t
?" f S, :', y-J :.Q.l:R^
lRyh.};b.q*$P.g.%(:!.V,?;fs.', 1
$:&.4.n, &,flG:.Q.$%y'.ey^;M10'.f[*
M.;,":&q,.<,(y:%.b.-;
.",.. ., W;, c ,y . , " ? 4. : " . ye , y '
. fy, : (: V; p ..' $ ; t,9
' Ql'?' &%:$.kQ.QQ;;W
, .p
- 4. .%.i 5..- .
s- ty: s . '. '$ -l,, e % , 7. c~, [.- a ': ..; I. ,'.q ) ';
' . . . ' : ;; ,, v
* . l .i
.. . ' " , ;;_ . : , y ll*:.Oy, l
,: f,
'ss~' '
, ' '. l 'J(;,
- )? i ' . '
, .y.
- g _J f.. . ;. ,
+... ,[%' , .
, f, J. '
f f ; . .* ,
,r .* ' , . , " . . ., ' ;, ,.rc #
, j"... ' * . . Q
- p , l '. '. t .
4
. d T. +
-*l e.
,i. j' ; , ,
,': . j o=,'.,,p.
y .v. p. ,.+).(gg./{!.",. .-. 9% -{: s;[;;, . . , p. . ,,e s. J- 4 g
% . c p' U . ; .*a .. ."passf [;<
. .~ .. .
. ...: ,Rt . * . s . y .. .e.- .5.r. .
y . 3
.; . .r ; %;pl,q' 'n. ..;_.: . ,, a*e....% +4 e t
, . ;W s: a ,e. . ,, ~l..,., , ,' ,3
.,.- ,. . . ~ , - . . 4; .. , :^ i. p * ,g *
"4 . . ,1 ;' 4 -
. s ; : . . .4:,-
Y
; : . .. \
. . .. ? . ' f,' c1,h'
., , . ,. '*: f :. f; .f.M '; c g . ,.
?. s.>
is - i 2.:,: i . ::;sa 5:* .. v 4.e
.',, f , ,s, . : ,7'"s' *y '},Nv, Nlg i. .)L3 .. N
. f J5
.s L ..: -:
..* ,.,: v , :.:
'e . . ' . !. . ' .f -
T-
). ,1. l $ll];y. (;. 3 N. 6. :.. .*l l;,l~ y': - c. f ' - ('?:4,kE : rg ,
,. \.
l('-[, I:. # ;7 ';.' ( ~ Ml', 'l- 9,7',1 i i [' ",t.. i
':,11:'.$.
.f: Q*}if ,3 'j.;j ,y j,.es'h [/./ [1:t'
. f '-O.l.
'..:l,, N ; o;;.,}:. }h* L, T , ?ld ',. ; .g; .
? < :. ,, "./
< :: : A;; ,1 .
- 4 ;,f.s t;f, ; ,., lj-
,. -. q:,&; .
1.l :- )
- %q, . . 2._ :. ;
-l' ; L. 2 s ; . , . '. . ,
ylc .'.
,n..,..
- u b %~,,?: " . .. .- :'..,.7. '..y:7.y',; .:,; a
- p. 7.;;:3.; "
- o. s, :: u.f G . .
c. f,.,l.,. g,*. ' \ '..sM O(Q ,c. ..,'./ t .$. 2.s .,'* T,.*g.*','.,.- 3 c .
,.s
' ..,. 2,:-s :., - ..- '.'..-
.l Q 2. '..{
M ;,l h; 'y
^^ '
.g 1i Q...s.% : l:s'. hl<y31 J.9r ...w.. n.s',h: s-,],;; ':
'. .': ,1 ' - 9
-lk % A1Q') f ;, . Y < G.l, s %.*;o.(s:.n.! ,::.
- .Q, flue .' e.\ig, ,. it.c y. ,. ~ 4: g:fc.<s&s
'. . . " ' ' , m..
-:. n - . .
b,4 .:s , . : . N '[ l,Mf :' . . r';
.y f .. ., 3 a . . '
&. % ' W : . .L ..a., .\ +* : . r. ~
;D: Y,h$f M* f $e ::,i[f)fM;M;%l4. .Q,A'f,&;'~,N..'M, :
.' M:'hl N:N h,.l. Q.K;:8 Nl [;$[Q;i,Q ,J*
t,'.f',;.7b:h;M6:N. ,, ed .! {.,";,; Q;.t,& 't,?, .% j%?.;':.byC:,.. -l 1 c, #
. 69 a ;;M , ikW ~5.': .; ';5:l ,2: i hh 5 ,f. J '
. t : '. k . -f. - ,
hk:ri k v . w .'hhh' , . . su u g,, hhh:bk : . u-
,'.L hkY(I$ Q ,v. & ., 9. :. &A. s m. k .wm.t:a ct :k h k.k<'?$:. u;!.M o ;a i
h h- %O' mp .n%,p :3.:q Y;\.G4X,*.q , , . L : :q. W - M? + c. 'W >(
- y. R: s .% ,&m.,Nn y p .
< y r.
.:: .W Y.h ? y :..,
4 : e
.' d T.. .i {2::$\ i;.?p);;... W;a'f;R:.
.. . .v .,
3 '
.(? . k7l',. kh&Qi
.hf:;j'l ?. & .q]. l
! :j_:/.f:f;.Q.y M $sg%R@%h&.yha.ji$}); m M) W&M,f_l'.
Wgev? e c 5 "
,og$.*,N ll f$.Y .k:. .k : ; -
hf 4.% vl$q?m, L rw LL ?.s .v
.1 ': : &, , ,<'..s. ,1 W . .. +:. ::y;!$;#. m. $. ' ..:$:.
Q@&:.n QW :.J'.aM 'm;q.;p li ,' _ \ ;4 l ; Q,k 4 .{, ;t.m.p:e W:O.Q., . h . ., V:k 4 2 y '. r
;h. . " w. A~ w
. . ts c F. A ,
... :1; . ^.. s - :s ~ . .~Y,
..' .fh,'k, n.w: V .'.;yh:: h .i ' 3./. f ::.!
- Y , :.l T. ? ~ l % N:&gn...:,,::fW 3 :fE $
i ;;&iy & % ' ff:$ ^.O &d;?. f)s!.hHWY.h.:f:{',:*k. l.k,? ?:h i Ohlf&' .:[.h.a, h:{ Wl,y."Jh&hf%Q.*.llNT, q$ gt V$FMM8$$$$ 4
' ~
; ; h f(
- j .
-f h .' .
+
hh
- fM4:7f? iM DN%{.
fA % s @' '
- M. .T 3@f[ f."M. - ? .
G.Mk ".7 Mk~ - /hk .% { . f,1 .b hhb k ' d s w.s(Mlpi.ky. .wh 's;~ ,, i g, %. t4. :.r r T UD n <
- ; p ;.h g; 4: w' 9 >
.g g n
Q. f.p - u " $'1 y'. }
- . ; *1 *
-Q m . ..
c -
. . . . d. .
m .6
. 61 ,%:- e 9709290178 970922 i e'.1 p # M .. . .
PDR ADOCK 05200003 - -
-lpsin$ &Qm '. d.h 4 A PDR &
bD cid# ugggggggBN 1- '. & 21 .t. .A< u b ).$
e C - e .
.. - ,- --- L - - -
. ,*- . j. . . h -y: ::' .
s t 3 y-l <
;g9 ,
- i;&. . . QRMS$;c::: . Q, ggWMpg .m & % y a:;v 4 : y . ,y.
@n@M@}M;:.:.;;g,;. .g% p. <;;
$f$dsMM:@d@:,@f%d@MM$. f[ ..
i . n 'x O'-:.. ,, n" .:w}! Yl; ,N, v. m:.,..s c n:: y:
%. . y,W 4:::..
w . . m
- v
;t ,!.
.R: Q s.
e.+ . d,,,.d w..:. n39f.t 9.M,.s.
- c. y&; .
..',s.:
7 e '.:- m? m " p
.c s
q *p.-f 'y O Q+.';'+g y :.m. w;' p,p*:]ivi~':
/.b ^;C .,a ;< ..y a %.w:?!.:.y. r
; , ., ; .. . . . q h
, W..i u6 w ,y
, . f. s.;.f.1, e,jl,: y, . '
g f.n :
., Q?.. ,y.r;' .
. . ; ,;&l ' [:y:;;.- ... '
' ' . '[ :rQ w l- 7;; .:L:. ,f ::t e ; ~
4
..~t.~;< T ':c.;.: .l: ;;y
- ,;m +?.,:tw:,i
- 'yny
- .,v.:.;;;;;? ,:;;lb }:q;!l!.
y .:4..;:'.gf
-+ + .s
' .L1,. :*q .5a
' 3 lQ ;;i;fl_
%::.? '..:n'.. ; - .
- hG:%!+:i:.k;:h
,. e ' : k f.
cW:,_.
- J. + m;'s:
l; k3 Y
; l., ',:..Q .i : % g Q q :;j %v . g:
3p.m.4 . ..
;$j, It.
Mgpg.::w:y f $,f;; {&S:c,:(g%y:.. h **f*f.f@w:$.
. e. . .,.s%. o m:
;%M. ..
& e %w,3 , .M 3 W.
- 7. W 3 3.f.;3: ::.q;x
.1,.
.ty"p. @ngg@ x1
@q.&.1;h gq - ; Q.Q:c:g.;
,gm3x;.y w.s M N o-g , M,% .
%g',q:.y.@:f.d I.Wi;na cp@&@
Ni %.g &%p: :Voh F : - y Q: c qu... m4.&p:y$.M g%yn p. z s A, w
%v@i:m..wg%qg$. 3?
e 8 "g. & . g m. c g(A::y%(g$E ( fy@p1 Mqgg . ,Mg e v t.4 g.mg 33 b t.. g s n.ny e.
..f. a g g %. s ;g . .# p > f us .. - -
<- .' 1m@p +: g%g.gw s $ @m.jn3;: h.g,.. , .
Mggyg7 +
' + x 95WM
, z.
! W kg gg -
$@mm#@yQy Qg?,.
.yg p ?
p%s4 ff
=: WR 24,gg -Q' %y 4g 9Q: Q g mQf 9 ,
m.we 4 y 5S. k 3 NA [e e .. h pedhD ,. t 4 ;
.a:. - . p%;f M :
%. wn , W g g0
;&f ...,:y:& . ' -
w lg', %-pl ( . , . , c
%v,dm.+ g/,.R .i .
%, .; C +44 m
~
Q <* y 5
~
. .ma ,
ta. ~NhhM gg h ' ' - I m~IN 5yp e$. ,h,'
. r. ,. - - ~- -
p$ p g- c .
! 91:
- Op$,b p .;:.1 . -
h 4-
$'tTf h ( Z:f ~
; .m
# x w,
. jf.;w' .. y9 g.(c.
M 1 .j, ?'
.h ,' ? 9 N
.;k .y.,,)p. k
' q, ;'. , ,,93.* 9 .
.g /
= 4 . '
4 y '
. '.< 2 lN. . ?? $7j ,
Q. u , L :t 1; t- , by: t;w M$ F'
'Eah;;m9' ,
er p ' 4 , { j' {*.," g. e e,, wi '. 7 7
=
G *p .' .,
,T , ^ 'J,
- x. .
y .
- c. .
i@ S ,J -- 7
- , . I = ,, '-,
0
Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 ' AP6JD LOFTRAX-AP and LCFITR2-AP Final Verification and Va:Lidation Report
'W e sLt i n g h o u s e EnergySystems
^ t ' A Y };; 3
- e. ,
l
? -M e :
- e i I 1 k f f l I i 1 i l I i l 4
?
,j-
' -- __-___.__._L__._____________
aw o .
.. Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3; r
= L._
.]-
+ + + + + :. + : : +;
AP600 LOFFRAX-AP anc LC'FTTR2-AP Final VerificationL and Va~idation Report
- W e s t i n g h o u s e- Energy Systems
,e 1 Uj5'1. 3
^
im .
m sh& 9 1 '. l. f
?
e T
- t --
I i i h h f 9
/ -
4 k
AP600 DOCUMENT COVER SHEET TDC: IDS: 1 S Form 582020(5S4)(oA3227w.ftm:1b] AP600 CENTRAL FILE USE ONLY: X '0058.FRM- RFSe: RFS ITEM #:
'# I REVISION NO. ASSIGNED TO U ' AP600 PXS-GSR DOCUMENT 100 NO. 1 Page 1 of 2 ALTERNATE DOCUMENT NUMBER: WCAP-14308 WORK BREAKDOWN #:
DESIGN AGENT ORGANIZATION: PROJECT: AP600 TITLE: AP600 LOFTRAN-AP and LOFTTR2-AP Final Verification and Validation Reran ATTACHMENTS: DCP #/REV. INCORPORATED IN THIS DOCUMENT REVISION: CALCULATION / ANALYSIS
REFERENCE:
ELECTRONIC FILENAME ELECTRONIC FILE FORMAT ELECTRONIC FILE DESCRIPTION c:\3227v .non Wordperfect 5.2 Windows (C) WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1997 OWESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 2 TNs document contains information proprietary to Westinghouse Electnc Corporatton; it is submitted in confidence and is to be used soiety for the purpose for wNch it is fumished and retumed upon request. TNs document and such information is not to be reproduced, transratted, disclosed or used otherwise in whole or in part without prior written authorizabon of Weshnghouse Electnc Corporation, Energy Systems Business Unit, subject to the legends contained hereof. ( OWESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 2C Ths document is the property of and contains Proprietary informahon owned by Westinghouse Electric Corporaton and/or its subcontractors and supphers. It is tranernstted to you in confidence and trust, and you agree to treat this document in strict accordance wtth the terms and conditions of the agreement under which it was provided to you. EWESTINGHOUSE CLASS 3 (NON PROPRIETARY) COMPLETE 1 IF WORK PERFORMED UNDER DESIGN CERTIFICATION QS COMPLETE 2 IF WORK PERFORMED UNDER FOAKE. EDOE DESIGN CERTIFICATION PROGRAM - GOVERNMENT LIMITED RIGHTS STATEMENT [See page 2) Copyright statement: A license is reserved to the U.S. Govemment under contract DE ACO3-90SF18495. ODOE CONTRACT DELIVERABLES (DELIVERED DATA) SutW t. specified exceptions, disclosure of tNs data k restricted until Septemoer 30,1995 or Design Certification under DOE contract DE ACO3-90SFtB495, wNchever is later.
- EPRI CONFIDENTIAL: NOTICE: 10 2 0 3 O 4 O s O CATEGORY: AEBDC DD EO FO CARC FOAKE PROGRAM - ARC LIMITED RIGHTS STATEMENT (See page 2]
2 Copyright statement: A license is reserved to the U.S. Govemment under contract DE FCO2-NE34267 and subcontract ARC-93-3-SC 001. DARC CONTRACT DELIVERABLES (CONTRACT DATA)
' Subiect to specified exceptions, disclosure of tNs data is restncted under ARC Subcontract ARC-93-3 SC-001.
ORIGINATOR SIGNATURE /DATE U, BachraCh AP600 RESPONS BLE MANAGER 8M StG. 'U 9/S/77 APPROV DAT' , i{N- E. NovendStern woonne ,e-e mana,e, s,,mmes imai o.umenns .muete. aii reou,,ed rowews a,e mmge14. em [ffJ vs attacneo ano o umenns ree. sed vor use. 00ft M eim i
i AP600 DOCUMENT COVER SHEET Page 2 Form ss2020(sw) LIMITED RIGHTS STATEMENTS DOE GOVEMNMENT UM!TED RIGHTS STATEMENT (A) These data are submitted with limted nghts under govemment contract No. DE AC03-90SF18496. These data rnay be reproduced and used by the govemment witn the express lemstanon that they w'.N not, without wntten permission of the contra-sor, be used for purposes of manutacturer nor esdoned outside the govemment except that the government may Osclose those dam outside the govemment for the foNowog purposes, if any, provioed that the govemme it makes such esdoeure subrect ta protabiton agamst funner use and
@sdosure:
(1) Tlus
- Proprietary Data' rnay be ciadosed for evalumbon purposes under tne restrictons above.
(11) The 'Propnetary Data' rney be osdosed to the Bectne Power Researcti instreute (EPRI), eiect,tc utikty representatives and their erect consultants, exclueng erect commercar compectors, and the DOE Nanonal Laboraenes under the pronitzbons ard restrectons above. (B) This nonce sna4 be marked on any reproduenon of these data, in whole or in part. AMC UMITED RIGHTS STATEMENT: This proonetary data, furrustwd under Subcontract Number ARC 93-3 SC 001 with ARC may be dupbcated and used by the govemment and ARC, subtect to the hmrtabons of Artde H 17.F. of that subcontract, with the express lirrutanons that the propnetary data may not be disclosed outade the govemment or ARC, or ARC's Class 1 & 3 members of EPRI or be used for purposes of manufacture without pnor permission of the Subcontractor, except that further esdosure or use may be rnade soloty for the following purposes: This propnetary data may be escsosed to other than commercial competrtors of Subcontractor for evaluaton purposes of this subcontract under the restncton that the propneLY data be retained in confidence and not be further csc60 sed, and sublect to the terms of a non-disdoeure agreement between the Subcontracer and that organizanon, exduong DOE and its contractors. DEFINITIONS CONTRACTIDELIVERED DATA - Consists of documents (e.g. specifications, drawings, reports) which are generated under the DOE or ARC Contracts which contain no background proprietary data. EPRI CONFIDENTIALITY / OBLIGATIONNOTICES NOTICE 1: The data in this document is subject to no confidentakty obligabons. NOTICE 2: The data in this document is propnetary and conadental to Wastinghouse Sectnc Corporation and/or hs Contractors. It is forwarded to reopient under an obhganon of Conf dence and Trust for kmrted purposes orify. Any use, esdosure to unauthonzod persons, or copying of thes document or parts thereof is prorutwted except as agreed to en advance by the Sectnc Power Research Insstute (EPRI) and Westngnouse Electnc Corporaton. Recipient of this data has a cuty to inquire of EPRI and/or Westinghouse as to the uses of the otormanon contained herem that are permitted. NOTICE 3: The data in this document is proonetary and confldennel to Westirwthouse Bectne Corporanon ard/or its Contractors. It is forwarded to recosent unoer an ochgat on of Conf 4ence and Trust for use only n evaluanon tasks specifically authorued by Ine Bectnc Power Researen insaaJte (EPRO. Any use, cascsosure to unauthortzed persons, or copying trus document or parts thereof 6s protutated except as agrtad to in aavance by EPRI and Westngneuse Bectnc Corporanon. Recoent of trus data has a duty to inquire of EPRI and/or Wesenghouse as to the uses of the informaton contained hereen that are permrtted. This document and any copies or oxcerpts thereof that may have been generated are e be retumed to Wesanghouse, Grectly or through EPRI, weten requested to do so. NOTICE 4: The data in this document is prepnetary and confidennal to Wesunghuuse Sectne Corporason and/or rts Contractors. It is being revea6ed in confconce and trust only to Emptoyees of EPRI ano e certam contractors of EPRI for hmrted evalumnon tasks authonzed by EPRI. Any use, esdosure to unauthonzed persons or copying of this document or parts thereof ts prorutzted. This Document and any copies or excerpts thereof that rney have been generated are to be retumed to Westognouse, erectry or through EPRI, when requested to do so. NOTtCE 6: Die data in trus document is propnetary and confldennat to Westinghouse Electne Corporanon and/or tts Coruractors Access to this data is given m Conhdence and Trust only at Wesungnouse tachnes for hrruted evaluanon tasus assigned by EPRI. Any use, esclosure to unauthonzed persons, or copying of trus document or parts tnereof is prorutxted. Neither trus document rior any excerpts therefrom are to be removed from Wesanghouse tacdites. EPRI CONFIDENTIALITY / OBLIGATION CATEGORIES CATEGORY *A* -(See Dehvored Data) Consists of CONTRACTOR Foreground Data that is contamed in an issued reported. CATEGORY T - (See Denvered Data) Consists of CONTRACTOR Foreground Data that is not contained in an tssued repon, except for computer pregrams. CATEGORY *C* - Consists of CONTRACTOR Background Dats except for computer programs. CATEGORY *D* - Consists of computer programs deveioped in the course of per.ormmg the Work. CATEGORY *E'- Consists of computer programs developed pnor to the Effeceve Date or after the Effeceve Date but outsee the scope of the Work. CATEGORY "F"- Consists of administranve plans and adrranistranve reports. O
. Wast:Ncuoust NON-PROPRIETARk CLASS 3
..Q
-i II O WCAP 14308 Revision 1 i
-t
.i
.- AP600 LOFTRAN AP AND LOFTTR2-AP FINA*, .
I VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION REPORT-l Rev.1 Author: U. Bachrach
- l Rev. O Authors:
. W. Scherder M. Lambert E. Carlin-l - September 1997
+
J Y is D) -lI l, - C 1997 Westinghouse Electric Corporation
- p. D All Rights Reserved l.
o;U227w. mon:Ib090997 ' REVISION: I
_ _ _ _ .. _ , _ _ _,____~ . _ _. _ . __ .- _. P i/ g" ~, --
); ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section .Ildt = East ; i S UMMARYJ . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . _ < . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . ._ . . . ._ . . . : . . ; l - i 1.0 = INTRODUCTION . : . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Ll' Use of LOFTRAN in AP600 Safety Analysis .........................11 i
?l.2- . Verification and Validation of LOFTRAN AP and LOFITR2-AP . . . . . . . . . . 12 '"
1.2.1 : Summary of Key Phenomena for Validatiou . . . . . . c. . . . . . . . .'. . .'. ., 1 2
- 1.2.2 Tests Used for Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 __,
2.0' LOFTRAN-AP AND LOFITR2-AP CODE DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-- 21 4 2.1 B ac k g rou nd . . . .- _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21- [
- Code Modifications for the AP600 ' . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J 2 2 -1 2.2 2.3 L LOFTRAN AP Code Modifications for Test Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .25 4 3.0 ' ROLES OF TESTS IN LOFTRAN AP AND LOFITR2-AP CODE VALIDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 3-1 3.1 Overvie w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.2 ~ - Role of CMT Component Tests in LOFTRAN-AP Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .
b 3.2.1 CMT Component Tests Description . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.2.2 Role of the CMT in AP600 Safety Analysis with LOFI'RAN AP . . . . . 3-2 . 3.2.3 CMT Component Test Results Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 3.3- ' Role of SPES 2 Tests in LOFTRAN A" Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 3.3.1 -SPES.2 Tests Description ................................. 33 3.3.2 SPES 2 Test Results Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4 . I 4.0 LOFTRAN AP CMT MODEL AND VALIDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.1. Validation Approach . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 r 9 4.2 - Key Phenomena *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 " 4.3 : LOfTRAN-AP CMT Component Test Facility Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2. 4.3.1 Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 f 4.3.2 . I nput Deck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3 4.3.2.1 - Geometrical Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3 , 4.3.2.2. Friction Factors of the Lines . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . , . . . . . 4' 4.3.2.3 MetM Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4 2 - i 4.4 Analytical _ Simulations .......................................... 4-6 , 4.4.1 ' Cold Inlet Balance Line (Cases A and 'B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 4-6
--4.4.2 Hot Inlet Balance Line . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 7 4.4.3 - 1 Hand Calculations of Momentum and Energy Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 .
4.4.4 ' l Conclusions - Analytical Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . , . . . 4-10 4.5 . 500-Series Tests Simulations W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10
- _ 14.5.1 -Test C064506 c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . 4- 10 14.5.1.lE Description of the_ Runs 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10 ,
A. 14.5.1.2 ~ Calculation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11
"(j2' -
~4 .5 2 Test C072509 '. . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 13 4.5.3 - 500-Series Tests Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . , . 4 14 74.61 ' Assessment of CMT Component Test Simulation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15
~
1; - c su227w.non;ttwos2197 ~ iii - - REVISION: 1
'-4 _
k w , ws d r - n + - - - - , - - .,,,nyn a w y- 7mr en , ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) O Section Title Pagt 5.0 LOFIKAN SPES 2 MODEL AND INTEGRAL SYSTEM VALIDA~nON ......... 5-1 5.1 Validation Approach .......................................... 51 5.1.1 Steam Generator Tube Rupture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. 5-1 5.1.2 Steam Line B reak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 5.2 Key Phenomena . . . . . . . . . . . .................................. 5-2 5.2.1 Steam Generator Tube Rupture . . . . . . . . ..................... 52 5.2.2 Main Steam Line Break . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... 5-3 5.3 LOFTRAN AP SPES 2 Model Duscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... .....>5 5.3.1 Primary System . . . ............. . ................ . 55 5.3.1.1 Power Channel Pressure Vessel and Reactor Coolant Loop Piping ................... ................ 5-5 5.3.1.2 Power Channel Rod Bundle . . . . . . . ................. 5-6 5.3.1.3 Reactor Coolant Pumps and Loop Flow Model ............ 5-6 5.31.4 Pressurizer and Surge Line .......................... 57 5.3.1.5 Vessel Head Model ........... ..................58 5.3.2 Secondary Coolant System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 5.3.2.1 Steam Generators . . . . . . . . ........................ 5-9 5.3.2.2 Steam Generator Tube Rupture Break Flow Model . . . . . . . . . 510 5.3.2.3 Steam Pipe Break Flow Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10 5.3.3 Passive Safety Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............511 5.3.3.1 Core Makeup Tank System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 11 5.3.3.2 Passive Residual Heat Removal System Heat Exchanger . . . . . 511 5.3.4 Heat Losses Models .............. .....................5-12 5.3.4.1 Primary System Heat Losses Model . . ........ . . . . . . . 5- 12 5.3.4.2 Pressurizer Heat Losses . . . . . . . ... ..... .. . . . . . . 5-13 5.3.4.3 SGs Secondary. Side Heat Losses Model .
.. ,.......... 5-13 5.3.4.4 CMTs Heat Losses . . . . . . ...... ...... . . 5-14 5.4 Test. Specific LOFIRAN-AP Input . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 17 5.4.1 Steam Generator Tube Rupture TF Specific Input . . . . . , ....... . 5-17 5.4.2 Main Steam Line Break LOFTRAN-AP Test Specific Input . . . . . . . 5 19 5.5 Test Simulation Results: Test 9,10, and 11 - Steam Gecerator Tubt Rupture . 5-22 5.5.1 Overvie w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... .5-22 5.5.2 Matrix Test 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. . 5 24 5.5.2.1 Description of the Runs ...... .. ............... . 5 24 5.5.2.2 Results Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................525 5.5.2.2.1 Initial Case (Run 1) . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 -2 5 5.5.2.2.2 Sensitivity Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-30 5.5.2.3 Conclusions Concerning Test 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-33 5.5.3 Matri x Test 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-117 5.5.3.1 Description of the Runs ...... ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 1 17 5.5.3.2 Results Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 1 17 5.5.3.2.1 Base Case (Run 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 1 17 5.5.3.2.2 Sensitivity Study . . . , . . . . . . . ..... ..... 5-120 5.5.3.3 Conclusion Concerning Test 9 . .. .. ....... . . . . . 5-120 <
o un7=.nort ib.os2197 iv REVIslON: I
p/ i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) Section Title Page 5.5.4 Matrix Test 11. . . ........................ .......... 5-175 5.5.4.1 Description of the Runs ........ ........ . . . . . . . . 5-17 5 5.5.4.2 Results Analyses ..................... . . . . . . . . . .i- 176 5.5.4.2.1 Blind Sirnulation . . . . .... ............. 5-176 5.5.4.2.2 Blind Simulation After Updating of the Input Data (Run 1) .........................5177 5.5.4.2.3 Simulation With Refinements (Run 2) . . . . . . . . . . 5-177 5.5.4.3 Conclusion Concernitig Test 11 ...... ............ 5-181 5.6 Test Simulation Results: Test 12 - Main Steam Line Break . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-234 5.6.1 Pre-Data Release Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 5-234 5.6.2 Post Data Release Simulation . . . .. .. .. . . .. ........ 5-234 5.7 Assessment of SPES-2 Simulation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-268 5.7.1 Steam Generator Tube Rupture Test Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 268 5.7.2 Main Steam Line Break Test Simulation . . ................ . 5-269 6.0
SUMMARY
OF THE LOFTRAN CODE VALIDATION EFFORT .. ....... .. 6-1 6.1 Role of LOFTRAN in Safety Analysis . ... ........ .............. 6-1 6.2 Adaptation of LOFTRAN and LOFTRAN Based Safety Methodology to ()e Advanced Passive Plant Designs ...... . ... . . ................ 6-1 6.3 Code Validation Tests ....... . . ............ . ............. 6-2
'~
6.3.1 SPES-1 Natural Circulation Tests ..... . . .. .............. 6-2 6.3.1.1 SPES-1 Test # SPNC Part 1 . . . . . . ..... ....... . 6-3 6.3.1.2 SPES-1 Test # SPNC Part 2 . . . . . . .. . . ........ 6-3 l 6.3.2 CMT Tests ................ .... . ... ...... 6-4 6.3.3 SPES-2 Tests . . . . . . . .......... . .... .......... .... 6-5 6.3.3.1 SGTR Test Simulations . . .............. ........... 6-5 6.3.3.2 MSLB Test Simulation . . . ... . .. ......,, 6-5 6.4 LOFTRAN Application Envelope . . . . . . . ......... . ... ..... 6-6 6.5 Conclusions .......... ............. . .... . ....... ... 6-6 7.3 REP?RENCES . . . . . ... .. ..... ... ...... .. . ...... ..... 7-1 APPENDIX A CMT COMPONENT TESTS A.1 CMT Component Test Facility Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............A-1 A.2 CMT Component Tests Used for LOFTRAN Code Validation . . .. ... ... A2 A.3 Waltz Mill CMT Test Results and Data Used .. ... .... ....... .... A-2 APPENDIX B SPES-2 TESTS B.1 SPES-2 Test Facility Description . .. . .... . . . . ,, ... B-1 B. I .1 Introduction . . ........... ............................B1 B.I.2 Facility Scaling Summary .... . . ... . . .. ...........B.I B.I .3 Facility Description . .... ..... ... .... ...... . . B-2
. B-3
'm) B.I .4 Instrumentation Data Acquisition System . . B.I.5 Control toops . . . ... .. ...... ...
... B-4 B.2 SPES.2 Tests Used for LOFTRAN Code Validation . . . . ...........B-5 o:0227w nontb.os2 t97 v REVISION: 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) O ! Section Title Eage i B.3 Test Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B -6 B.3.1 Design-Basis Steam Generator Tube Rupture with Nonsafety Systems Operational and Operator Action for Mitigation (SPES 2 Matrix Test S01309) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B -6 ; B.3.2 De.ign-Basis Steam Generator Tube Rupture Without Nonsafety Systems and No Operator Action to Isolate the Steam Generator (SPES 2 Matrix Test Sol 110) ............. . . . . . . . . . B -8 B.3.3 SGTR With Inadvertent ADS Actuation (S01211) . . . ............. B-9 B.3.4 Large Stearn Line Break at flot Staniby Conditions With Passive Safety Systems (501512) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B 10 APPENDIX C Responses to NRC Requests for Additional Infonnation (RAI) on the AP600 LOFTRAN AP and LOFITR2 AP Final Verification and Validation Report . . . . . . . ..... ............... ........... C-1 O O o \3227w non tb.o82197 vi REVISION: 1
b . LIST OF TABLES Inhit Tult P.ast - 11 ' Phenomena Identification Ranking Table for AP600 Non-LOCA and Steam Generator 'Iube Rupture Design Basis Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . 1-4: 31- ~ 500 CMT Test Series - Tests Selected for Simulation . . . . ......,.....,,. 3-5
- 41s . Phenomena Identification for the AP600 CMT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17 42 CMT Water Node S izes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 18
.43 CMT Steel Data ............................................4-19 4-4 . Metal Parameters -- Variabla Volume Noding ..................., ... 4-20 45- Metal Parameters - Equal Volume Noding . ....................,,.. 4-21 6 Analytical Simulations - Run Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 22 7- Test C064506 and C072509 - Run Parametets ..................,.... 4-23 5.3-1 RCS 11eet Losses at 605'F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 5-16 5.3 2 SG Secondary-Side Heat Losses. Including Steel Inertia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16 5.5.11 SGTR Matrix Tests 9.10,11 - Refinements Between Preliminary and Final Validation Repon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 23 5.5.2 1 Sensitivity Studies for Matrix Test 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 5-35 5.5.*. 2 Comparison of Test and LOFTTR2-AP Initial Condiuons for Matrix Test 10. . . 5-36 5.5.23. . Sequences of Events for Matrix Test 10 - Initial Case (Run 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-37 5.5.3 1 Comparison of Test and LOFITR2 AP Initial Conditicar ** Matrix Test 9 . . 5-122 5.5.3-2 Manual SG PORV and ADS Valve ' Actuation Scquence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-123 O ~5.5.3-3 Sequence of Events for Matrix Test 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-126 U' 5.5.3-4 Operator Actions foi Matrix Test 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-127 5.5.4-1 Comparison of Test and LOFITR2-AP Initial Conditions for Matrix Test 1I . . 5-182 5.5.42 Sequence of Events for Marix Test 11 - Blind Simulation ............ . 5 183 5.5.4-3 Sequence of Events for Matrix Test 11 - Run 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 5-184 5.5.44 . Sequence of Events for Matrix Test 11 - Run 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. 5-185 5.5.45 SGTR Matrix Test 11 - Evolution Between the Blind Simulation, Run 1 and Run2................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 5- 186 5.6-1 Comparison of Test LOFTRAN AP Conditions for Matrix Test 12 . . . . .....-5-237 5.6-2 Sequence of Events for Test S01512 (Matrix Test 12) ................. 5-238 5.7 1' Assessment of SPES-2 Simulation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . 5-272 6.3.1.1-1 Natural Circulation Verification - Comparisons Between LOFTRAN Predictions and SPES 1 Measurements for Test # SPNC-01. . . . . . . . . . . .... 6-8
.A 1 ' CMT 500-Series Tests Used for LOFTRAN AP Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3 B.I Comparison of Specified and Actual Test Conditions for S01309 (Matrix Test 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-13 R.2 Sequence of Events for Test S01309 (Matrix Test 9) ...................B-15 B3 Comparison of Specified and Actual Test Conditions for S0ll10 (Matrix Test 10) ..'..........................................B-16 B-4 - Sequence of Events for Test S01110 (Matrix Test 10) ............ ..... B-18
' B-5 Comparison of Specified and Actual Test Conditions for S01211
. (Matrix Test 11) ...........................................B-19 B.6 Sequence of Events for Test S01211 ............. ................ B-21
'B 7 Comparison of Specified and Actual Test Conditions for S01512 . . . . . . . . . . B-22 hv B.8 ,
C 1; Sequence of Events for Test S01512 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-24 RAI Reference List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................... . . . . . . . . C-2 ca3227=.n=lb.ot2197 v'ti - REVISION: I
LIST OF FIGURES Ug31rt Title Pan l 11 AP600 Passive Cooling System . . . . . . .......... ...... ... ... 1-6 3-1 CMT Test Facility and AP600 Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........,... 3-6 32 AP600 Core Makeup Tank Test Piping and Instrumentation Diagram . . . . . . . 37 3-3 SPES-2 Test Facility Schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 3-8 4-1 Derivation of Boundary Conditions and other Variables for CMT Component Test Facility Model . . . . . . . . ....... .... ..... .. 4-24 4-2 CMT Component Test Facility LOFTRAN/CMT Noding . . ........ .... 4-25 4-3 Analytical Simulation, Cold Inlet Balance Line Injection Line Flow Rate . . . . . 4 26 44 Analytical Simulation, Cold Inlet Balance Line CMT Fluid Temperature, 4.9 in, from the Top of the CMT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ .. . . 4-27 4-5 Analytical Simulation, Cold Inlet Balance Line CMT Fluid Tempemture, 11.6 in. from the Top of the CMT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ 4-28 46 Analytical Sinolation, Hot Inlet Balance Line injection Li' e Flow Rate . . . . . 4-29 4-7 Analytical Simulation. Hot Inlet Balance Line CMT Fluid Temperature, 11.6 in. from the Top of the CMT . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... ...... . . , . . . 4-30 4-8 Analytical Simulation, Hot Inlet Balance Line CMT Fluid Temperature, 101.6 in. from the Top of the CMT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ......... 4-31 49 Analytical Simulation. Hot Inlet Balance Line Water to CMT Wall Heat Flux . . 4-32 4 10 Analytical Simulation, Hot Inlet Balance Line CMT Wall.to-Air Heat Flux . . . 4 33 4 11 C064506 Test Injection Line Flow Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . E3 4 4-12 C064506 Test Pressure at the Reservoir Top . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .4-35 4-13 C064506 Test CMT Inlet Fluid Temperature . . .. ., , ......... .... 4-36 4-14 C064506 Test CMT Outlet Fluid Temperature . . . . . . . . ...... . ..... 4-37 4 15 C064506 Test CMT Fluid Te> iperature 4.9 in. from the Top of the CMT . . . . 4-38 4 16 C064506 Test CMT Fluid Temperature 53.1 in. from the Top of the CMT ,. 4-39 4 17 C064506 Test CMT Fluid Temperature,101.6 in. from the Top of the CMT , . . 4-40 4-18 C064506 Test Injection Line Flow Rate ... ,. .. . . . . . . . . . . . 4-41 4-19 C064506 Test Pressure at the Reservoir Top . . . .... ... . .... . . . 4-42 4-20 C064506 Test CMT Wall Teat Transfers .... ... . ....... . . 4-43 4-21 C064506 Test CMT Water-to Wall Heat Transfer . .... .. .. ...... . 4-44 4 22 C064506 Test CMT Inlet Fluid Temperature .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4 5 4 23 C064506 Test CMT Outlet Fluid Temperature . . . ..,..... . . . . . . . . 4-4 6 4-24 C064506 Test CMT Fluid Temperature,4.9 in, from the Top of the CMT ... . 4-47 4-25 C064506 Test CMT Fluid Temperature,53.1 in. from the Top of the CMT . . . 4-4 8 4-26 C064506 Test CMT Fluid Temperature,101.6 in. from the Top of the CMT . . . 4-49 4 27 C064506 Test Injection Line Flow Rate .......... ... .. . . . . . . . . . 4-50 4-28 C064506 Test Pressure at the Reservoir Top . . . . ... . . ..... . . . . 4-51 4-29 C064506 Test CMT Wall Heat Transfers .......... ............... .4-52 4-30 C064506 Tett CMT Water-to-Wall Heat Transfer . . . . ...............4-53 4 31 C064506 'lest CMT Inlet Fluid Temperature ...... ... . .. ..,. 4-54 4-32 C064506 Test CMT Outlet Fluid Temperature . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 4-55 4 33 C064506 Test CMT Fluid Temperature. 4.9 in. from the Top of the CMT . . . . 4-56 4 .34 C064506 Test CMT Fluid Temperature 53.1 in. from the top of the CMT . . . 4-57 4-?S C064506 Test CMT Fluid Temperature,101.6 in. from the Top of the CMT . . 4-58 4-36 C064506 Test Injection Line Flow Rate . . . .. . . .. .... .. . 4-59 4-37 C064505 Test CMT Water-to-Wall Heat Transfer . . . . . . .. .. . . . 4-60 wumwm.woan97 viii REVIStoN: 1
/]
V LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.) ElEEt 1 1111 E881 4-38 C064506 Test CMT Outlet Fluid Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-61 4 39 - C064506 Test CMT Fluid Temperature. 4.9 in. from the Top of the CMT . . . . 4-62 4-40 C064506 Test Injection Line Flow Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , , . . . . . . . . . . 4-63 4-41 C064506 Test CMT Water-to-Wall Heat Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-64 4-42 C064506 Test CMT Outlet Fluid Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 4-65 4-43 C064506 Test CMT Fluid Temperature. 4.9 in. from the Top of the CMT . . . . 4-66 4 C072509 Test injection Line Flow Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-67 4 45 C072509 Test Pressure at the Top . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . 4-68 4-46 - C072509 Test CMT Wall Heat Transfers ........................... 4-69 4-47 C072509 Test CMT Water.to-Wall Heat Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . 4-70 4 48 C072509 Test CMT Inlet Fluid Temperature . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-71 4 49 C072509 Test CMT Outlet Fluid Temperature . ...................... 4-72 4 50 C072509 Test CMT Fluid Temperature,4.9 in. from the Top of the CMT . . . . 4-73 4 51 C072509 Test CMT Fluid Temperature. 53.1 in. from the Top of the CMT . . . . 4-74 4-52 C072509 Test CMT Fluid Temperature.101.6 in. from the Top of the CMT . . . 4-75 4-53 C072509 Test Injection Line Flow Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-76 4 54 C072509 Test CMT Water to-Wall Heat Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-77 4-55 C072509 Test CMT Outlet Fluid Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 78
-n 4-56 C072509 Test CMT Fluid Temperature. 4.9 in. from the Top of the CMT . . . . 4-79 5.5.2-1 Test S 01 1 10 - Core Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 2
- 5.5.2 2 Test S01110 - Pressurizer Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . 5-39 5.5.23 Test S01110 - SG-A Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . , ........ . . . . . . . . . . . 5 -4 0 5.5.2-4 Test S01110 SG-B Pressure ............. ..................... 5-41 5.5.2-5 Test S01110 - Tube Rupture Break Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 42 5.5.2-6 Test 501110 - Primary Side Hot Leg Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4 3 5.5.2-7 Test S01110 - Primary Side Inlet Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 -44 5.5.2-8 Test S01110 - Pressurizer Liquid Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . 5-45 5.5.2-9 Test S0l l 10 - PRHR Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ..... .. . . . 5-46 5.5.2-10 Test S0ll10 - PRHR Inlet Temperature .. ................. ... . , 5 5.5.2-11 Test S0ll10 - PRHR Outlet Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4 8 5.5.2 12 Test S0ll10 - CMT Flow . . . . . . ... .............. . ... . . . . . . 5-49 5.5.2-13 Test S0ll10 - Upper Head Mass and Level . . . . . . .. ................550 5.5.2-14 Test S01110 CMTs Fluid Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 5-51 5.5.2 15- Test S01110 - RCS Steel Heat Transfer . . . . ....................... 5-52 5.5.2-16 Test S01110 SGs Fluid to Steel Heat Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 53 5.5.2 17 Test S0ll10 - Integrated Break Flow . . . . . . . ........ ............. 5-54 5.5.2-18 Test S01110'- Pressurizer Pressure . . . ............................555 5.5.2-19 Test S01110 - SG-A Pressure ...,,..............................5-56 5.5.2 20- Test S01110 - SG-B Pressure . . . . . . , . . . . . ........... ...... . . . 5-57
-5.5.2-21 Test S01110 - Tube Ruptu:e Break Flow .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 -5 8 5.5.2-22 Test S01110 - Primary Side Hot Leg A Temperature . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 5-59 5.5.2-23 Test S01110 - Primary Side Hot Leg B Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-60 oA3227wmtit42I97 ix REVISION: I
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.) O Figure Title hae 5.5.2 24 Test S01110 - Primary Side Inlet Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-61 5.5.2 25 Test S01110 Pressurizer Liquid level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. 5-62 5.5.2-26 Test S01110 - PRHR Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-63 5.5.2 27 Test S01 1 10 - CMT Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-64 5.5.2-28 Test 501110 - Upper Head Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-65 5.5.2 29 Test S01110 - Integrated Batak Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... 5-66 5.5.2-30 Test Sol l 10 - Pressurizer Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-67 5.5.2-31 Test $01110 - SG-A Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............,.. 5-68 5.5.2 32 Test S01110 - SG-B Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 5-69 5.5.2-33 Test Sol 110 - Tube Rupture Break Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-70 5.5.2 34 Test S01110 - Primary Side Hot Leg A Temperature . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 5 71 5.5.2 35 Test S01110 Primary Side Hot Leg B Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 -7 2 5.5.2-36 Test S01110 - Primary Side Inlet Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 5.5.2 37 Test S01110 - Pressurizer Liquid Level . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . 5-74 5.5.2-38 Test S01110 - PRHR Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 75 5.5.2-39 Test S01 110 CMT Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-76 5.5.2-40 Test S01110 -I U .per Head Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. 5-77 5.5.2-41 Test S01110 Integrated Break Flow . . . . . . .......................578 5.5.2-42 Test S01110 - Pressurizer Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-79 5.5.2-43 Test S0l l l0 - SG-A Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ............ 5-80 5.5.2-44 Test S01110 - SG-B Pressure ................................... 5-81 5.5.2-45 Test S01110 - Tube Rupture Break Flow ...........................582 5.5.2 46 Test S01110 - Primary Side Hot Leg A Temperature . . . . ..... ,... . 5-83 5.5.2 47 Test Sol 110 - Primary Side Hot Leg B Temperature ......... ......... 5-84 5.5.2-48 Test S01110 - Primary Side Inlet Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ...... 5-85 5.5.2-49 Test S01110 - Pressurizer Liquid Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ...... 5-86 5.5.2 50 Test S0ll10 - PRHR Flow . . . . . ................ . ..... ..... 5-87 5.5.2 51 Test S01110 CMT Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. .... 5-88 5.5.2-52 Test 501110 - Upper Head Mass . . . ..... .............. ........ 5-89 5.5.2-53 Test S01110 - Integrated Break Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ......... 5-90 5.5.2 54 Test S01110. Pressurizer Pressure . . ....... ........ ............ 5-91 5.5.2 55 Test S01110 - SG A Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... .... 5-92 5.5.2-56 Test S01110 - SG-B Pressure ........ ................. .. . . . . . 5-93 5.5.2-57 Test S01110 - Tube Rupture Break Flow .................. ........ 5-94 5.5.2 58 Test S01110 - Primary Side Hot Leg A Temperature . . . . . . . . . . ....... 5-95 5.5.2-59 Test S01110 - Primary Side Hot Leg B Temperature ......... ......,.. 5-96 5.5.2-60 Test S01110 - Primary Side Inlet Temperature . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . 5 97 5.5.2-61 Test S01110 - Pressurizer Liquid Level . . . . ............ .. . . . . . . 5-98 5.5.2-62 Test S01110 - PRHR Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ....... 5-99 5.5.2-63 Test S01110 - CMT Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-100 5.5.2-64 Test S01110 - Upper Head Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-101 5.5.2-65 Test S01110 - Integrated Break Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..... . 5-102 5.5.2-66 Test S01110 - Pressurizer Pressure .......... ........ . . . . . . . . 5 - 103 oV227wmn.It>082197 x REVISION. I
I i U LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.) Fleure Title P. ate 5.5.2-67 Test S01110 - SG-A Pressure . . . ..............................5-104 5.5.2-68 Test 501110 - SG-B Pressure .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 105 5.5.2-69 Test 501110 - Tube Rupture Break Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . 5- 106 5.5.2 70 Test S01110 - Primary Side Hot Leg A Temperature . . . . . . . . ..... . . . 5-107 5.5.2 71 Test S01110 - Primary Side Hot Leg B Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 108 5.5.2 72 Test S01110 - Primary Side inlet Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5109 5.5.2-73 Test 501110 - Pressurizer Liquid Level . . . . ..... ........... . . . . 5-110 5.5.2-74 Test S0l l 10 - PRHR Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ ..... . 5 111 5.5.2-75 Test S01110 - CMT Flow . . ........... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 1 12 5.5.2-76 Test S01110 - Upper Head Mass ..... ... ..............,......5113 5.5.2-77 Test S01110 - Integrated Break Flow ... . .. ......... . . . . 5-114 5.5.2 78 Test S01110 - RCS Water to Steel Heat Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 5-115 5.5.2-79 Test S01110 - RCS Steel to Air Heat Transfer . .... ....... .. . . . 5-116 5.5.3-1 Test S01309 Core Power . . . . . . . ... ...... . ......... . .. 5-128 5.5.3-2 Test S01309 - Pressurizer Pressure . . . ......... . . ..... .... 5 129 5.5.3 3 Test S01309 - SG-A Pressure . ... . . ........... .. ... 5-130 5.5.3-4 Test S01309 - 5G-B Pressure ..... ...... ... . ..... . .. 5-131 5.5.3-5 Test S01309 - Tube Rupture Break Flow . ... . ................ 5-132 5.5.3-6 Test S01309 - Primary Side Hot Leg Temperature . . ........... . . . . 5-133 (p) 5.5.3-7 Test 501309 - Primary Side Inlet Temperature . . . . ... . ... .. . 5 134 5.5.3-8 Test S01309 - Pressurizer Liquid Level . . . . .... .. ...... . . . . 5-135 5.5.3-9 Test 501309 - PRHR Flow . . . ... .......... . .... ... . . . . . 5 136 5.5.3-10 Test S01309 - PRHR Inlet Temperature . . . ..... ............ . . . . 5-137 5.5.3-11 Test S01309 - PRHR Outlet Temperature . . .. ... . . . 5 138 5.5.3-12 Test 501309 - CMT Flow . . . . .. .. ..... .. ... ... .. 5-139 5.5.3 13 Test S01309 - Upper Head Mass and Level . ... . ......... ... 5 140 5.5.3 14 Test S01309 CMTs Fluid Mass . . . . ... . . 5-141 5.5.3-15 Test S01309 - RCS Steel Heat Transf_r .... .... ... .. .. . 5-142 5.5.3-16 Test S01309 SGs Fluid to Steel Heat Transfer . . .... .. . ... 5-143 5.5.3-17 Test 501309 - Integrated Break Flow . . .... .. . .. . 5-144 5.5.3 18 Test S01309 - Starting Feedwater Flow - Loop A ... ......... .. . . 5-145 5.5.3 19 - Test S01309 - Starting Feedwater Flow - Loop B ... ... .. . .. 5-146 5.5.3-20 Test S01309 - PORV Flow . . . . ... . .... .. . .. . 5-147 5.5.3 21 Test S01309 - Integrated PORV Flow . ........ .... . .. ... . 5-148 5.5.3-22 Test 501309 - ADS Flow . . . ... . ... .... ... . ,.. . . 5-149 5.5.3-23 Test S01309 - Integrated ADS Flow . .. . . ... . . 5-150 5.5.3-24 Test S01309 - Pressurizer Pressure . . ... .. . ............. . 5-151 5.5.3-25 Test S01309 - SG-A Pressure .... .... . . . ... . .. . 5-152 5.5.3-26 Test S01309 - SG-B Pressure ... . . .. . ........ .. . 5-153 5.5.3-27 Test 501309 - Tube Rupture Break Flow . . . . . . . . 5-154 5.5.3-28 Test 501309 - Primary Side Hot Leg A Temperature . . .. . . . ... 5-155 5.5.3 29 Test S01309 - Primary Side Hot Leg B Temperature . .... . . . . . 5-156 !n 1 l oM227wmalts032197 xi REVIStoN: 1
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.) D1!Et lit.h Eagg 5.5.3 30 Test S01309 - Primary Side Inlet Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-157 5.5.3-31 Test S01309 Pressurizer Liquid Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-158 5.5.3 32 Test S01309 PRHR Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-159 5.5.3 33 Test S01309 . CMT Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 160 5.5.3 34 Test S01309 - Upper Head Mass . . . . . . . . ...... ......... . . . . . . 5-161 5.5.3-35 Test S01309 integrated Break Flow . . . . . . . . ....... ............ 5-162 5.5.3 36 Test S01309 - Pressurizer Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 163 5.5.3-37 Test 501309 - SG-A Pressure . . . . . . . . . .... ............ ... .. 5-164 5.5.3-38 Test S01309 - SG.B Pressure .......................... ...... 5-165 5.5.3-39 Test S01309 - Tube Rupture Break Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 5-166 5.5.3-40 Test S01309 - Primary Side Hot Leg A Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-167 5.5.3-41 Test S01309 - Primary Side Hot Leg B Temperature . ............. .. 5-168 5.5.3-42 Test S01309 - Primary Side Inlet Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-169 5.5.3-43 Test S01309 - Pressurizer Liquid Level . .... ..................... 5-170 5.5.3-44 Test S01309 - PRHR Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ ... . . .. 5-171 5.5.3-45 Test S01309 - CMT Flow . . . . . .... ......... .............. . 5-172 5.5.3-46 Test S01309 - Upper Head Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....... . 5 173 5.5.3-47 Test S01309 - Integrat-d Break Flow . . . . ... . .... . . .. . 5-174 5.5.4 1 Test S01211 - Core Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ....... ..... . 5 187 5.5.42 Test S01211 Pressurizer Pressure . . . . ......................... 5-188 5.5.4-3 Test S01211 - SG-A Pressure .... ...... ........... . . . . . . . . 5- 189 5.5.4-4 Test S01211 - SG B Pressure ................... .............. 5-190 5.5.4 5 Test S01211 - Tube Rupture Break Flow ....... .. . .. . ...,. 5-191 5.5.4-6 Test S01211 - Primary Side Hot Leg Temperature . . . . . . . ...... .. 5-192 5.5.4 7 Test S01211 - Primary Side Inlet Temperature . . .. ..... .. . 5 193 5.5.4-8 Test S01211 - Pressurizer Liquid Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ... . 5-194 5.5.4-9 Test S01211 - PRHR Flow . ............... ........, ... .. 5-195 5.5.4-10 Test S01211 - PRHR Inlet Temperature ... ... .. . .. . . . 5-196 5.5.4-11 Test S01211 - PRHR Outlet Temperature . . . . . . ..., . . .... . 5-197 5.5.4-12 Test S01211 - CMT Flow ................... ........ .... . 5-198 5.5.4-13 Test 501211 - RCS Steel Heat Transfer .. ..... .... . . 5-199 5.5.4 14 Test S01211 - SGs Fluid to Steel Heat Transfer . . ... ....... .... 5-200 5.5.4 15 Test S01211 -Integrated Break Flow .. .. ........... . .... ... 5-201 5.5.4-16 Test S01211 - Core Power . . . .. .. . . . . . .. ... .... . 5-202 5.5.4-17 Test S01211 - Pressurizer Pressure . . . . .... ..... . .. ....... 5-203 5.5.4-18 Test S01211 - SG-A Pressure ................. .... .... .... . 5 204 5.5.4-19 Test Sol 211 - SG-B Pressure ... ..... . . .......... . . . 5 205 5.5.4 20 Test S01211 - Tube Rupture Break Flow . . . . . ..... . . ... . . 5-206 5.54-21 Test Sol 211 - Primary Side Hot Leg Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-207 5.5.4-22 Test S01211 - Primary Side Inlet Temperature . . . ......... ... . 5-208 5.5.4-23 Test SO1211 - Pressurizer Liquid Level . . . . . . . ... .... . ....... 5-209 5.5.4 24 Test S01211 PRHR Flow . . . . . . .... ... .. .. .. .... 5-210 e oM227w noa:Ib.o82197 xii REVISION: 1
#^
\
\j' LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.)
Figure Title Pare 5.5.4-25 Test 501211 - PRHR Inlet Temperature ....., .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 21 1 5.5.4 26 Test S01211 - PRHR Outlet Temperature . . . . . ... ................ 5-212 5.5.4-27 Test S01211 - CMT Flow . ..... ........ ..... .............. 5-213 5.5.4-28 Test S01211 - RCS Steel Heat Transfer ......................... . 5-214 5.5.4 29 Test S01211 - SGs Fluid to Steel Heat Transfer . . . ... . ............ 5-215 5.5.4 30 Test S01211 - Integrated Break Flow . . . . . . . . ............ .... . 5-216 5.5.4 31 Test S01211 - Core Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-217 5.5.4-32 Test 501211 - Pressurizer Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 218 5.5.4 33 Test S01211 - SG-A Pressure . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......,.. 5-219 5.5.4-34 Test S01211 - SG-B Pressure ........... ......... ..... ...... 5-220 5.5.4 35 Test S01211 - Tube Rupture Break Flow .,........................ 5-221 5.5.4-36 Test S0121' - Primary Side Hot Leg Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-222 5.5.4-37 Test S01211 - Primary Side Inlet Temperature . . . ...... ............ 5-223 5.5.4-38 T st S01211 - Pressurizer Liquid Lew' . . . . . . . . . ..... ..... ..... . 5 224 5.5.4-39 Test S01211 - PRHR Flow . .. ........................... .. 5-225 5.5.4-40 Test S01211 - PRHR Inlet Temperature . . . . . .......... .......... 5-226 5.5.4-41 Test 501211 - PRHR Outlet Temperature . . , . . . .... ....... .. 5-227 5.5.4-42 Test 501211 - CMT Flow . . . .. ...... . .. .... .... . . 5-228 5.5.4 43 Test f 01211 - RCS St.el Heat Transfer . . . . .. .... . . .... ..... 5-229 (c) v
/
5.5.4-44 Test S01211 - SGs Fluid to Steel Heat Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-230 5.5.4-45 Test S01211 Integrated Break Flow . . . . . . . ....... . . . . 5 231 5.5.4-46 Test S01211 ADS Flow ..... ...... ... . . ... .... . 5-232 5.5.4-47 Test 5012Il - Integrated ADS Flow . . . . .. .... . .... .. . 5-233 5.6-1 Test 501512 - Pressurizer Pressure ........ . ... ..... .... . 5-239 5.6-2 Test S01512 - SG-A Pressure . .... . .... . . 5-240 5.6-3 Test 501512 - SG-B Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. ..... . . . 5 241 5.6-4 Test 501512 - PRHR Flow ,. ......... . ..... ......... . 5 242 5.6-5 Test S01512 - CMT Flow . . .. .... . ... . .. .... . 5-243 5.6-6 Test S01512 - Pressurizer Pressure . .. .. .... . . .. .. . 5-244 5.6-7 Test S01512 - SG A Pressure . .......... . ... .... . .. . 5-245 5.6-8 Test S01512 - SG-B Pressure . .. . . .. ... . . .. 5-246 5.6-9 Test S01512 - PRHR Flow . . . . . .... ... . . ...... ..... . . . . 5-247 5.6-10 Test S01512 - CMT Flow . . . . . . . ..... . .. ....... . ..... 5-248 5.6-11 Test S01511 - Integrated Break Flow . . , . .. ... . .. . 5-249 5.6-12 Test S01512 - SG Inlet Header Temperature - Faulted Loop ..... ...... 5-250 5.6-13 Test S01512 - SG Outlet Header Temperature - Faulted Loop ... .. . 5-251 5.6-14 Test S01512 - Pressurizer Pressure . . . . . . . . . ...... .. .. . . 5-252 5.6-15 Test S01512 - SG-A Pressure .. ..... . . .. .. .. ..... .... 5-253 5.6-16 Test S01512 - SG-B Pressure .. ....... . .. . .. . ...... .. 5-254 5.6-17 Test S01512 - PRHR Flow . . . ........ ...... ....... .. . . . 5-255 5.6-18 Test S01512 - CMT Flow . . . . . . ..... ....... . ..... . . 5-256 5.6-19 Test 501512 - Integrated Break Flow . . . ... . .. ......... 5-257 e A s Y l t o V?27w.non:lt>082197 xiii REVISION: 1
LIST OF FICURES (Cont.) Eigy.Lt Title P,_ age 5620 Test S01512 - SG Inlet Header Temperature - Faulted Loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-258 5.6-21 Test S01512 - SG Outlet Header Temperature - Faulted Loop . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 259 5.6-22 Test S01512 - Pressurizer Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 260 5.6-23 Test S01512 - SG A Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-261 5.6-24 Test 501512 - S G-B Pressu re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-262 5.6-25 Test S0151 '. - PRHR Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-263 5.6-26 Test S01512 - CMT Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .. 5-264 5.6-27 Test 501512 - Integrated Break Flow . . . . . . . . . . . .......... ..... 5-265 5.6-28 Test S01512 - SG Inlet Header Temperature - Faulted Loop . . . . . . . . . . . 5 266 5.6-29 Test 501512 - SG Outlet HeaJer Temperature - Faulted Loop . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-267 6.3.1.11 Simulated Core Heat Flux for SPES 1 Natural Circulation Test # SPNC-01, Part 1 ............................. ....... .. 6-9 6.3.1.1-2 Simulated SG Heat Flux for SPES-1 Natural Circulation Test # SPNC-01, Part 1 ...................... ...... ........ . 6-10 6.3.1.2 1 Core Power and SG Downcomer Levels for SPES-1 Natural Circulation Test # SPNC 01, Parts 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 6-11 6.3.1.2 2 Primary Coolant Loop Flow Rate for Natural Circulation Test # SPNC-01, Parts 1 and 2 . . ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6- 12 6.3.1.2 3 Simulation of SG Mass for SPES-1 Test # SPNC-01, Part 1 . . . . ... .... . 6-13 6.3.1.2-4 Simulation of Core Flow Rates for SPES-1 Test # SPNC-01, Part 1. . . . . . . . . 6-14 e oM227w.noo:tb-082197 xiv REVISION: 1
Q- FORWARD: This report provides details of the LOFTRAN-AP simulation of the SPES 2 tests used to validate the integral plant response during transient situations. A key feature of the AP600 plant is the addition of passive systems, including a passive residual heat removal (PRHR) heat exchang:r (HX) which functions as a passive altemative to the auxiliary feedwater system. This system is included in the SPES 2 facility and in the LOFTRAN AP code. The 1 OFTRAN AP PRHR model is described in detail in WCAP-14234, the LOFTRAN and LOFTTR2 AP600 Code Applicability Document (References A and B). The analyses presented in this report and Revision 0 of the CAD were generated at the same time. The PRHR heat transfer model des:ribed in Revision 0 of the CAD and used in the analyses presented in this report are based on the conclusions of WCAP 12980 Revision 1, the AP600 Passive Residual Heat Removal Heat Exchanger Test Final Report (Reference C). With completion of Revision 2 of WCAP-12980 (Reference D), the CAD has been updated to reflect changes to the PRHR heat transfer calculations as they will be applied to the AP600 SSAR analyse' .iowever, the analyses in this report do not need to be modified. His is because the SPES-2 simulations do not verify the specific heat correlations used. The simulations verify that the complete LOFTRAN AP system model operates properly. Derefore, nominal or best estimate heat transfer correlation options were used. Even though the correlations applied in the analyses are based primarily on the Reference C PRHR test report, calculations of best estimate heat iransfer correlations have not changed significantly, ne Reference D updated PRHR test report was issued primarily to address calculations of minimum heat transfer correlations for use in design basis safety analyses.
- Reference to Appendix B of the SSAR for PRHR and SPES 1 tests has been removed, he SPES 1
- Q natural circulation test simulations are now included in this report. De PRHR test formerly included in Q Appendix B of the SAR was performed with the correlations developed in Reference C and therefore is inappropriate for validation of the design basis heat transfer correlations to be used in AP600 SSAR analyses. The calculations have not been revised / replaced. The Reference D PRHR report determines the conservative heat transfer correlations and the Reference B CAD describes how they are modeled in LOFTRAN-AP for application in design basis analyses, The SPES 2 test simulations in this repon verify that the PRHR system is coupled properly to the plant model, independent of the exact choice for heat transfer correlation selected.
(A) Carlin, E. L., LOFTRAN & LOFITR AP600 Code Applicability Document, WCAP 14234 (Proprietary), November 1994. (B) Bachrach, U., Carlin, E. L., LOFTRAN & LOFTTR2 AP600 Cade Applicability Document, WCAP-14234, Revision 1 (Proprietary), May 1997. (C) Corletti, M. M., L. E. Hochrieter, and W. A. Stewart, AP600 Passive Residual Heat Removal Heat Exchanger Test Final Report, WCAP-12980, Revision 1, December 1992, e (D) L. E. Hochrieter, F. E. Pe'ers, and D. L. Paulsen, AP600 Passive Residual Heat Removal Heat
. Exchanger Test Final Report, WCAP 12980, Revision 2, September 1996.
A
.h oM221w.non. itso82197 REYtsnON: 1
SUMMARY
nis report provides details of the LOFTRAN-AP simulations of the CMT and SPES-2 tests used to validate the LOFTRAN CMT model and integral plant response during transient situations. The CMT model validation is based on separate-effects tests conducted at the CMT test facility. This report also l presents related efforts for the SPES 1 natural-circulation tests, which support code validation. While not a primary purpose of this report, the validation exercises presented in the report suppon existing LOFTRAN models. He LOFTRAN code is used to calculate NSSS transients given a set of boundary conditions and a transient forcing function. The code simulates the transient based on user-supplied input. By specifying minimum- or maximum initial conditions, safety system setpoints, relief and safety valve capacities, core kinetics parameters, and safeguards system, thermal-hydraulic performances, the code supplies conservative and bounding analysis results. The transient forcing functions, such as the steam break model, also contain conservative modeling assumptions or are supplied with conservative input parameters to achieve a conservative system response. Code inputs are based on design data and where applicable, uncertainties are included and applied in ex l } the direction, which provides conservative response relative to acceptance criteria or safety-analysis limit. The safety-analysis limit includes margin to design limits. The overall approach then includes conservative models, minimum- or maximum-code input values, and margin in the acceptance criteria giving an overall conservative result. The LOFTRAN code is not intended for use where significant, two-phase flow occurs. Transients which employ LCFTRAN, in general, do not exhibit significant, two-phase flow conditions. If there is potential for two-phase flow, acceptance criteria are established based on prohibiting large-scale RCS boiling. Additionally, LOFTRAN is not used where CMT draindown ecuid occur, for post-trip ADS, during IRWST injection phase, or for long-term cooling phases, LOFTRAN AP code simulations of SPES-2 SGTR test data shows that LOFTRAN accurately predicts the operational behavior of the passive systems as well as the integrated plant operation under transient conditions. Comparison to test data shows good agreer ent with all key parameters identified in the PIRT. In particular, the code accurately predicts CMT and PRHR behavior. Combined with analysis assumptions, which maximize break flowt it is apparent that LOFITR2-AP provides a good model for conservative design-basis SGTR calculations. Comparison of LOFTRAN AP simulations with the SPF.S-2 MSLB test data demonstrated that LOFTRAN-AP accurately predicts the overall transient trends and provides conservative results suitable for design-basis safety analyses. LOFTRAN provided valid predictions of CMT and PRHR
) behavior for the SPES-2 MSLB test.
J cA3227w.non Ib c82197 ] REVISivN: 1
l Ilased on code validation efforts documented in this report,it is concluded that the LOFTRAN AP code pr.evides an a: curate model of the AP600 plant over the range of conditions required for the analysis of design basis non LOCA and SGTR events. In conjunction with conservative input parameters based on established safety analysis methodologies, LOFTRAN provides an excellent tool for design-basis safety analyses. O O oV227 wen Ib082197 2 REVislON: I
(3 v
1.0 INTRODUCTION
His report presents the final results of the LOITRAN-AP and LOFITR2 AP code verification and validation effort, supporting analyses contained in the AP600 Standard Safety Analysis Report (SSAR). He documentation extends and supersedes the LOFTRAN AP code validation effort presented in the preliminary Core hiakeup Tank (Reference 1) and SPES 2 (Reference 2) Validation reports. Included in this document are the final LOFTRAN AP simulations of the ChtT tests performed at the Waltz hiill Ch1T test facility, the steam generator tube rupture (SGTR), and the main steam line break (htSLB). The simulations are compared with the test data (including blind test data) and the results iemonstrate the ability of LOFTRAN AP and LOFTTR2 AP to model AP600 non-LOCA and SOTR transients.
%e report also provides background information about the LOFTRAN AP and LOTTTR2 AP codes and other verification and validation work.
1,1 Use of LOITRAN in AP600 Safety Analysis LOFTRANW is a digital computer code that was developed to simulate transient behavior in a multiloop pressurized water reactor system. The code simulates a multiloop system by modeling the O reacter core and vessel, hot and cold leg piping, steam generator (SG) tube and shell sides, pressurizer. U and reactor coolant pumps (RCPs) with up-to-four coolant loops. The code has an extensive history in performing design and licensing-basis non loss-of coolant accident (non-LOCA) analyses. The code has been reviewed and approved for use in the non LOCA analyses by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US NRC).W LOFITR2 is a specialized version of the LOFTRAN code, modified for the analysis of steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) events. The main reactor coolant system (RCS) models of LOITTR2 are the same as those specified in the LOFTRAN code. Additionally, LOFTTR2 includes an enhanced SG secondary side model, a tube rupture break flow model, and improvements to allow simulation of operator actions. The code is documented and has been reviewed and approved by the US NRC for SG tube rupture analyses. "7) A key feature of the AP600 plant is the addition of passive safeguards systems. The passive residual heat removal (PRilR) heat exchanger (ILX) functions as a passive alternative to the auxiliary feedwater system. The core makeup tanks (ChfTs) function as a passive emergency coolant injection and boration system (See Figure 1 1). The application of LOFTRAN and LOFITR2 to the AP600 design is described in detai! in the LOFTRAN and LOFITR2 AP600 Code Applicability Document.m he ..P600-specific versions of [ these codes are designated LOFTRAN AP and LOFTTR2 AP. hiodifications to the codes include the addition of the PRiiR, core raakeup tank (Ch1T), and reactor vessel head vent models. Due to the major sommonalities of the LOFTRAN-AP and LOFTTR2 AP codes, whenever LOFTRAN-AP oV227w non it*082197 11 REVislON: 1
models are referred to in this report, except as otherwise noted, the applicability of the LOITIR2 AP models is implied. A full history of LOFFRAN AP and LOITTR2 AP is provided in Section 2 of this report. 12 Verification and Validation of LOFTRAN AP and LOITTR2 AP Verification of LOITRAN AP and LOITIR2 AP comprises a series of checks designed to provide confidence that the computer codes are correctly solving and applying the equations and correlations within them. In partisular, the checks are aimed at confirming conect implementation of the code modifications associated with the AP600 design and the validation effort. De verification process is controlled by intemal Westinghouse procedures. Cornpliance with these procedures demonstrates adequate verification of LOFTRAN AP and LOITTR2 AP. Verification is not discussed further in this report. Validation of LOFTRAN AP and LOITTR2 AP is accomphshed by comparing code simulations with scale model test data. The compariscms are aimed at showing that the Key phenomena for AP600 transient analyses are correctly modeled by the codes. %e phenomena and the tests are briefly described below. 12,1 Summary of Key Phenomena for Validation Table 1 1 presents the phenomena ides, ification ranking table (PIRT) for the AP600 non-LOCA events that can be analyzed by the LOFTRAN based code. Table 1 1 ranks the importance of various component or system phenomena to specific events; phenomena that show an ll indicate high importance, those with an M are of moderate importance, and those marked with an L are of low importance. In some caws, a phenomena may not be applicable to a transient, and this is indicated as N/A. The importance rankings of Table 1 1 are based on the analysis time frame as presented in Chapter 15 of the AP600 SSAR. The design. basis analyses results of Chapter 15 generally coser the transient us,'il a safe state is reached. For many ANSI 18-2 Condition Il events, the initiating fault may be quickly tenninated by an automatic protection system action. For example, a fault that causes inadveitent rod cluster control assembly (RCCA) withdrawal from at power condition will cause reactor power to increase until an overpower reactor trip occurs. The reactor trip causes an immediate reducti on in power and also terminates the inadvertent RCCA withdrawal. Immediately following a reactor trip, the plant will be in a safe state and the plant may be maintained in a stable state or cooled down further using normal plant shutdown procedures. De analytical results presented in Chapter 15 for this event only cover the event from initiation until shortly after reactor trip, and only the phenomena considered applicable over this time frame are considered in the PIRT. l l l o U227. nan ib442197 12 REY!SloN: 1 1
T inspection of the AP600 phenomena identified in Table 1 1 indicates that many are the same as those for conventional pressurized water reactors (PWRs); however, a key difference between AP600 and [ conventional PWRs h the increased importance of natural circulation now and related phenomena. , The P!RT Identines the key phenomena of interest for the non-LOCA and SOTR events. The key ! phenomena relevant to the MSLB and SOTR tests and simulations include:
- Natural circulation flow and heat transfer
- Break Dow from the ruptured tube (SOTR events)
- Break now from the faulted SO (MSLB events)
- Steam generator secondary side conditions
- Decay power of the core a Mixing in the reactor vessel
- Pressurizer response Two other important phenomena associated with the AP600 passive systems are:
P
- CMT recirculauon
*- PRilR recirculation and heat transfer 1.2.2 Tests Uwd for Validation Validation of the LOITRAN AP PRHR model, CMT model, and integral AP600 plant response with these passive safeguards systems,is based on the following tests:
- SPES 1 natural circulation tests l
- CMT component tests
- SPES 2 steam generator tube rupture and steam line break tests l Comparisons of the SPES 1 natural circulation tests to LOITRAN AP simulations have been l completed and are presented in this report.
The CMT component tests provide data on CMT recirculation behavior, which can be used to validate the LOFTRAN AP CMT model. The SPES 2 SGTR and MSLB tests provide integral systems-effects data, which can be used to validate the LOITRAN AP code for the key phenomena identified in the PIRT, as well as to confirm the behavior of the passive safety system models in these events. h U l' The roles of the SPES 1. CMT, and SPES 2 tests in LOFTRAN AP and LOFITR2 AP validation l effort are further discussed in Section 3, and the CMT. SPES 2, and SPES 1 validation results are l presented in Sections 4,5, and 6. oM227e .*on Ib-082197 .].3 - Revision: 1
o N u T TABLEl-1 l PIIENOMENA IDENTIFICATION RANKING TABLE FOR AP600 NON-LOCA AND y STEAM GENERATOR TUBE RUPTURE DESIGN BASIS ANALYSES n Li g (12) (8) Im e (4) (6) Less (9) sertent (I) land- Loss er LR git (13) FW 12) (3) wrtest (5) ac & (7) RCS & (19) (II) se RCS (14) C-. . 7 -, .,: & System I%. .u ._ Malf ELI SLR PRilR LOL LOSF FLB Flow BS SUIL RWAP CVS I4 SCFR l Crnwal Flow N/A N/A H N/A N/A N'A H N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A II H Vessel il L H 11 L M M L L H L M L M Miser.g l Flashing in Upper licad N/A N/A M N/A N/A L L N/A N/A N/A NA L L L Core H M II !! M L M M M 11 M L L L Reactivity Ftedback [ l Reactor Trip II L H L H 18 il 18 II H II H ll II l Decay flest L L L L L H II L L L L ll L h Tweed Convecten H ll Il it il 11 II H H H H M H L l Natural Circulaten Fkm and N/A L I! N/A L I! 11 L L L L II L M Heat Transfer l RCP Coastdown Performance L N/A L N/A N/A L L 11 II N/A N/A L L L l Pressuriser L L M L L II L L L L L H L M Pressmires Flukt level Sarge line Pressure Drop L L L L Il L L M 11 L L L L L Steam Generator (SG) liest Transfer II II II L 11 11 11 L L L M L L M Secondary Condnums M L 11 L L M M L L 1. L L L ll ($ RCS '4all Simed llent L L L L N/A L L N/A N/A L N/A L L
-. a M
n 3 M O O O
, _. _ _, r. , , .. , ,-
p A. > > w _- %emasg
.{
, if TABLE 1-1 (Cent.)
" t j[ PHENOMENA IDENTIFICATION RANKING TABLE FOR APESS NON-IDCA AND
,- STEAM GENERATOR TURE RUPTURE DESIGN BASIS ANALIT43 l t12)
$ 88) lead- '
l (43 M3 LOSS 49) wreent j (1) land- Imus of I2 CMT (13) ; FW (2) Of wrecut (5) ac & (7) ItC5 & (W) (11) er RCS (le t 7 C , _.; & Syseese rhemenweme Maar Ett sta PRNR LOL LONF FLB Flow BS 5088. RWAP CVS % SCTR l CMT NA NA H MA NA H M NA NA NA NA 11 NA L Retirculasson inpectum Gravity Dramung injechen NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA > Verte Condensassen Rase NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Bilance line Pressure Dmp NA NA H NA NA Il M NA NA NA NA Il NA L ' l R=l==ce I.ine Irntial MA NA 11 NA NA 9 M NA NA NA NA H MA L I Tennperasme thst.
== Ae ^
MA NA M NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ! ta legecisen 1%er Rae PRifR NA NA M H MA H H MA NA NA NA H WA H Row Ra!c and Ilest Transfer l IRWST Indial Temperatwe WA NA M H NA M M MA NA N/A NA M MA H l Assainen:14, 4.Syssein MA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N/A NA NA NA il MA (t) I'W Malf - I'tedwafe- Malfanctwo that Resuks in a Decrease in Fredwaser Terriperahme or an increase in Ficedwaser I' lour (2) ELI - Excesseve inciense in Secondary Sacare Ibo i Of SLB - Sacamtme Becalt . d4) Inafwertent PRifR - Inadvertens Operasson of the PRHR (5) LOL - Ims of Secondary Side Imd Events (6) Isss ac & LONF -
!sss d ac Power and Imss of Nornr* Feedwaser (7) 118 - Feed line Brealt (8) Imss of RCS Flow - tms oflinced RCS Ilour (9) IJt & B5 -
locited RCP Ratnr and Broken RCP Shaft (30) SUIL - Startup of an lamettve Reactor Coolass Pump at an lectwiect Temgeranse (II) RWAP - RLTA Wahdrawal sa Power i p (12) Inad-venent CMT or CVS - Inadvenent Operatuwe of the CMT or Chemacal and Volume Connel Sysseen , m (13) RC5 th. - Inadvertent RCS tiv.m,.64xus g (14) SGTR - $ scan GenermerTehe Regenre H - High Ingertance M - Moderase importance L - 1.mw ingwntance NA - Not Agg4n:able
..h i L e i
O u u i Pressurwer rS IRWST--* 0 ( ($ PRHR HX v saw h 1,
- 3pf g O 44 c eg^r u, :g? ~
sae.n! h Purre
/
a-us i e Figure 11 AP600 Passive Safety Systems l oV227 umikos2in 16 REvistoN: 1 I
(#) 2.0 LOFTRAN.AP AND LOFTTR2.AP CODE DESCRIPTION 2.1 Hackground LOITRAN is used for non LOCA analyses presented in Chapter 15 of SSAR, simulations of anticipated transients without trip, equipment sizing studies, and calculating mass and energy releases from secondary-side breaks. Development of the LOFIRAN code began in the late 1960s. Initially the code contained a single RCS loop and was used for the analysis of symmetric design basis non LOCA transier.ts. Analyses of only asymmetric system transients was performed with other computer codet. In 1976, LOFTRAN was modified to explicitly simulate four RCS loops. The modification resulted in use of LOFTRAN for the RCS transient response to symmetric and asymmetric non-LOCA design basis transient analyses. Selected Chapter 15 safety analysis events analyzed with LOFTRAN include:
- Feedwater system malfunctions resulting in a decrease in feedwater temperature or an increase in feedwater flow
- Excessive increase in steam flow
(~~)/ v
. Inadvertent opening of a steam generator rtlief or safety valve
+ Steam system piping failure
. Inadvertent operation of the passive residual heat removal heat dchanger
. Loss of external electrical load
. Turbine trip
- Inadvertent closure of main steam isolation valves
- Loss of ac power to the plant auxiliaries
- Loss of normal feedwater flow
- Feedwater system pipe break
~3
- Partial and complete loss of forced reactor coolant flow Lj'
- Reactor coolant pump shaft seizure (locked rotor) and shaft break eV2273.non Ibes2197 21 REVisloN: 1
- Startup of an inactive reactor coolant pump at an incorrect temperature e inadvertent operation of the core makeup tanks (Ch!Ts) during power operation
- Chemical and volume control system malfunction that increases reactor coolant inventory
- Inadvertent opening of a pressurizer safety or inadvertent operatio i of the ADS
- Steam generator tube rupture The original validation program for LOFTRAN included comparisons of LOFTRAN results to actual plant data and to other similar thermal-hydraulic codes (Reference 2). These comparisons consisted of fourteen transients that included simulations of actual plant loss of loads, reactor trips and load step changes. These comparisons were used to demonstrate the ability of LOFTRAN to analyze non-LOCA transients.
As part of the original validation process an analysis of the R. E. GINNA SGTR event of January 25, 1982, was perfor ned and submitted to the NRC in Reference 23. Shortcomings of LOFTRAN were identified by this comparison and demonstrated that LOFTRAN was able to model the GINNA tube rupture event prior to the failure of the PORV to close. To better analyze tube ruptum events, a specialized version of LOFTRAN called LOFTIR2 was developed. LOFTTR2 was developed by modifying LOFTRAN in two stages. The LOFITR2 program is an updated version of the LOTTFR1 program, which was developed from the LOFTRAN program for SGTR analysis, and was used for the generic SGTR eva!uation of previous Westinghouse PWR designs. He original LOFITRI program was subsequently modified to model SG overfill and was designated as LOFITR2, which was then used for the evaluation of the consequences of overfill in Reference 7. The LOFTTR2 program is identical to the LOFITRI program, with one exception. The LOITIR2 program has the additional capability to represent the transition from two regions (steam and water) on the seconlary side to a single water regim if overfill occurs, and to model the transition back to two regions again, if indicated by the calculated secondary conditions. 2.2 Code hiodifications for the AP600 The AP600 design is similar in many respects to previous PWR designs. The analysis of many of the design basis events is unimpacted by AP600 features and the safety analysis methods used on previous PWRs remain applicable. De principle new features that impact the non-LOCA safety analyses are the passive residual heat removal heat exchanger and the core makeup tanks. Rese two components provide the safety related methods for decay heat removal and boration of the RCS. He LOFTRAN and LOFTTR2 codes were modified to incorporate models of those AP600-specific features, o \3227w rma itW2197 22 REVislON: 1
(. Core hlakeup Tank h!odel De core makeup tank modelis a multi-node model that simulates the tank, the balance line connecting the reactor coolant system cold leg with the top of the ChfT, and the injection line connecting the bottom of the ChtT with the reactor vessel. The thermal-hydraulics model simulates the flow in the ChfT lines and tracks mass, energy, and boron concentration in the ChfT. He Ch1T model calculations are performed expli:itly from the RCS thermal hydraulic conditions. A single CMT is used to simulate two CMTs by doubling the flow rates into and out of the ChfT model. Fluid noding in the CMT model is as f >llows: I *
, ja.c llent transfer from the tank fluid through the walls of the tank is simulated and [
]' C are used.
Boron concentration is tracked on a node basis in the cold leg balance line and the injection line, in /G the CMT, boron is tracked on a tank average basis, which effectively assumes perfect mixing of the b boron within the tank with fluid entering from the cold leg balance line. This assumption conservatively underpredicts the boron concentration of the CMT injection. More details of the CMT model can be found in Reference 8. PRiiR and IRWST Model The passive residual heat removal (PRilR) heat exchanger model is divided into the following regions: I
]a.c Up to [ ]* C nodes can be simulated in these five regions. The inlet and outlet piping regions are simulated as [ } and the inlet and outlet header and channel head regions are simulated as [ J'* The heat exchanger region is set up to model either vertical or C-tube type heat exchangers. User input allows specification of whether a heat exchanger node is vertical or horizontal, but [
n )* C Dependmg upon the orientation of the PRHR nodes, different heat transfer correlations are U used. No heat transfer is simulated in the inlet and outlet regions, o V227=.non 11@82197 23 REVISION: 1
licat removed from the PRHR is transferred to the in-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST) which is modeled as [ )*' Initial IRWST conditions, such as temperature and fluid mass, are input to the model, as well as pressure as a function of time. Energy and mass are tracked in the IRWST node. Fluid in the node is assumed to be a homogeneous mixture (i.e., perfect mixing is assumed in the IRWST tank). Steaming from the pool is accounted for if saturation temperature is reached in the IRWST. Mmor changes or enhancements were made to other existing models in LOFTRAN and LOFTTR2. De changes to existing models consisted of the fol!owing:
- Reactor vessel head vent model Following extended operation of the core makeup tanks or the CVCS overfilling of the RCS may occur under some postulated assumptions. He AP600 includes a safety related reactor vessel heat vent which may be to opened bleed excess fluid injected into the RCS. This feature gives the operator the flexibility to remove excess fluid injected in the RCS rather than terminating the CMT injection. An option has been added to LOFTRAN and LOFITR2 to simulate this Guid relief path from the RCS. The option allows the fluid relief flow rate to be controlled as a function of time or calculated by the code as a function of the local fluid conditions based on the Fauske/ HEM critical flow model. Details of the head vent model can be found in Reference 8.
- Protection system actuation logic ne AP600 protection system includes new functions for automatic actuation of the PRHR and CMT and additional automatic functions for other safeguards features. New automatic protection system actuation logic was added to LOFTRAN as needed to model design basis accident analyses.
. Modifications to the pressurizer safety valve model to allow simulation of slower ADS valve opening De AP600 ADS is used to depressunze the RCS in a controlled manner following small.
break LOCA transients. It is not used in the mitigation of non-LOCA events and is not expected to be actuated. However, an inadvertent opening of an ADS stage is addressed as a design basis event using LOFTRAN. De ADS valves are designed to open slowly. The existing pressurizer relief valve model was modified, so that a slow opening valve could be simulated.
- Addition of user input to model the elevation difference between reactor vessel inlet and outlet nozzles o W27. non Itwos2197 2-4 REVislON: 1
2.3 LOFTRAN.AP Code Modincations for Test Simulations Modincations for CMT Component Test Simulations Part of the validation of the LOFTRAN AP core makeup tank model is performed by comparing LOf-TRAN calculated CMT performance data to CMT component test data. The Waltz Mill CMT component tests were used for this purpose. He component CMT test facility consisted of an instrumented tank used to simulate the CMT and a steam / water reservoir that simulated the rest of the RCS. Connecting lines to supply steam and/or liquid to the top of the CMT were provided, as well as a drain line to allow flow out of the bottom of the CMT. A source of saturated steam from a boiler was attached to the reservoir. A more detailed of description of the CMT component test facility is given in Appendix A. To simplify comparison of the LOFTRAN.AP CMT model to the CMT component tests, a stand alone CMT simulation code called LOFTRANCMT was $ctup. LOFIRANCMT uses CMT thermal-hydraulic coding identical to LOFTRAN AP. The code was developed by combining the LOFTRAN-AP CMT codmf with input, output, and driver routines compatible with the test instrumentation. This approach simplified supplying the test boundary conditions to the LOFFRAN-AP CMT numencs. Further details of the validation method are given in Section 4.0. Modincations for SPl%2 Test Simulations The LOFTRAN code as described in Reference 3 contains a simple metal heat capacity model for the RCS. A lumped metal heat capacity model is used and the RCS is divided into the following metal heat capacity regions: I
- Ju For each of the [ ]" regions a constant metal heat capacity [Bru/*F], and constant RCS fluid to metal heat tmnsfer coefficient [ ]" are input. The model is used to account for heat additions to the RCS fluid from the metal during SOTR analyses and steam line break mass and energy release analyses. He model is tumed off during other non LOCA analyses because the metal heat transfer and heat capacity would have no impact or would make the event less severe.
Heat losses from the SPES 2 facility were approximately ( ]" percent of the power generated at scaled AP600 full power and 610*F. Following reactor trip, rod power was reduced to values scaled o u227w.mc INE2897 2$ REVISION: 1
to AP600 decay heat levels, of about several hundred kW. In this condition, heat losses from the SPES 2 RCS were about the same as the simulated decay heat. It was obvious the heat losses would have a significant impact on the test results. Because the heat losses are significant at the SPES 2 facility, [ )" added to the test post trip decay power to attempt to compensate for heat loss. The metal heat capacity model of LOFTRAN was modified to take account of the heat losses and improve the simulations of the SPES 2 facility. For each of the seven metal heat regions, an external heat transfer component was added. The change in energy from the RCS fluid to the metal and from the metal to the containment air is calculated using following: AE = UA, (T 3, - Tp) dt AE g =UA E (T 3 , Trig) dt where AE i = Energy transferred letween the primary fluid and the metal over a time step, Btu AE g = Energy transferred tetween the metal and the containment air over a time step, Btu UA i = Fixed input value for primary fluid to metal heat transfer coefficient multiplied by inte. facial area, Bru/sec. *F UAg = Fixed input value for metal to metal containment atmosphere heat transfer coefficient multiplied by interfacial area, Btu /sec. *F Tp = Primary fluid temperature. *F Ts, = hietal temperature. 'F Trig = Fixed input value for containment air temperature, 'F dl = time step size, seconds l The change in metal temperature in each region over the code time step is computed using the l following: 1 Tht(t) = Tgg(t-dt) - (AEi + AEg) / htC p where Ts (t) = hietal temperature at current time step, 'F T3p-dt) = hietal temperature from pirvious time step, 'F e u:27. nm tww2197 26 REYistoN: 1
[ MC p = Metal specific heat capacity. Fixed inpot value equal to metal specific heat multiplied by metal mass Blu/'F Further details of the SPES 2 heat loss modeling are provided in Subsection 5.3.4 \ () (_/ o \3227=.wilb42197 27 REVISION: I
. - . .~ . - . - -. .
(3 3.0 ROLES OF TESTS IN LOFTRAN AP AND LOFTTR2 AP CODE VALIDATION 3.1 Oserview Validation of the LOFTRAN AP PRHR model, CMT model, and the integral AP600 plant response with these passive safeguards systems, is based on the following tests:
- SPES 1 natural circulation tests l
- CMT component tests '
- SPES 2 steam generator tube rupture and steam line break tests Each of these test programs and how they relate to the LOFTRAN AP code validation effort are briefly described below More detailed discussions of the CMT component test facility and SPES 2 tests' roles are provided in Subsections 3.2 and 3.3.
SPES 1 Natural Circulation Tests
.he SPES 1 facility was a three-loop full height facility scaled in the ratio of 1/427 with respect to a standard Westinghouse PWR three loop plant. Scaling criteria are aimed toward natural circulation O and small-break LOCA.
b The LOFTRAN AP RCS natural circulation capability is validated by comparison of simulations of tests performed at the SPES 1 facility, with test data. In particular, the validation is based on simulations of test SPNC-01, which focuses on single-phase natural circulation. We test can be accessed in the report listed in Reference 9. This comparison has been completed and is summarized l in Section 6.3.1, I CMT Component Tests The Westinghouse CMT component 6 scility comprises a scale CMT tank, a steam / water reservoir, instrumentation, and piping. The LOFTRAN AP CMT modelis verified primarily by comparison of simuladons of CMT component tests with test data. During design-basis non-LOCA and SGTR events, the CMTs exhibit the recirculation mode of injection instead of the drain-down mode of injection. The verification uses the CMT 500-series tests, which are natural circulation tests (followed by drain down and depressurization).
' SPES 2 Steam Generator Tube Rupture and Steam Line Break Tests 10 V
Ihe SPES 2 test facility is a 1/395-scale full-height, high-pressure test facility. De facility includes the reactor vessel loops, the pressurizer, the sos, the PRHR heat exchanger, and the CMTs. oA3227w n n it @ le? -31 REVISION: 1
~. - , . -- .
To validate LOFTRAN Ap, four full system transient SGTR and MSLB tests are simulated. Two of the tests are blind tests. Comparison of the test simulations with the data validates the integrated behavior of the LOFTRAN AP reactor coolant loop models and the new passive safeguards system models of LOFTRAN AP. 3.2 Role of CMT Component Tests in LOFTRAN.AP Validation 3.2.1 CMT Component Tests Description ne Westinghouse CMT test facility (Reference 10) consists of an instrumented test vessel that simulates the CMT and a steam / water reservoir that simulates the remainder of the RCS. Connecting lines to supply steam and/or liquid to the top of the CMT are provided, as well as a drain line to allow flow out of the bottom of the CMT. A comparison of the CMT test facility and AP600 layout is shown in Figure 31. A source of saturated steam from a boiler is attached to a steam reservoir and is connected to the liquid / steam reservoir. The test apparatus is shown schematically in Figure 3 2, and a detailed description is given in Reference 10. A data acquisition system (DAS) is provided to record signals from thermocouples, pressure sensors, and flow meters. The test matrix is presented in Reference 11. The CMT test program has been developed to perform scaled, separate effects tests in which the boundary conditions are controlled over a wide range to produce thermal-hydraulic conditions of interest for computer code validation. The test facility CMT is 1/2 scale in height and in.7 scale in diameter. The scaling logic that supports the application of the data for code assessment is described in detail in Reference 12. This report shows that the key thermal hydraulic phenomena of interest were reproduced in the test facility and that the test facility can be operated and controlled over a sufficiently broad range that captures all CMT modes of operation relevant to non LOCA/SGTR analysis. 3.2.2 Role of the CMT in AP600 Safety and Analysis with LOFTRAN AP The AP600 passive core cooling system includes two CMTs, located above the cold legs of the AP600 RCS. Each tank stores 2000 ft.3 of cold borated water at RCS pressure that is gravity-injected into the RCS to provide reactivity control and core cooling. The AP600 plant system design is shown in Figure 1 1. De AP600 plant system design includes a normally open pressure balance line from the RCS cold leg to the top of the CMT. The CMTs are also connected to the RCS via a discharge line from the bottom of each CMT to the reactor vessel. %e CMTs provide the same function as the high pressure safety injection system in existing PWRs, with the difference being that cuneat plants require the availaFlity of ac power to perform their safety oum m lus2197 32 RINISION: 1
.- .~ - . -- . - - - - - . - - - - - - .
I i function, whereas the CMTs perfonn this function using only gravity-driven flows. During accidents, the role of the CMT is to provide coolant and boron to the RCS. When a safeguards signal ("S* signal) occurs (typically low pressudzer pressure), the reactor coolant , pumps (RCPs) trip and the CMT isolation valves open. De cold leg balance line to the CMT line is initially warmer than the CMT and the injection li::e. The water density difference between the balance line and the CMT is sufficient to create a positive gravitational head that initiates Dow between the cold leg, CMT. and direct vessel injection line, initiating the recirculation mode of the CMT. During the transients analyzed with LOFTRAN.AP, subcooling exists in the reactor cold leg, thus the CMTs work most of the time in single phase natural circulation. Moderate void generation can occur ; for some transients when the RCS pressure drops very low, leading to a decrease in the water subcooling at the top of the CMT (e.g., steain line break, steam generator tube rupture). The LOFTRAN homogeneous-equilibrium slug Dow mode) is capable of handling such situations. Thus, there are two CMT operational modes that r.re applicable to non LOCA transients analyzed with LOITRAN.AP:
- Single phase natural recirculation
- Two phase natural circulation with moderate void generation 3.2.3 CMT Component Test Results Used Referring to the CMT operational modes identified in Section 3.2.2 and comparing to the test matrix, the natural circulation phases (phase 1) of the 500-series ;,,sts are selected for validation of the LOFTRAN CMT module. The draindown phases (Phase 2) of these tests are outside the scope of LOTTRAN AP since they simulate a plant configuration with a water level inside the RCS loops.
Only tests with the CMT completely heated are simulated because they essentially repeated the tests with a partially heated CMT (see Table 31), in additiori, the cold pre-operational test sesults are used to detennine the friction factor of each line in preparation of the input deck for the CMT component test facility simulations. The CMT tests used for the LOFTRAN AP code validation effort are summarized in Appendit A of this report. 3.3 Role of SPES.2 Tests in LOITRAN.AP Validation 3.3.1 SPES.2 Tests Description De SPES-2 test facility is a full-height, full-pressure,1/395 volume scale model of the AP600 plant. SPES 2 has a two-loop primary circuit, a secondary system (up to the main steam isolation valves), oV227wma It>-082197 33 REYlSloN: 1
the passive safety systems, a normal residual heat removal system (NRiiR), a chemical and volume control system (CVCS), and a startup feedwater system (SIMS). He primary coolant system consists of a pressure vessel with electrically heated rods, two RCPs, two SGs, a pressurizer, and coolant loop piping. De passive safety systems consist of two accumulators, two Ch1Ts, an in-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST), PRilR heat exchanger (llX), and an ADS. A detailed description of the SPES 2 facility is provided in Reference 13. Figure 3 3 gives the general system layout and identifies its key components. The test matrix is presented in Reference 24. 'Ihe overall objective of the SPES.2 tests is to provide experimental data for validation of the computer odes used in the safety analysis to obtain design certification for the AP600 plant. The SPES 2 layout has been designed to duplicate, as close as possible, the thermal hydrar.lic phenomena that would occur in the AP600 during transients. 3.3.2 SPES 2 Test Results Used hiost non LOCA analyses do not employ the advanced plant features for event mitigation. Simulation of the SPFS 2 SGTR and htSLD tests with LOFTRAN AP provides validation of the code for modeling the Chit and PRilR systems,in addition to the component test efforts. Simulations of the SPES 2 SGTR tests provide code validation for the integrd plant response over a range cf SGTR scenarios, which exceed those encountered in the SGTR SSAR analysis. Simulations of the SPES-2 htSLB test validates integral plant behavior at conditions, which extend beyond those nonnally encountered in non LOCA design basis calculations. The SPES 2 tests used br LOTTRAN AP validation are: hiatrix Test S01009 - Design-basis steam generator tube rupture with nonsafety systems on and operator action to isolate steam generator hiatrix Test 501110 - Design-basis steam generator tube rupture with nonsafety systems on and no operator action hiatrix Test S01211 - Design-basis steam generator tube rupture with manual ADS (blind test) hiatrix Test S01312 - Large saam line break (blind test) In addition, data from hot and cold pre-operational SPES 2 tests were used to develop heat loss and line resistance modeling. The SGTR and htSLB SPES-2 tests used for the LOITRAN-AP code validation effort are summarized in Appendix B of this repon. .wn. wn wosM 34 REVISION: I
.._m . _ _ . _ _ _.._ _ . . _ _ _. _ _ _ . _ . __ _,_ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _. _ _ .. _ .. _ _ . _ __ _
O TABLE 31 M0 CMT TEST SERIES . TESTS SELECTED FOk *ilMULATION ! Length Pressure bested Test (pJ) (.) Coinsnents Selected C066501 1085 1/5 Phase 1 included in C064506 No C059502 1085 1/5 Same phase I as C066501 No , C068503 1085 1/2 Phase I included in C064506 No C061504 1085 1/2 Same phase I as C068503 No i C070505 1085 1/1 Same phase I as C064506 No r C064506 1085 1/1 Yes C076507 iN35 1/5 Phase I included in C072509 No C074508 1835- 1/2 Phare 1 included in C072509 No ;. C072509 1835 1/1 Yes i 1 I O ov u?..nnn.ti m i97 -35 REVISION: 1
. . . . _ . _ _ .- . ~ _ _.. - ., ... _ _ ~_.__._.-...-.~__ . _ _ __.~___.
t? LAYOUT COMPARISON BMTWEEN [ [3 THE AP600 CMT AND RCS. AND 3 THE CMT TEST. TANK AND STEAM / WATER RESERV0lR.
=
=
n O = ===== 4 3
-> C.=._.
N M SEPE1ED)
- # 4' CaeE Carr
.k ti-=r or Y
. m.,
h l( { M 4 - . . . MM _ g
> / -T g '}
t t 8 y , 5 r f - 9 L maan g Op
-- Q% sveru i i
l [ [-[ I i*ia., F= . :::,,, 9 : - ==
- .1
- . . :. .* .~ + ,
i ? e :..~:.; '~* 8 :::::., I 9 O 9 ,
aae b w
/f4ih vggtfogpRESARIIJ VENT /VAOULW D
' VENT 9 F W
yy d b yea VIS J b vs
* :4 .
@g i s, :
@ g A ( ),
STEAM Liu ( m.,
> SECTION FW utD I
@ .o TC'S
( (
)
( SPOOL OR yod
) BCCTICN Fbt n
( TC ( v2 si sTcAw u nc .27 g ) Y
^ ^ ^
%^v^f h^ y^,,^_^_^
8 e l
@ e @^ @g
,'.c e
lC- @ e CWT LE WL cop.Tactf
@ FC CONDEN$ATC DRAIN V4 C N NEATE WEAgyngygqi FM2
\
LEV TJ4 lNE 4 Cw fftR v4A c
+ y %g _
40WlTim y4 Fu3
- . ,< m , . ,,, _
- ~ TA.
0I " *M LINE ( FLOwW itR FW6 STEAW / 4ATER RESERv0!M N
\
r, 4J Ptw w r ~_"? V3 _ rw cv3
~Jn s 5 & N. #
ruwv vio
-h ORAIN _.
vs I" SW ORAIN VALyg
*% % -u M 27w a w It4 g;g97 3-7
i SYWSOLS: '80" h cirremewisu. wesa nassuitten VALW '37" ActuatDa e - T
- , . _1 OLTL FCI LEvtL ens 0R M CHECM VALvt OLTT FCI P9Cet MErERDCE PfD p
PRESsV4 TRANSWITTER PRC95UME AM v4.VE _ v.o ANSTEC - art- @ .., APERTURE N
-@ Mx u e - v=.v'
, 1
) CARD
'"t* = "5'25'
g,,"o W " i;jf-*- Ah Avdkbb m ,,, Aperturo Card
@@ ACCLM ATOR
}'@
< }-@
- p> m , = ,.,, , < >@
)
a E
.9,
\ (
) M va ii'R g _(_
I
@ va J.1 -
) : d D oa esoo.
e; *
.cv sta4 wca
(
)
p/)m g[g ( ) stEAW SUPF%Y h vil \ >y> n seaaxa um c - Figure 3-2 AP600 Core Makeup Tank Test Piping and Instrunnentation Nagram REVISION: I
l O 4 ,
, , , M T-^ :
- l 8 !
sa 1 I Eh :_* a I n J L
' g D' v [I P c -c .
# k i I W e 3 m.
3 N D t d 6 d: /q::g, jr s : ._ g , , _ . _
- lc o
m
=> ' = .
l h~. nog II N
,[ I ^-4 [I }==
. _s q o d] ; F~ u i t d L
0 o L s . - wm g ' N./ i . l 1 : i Figure 3-3 SPES 2 Test Facill'y Schematic o umwa tus2 t97 38 REVISION: I
g i ! V 4.0 LOFTRAN AP CMT h10 DEL AND YALIDATION 4.1 Validation Approach l The methodology used for the LOFTRAN AP CMT module validation includes three compleuentary steps:
- First, the LOFTRAN AP CMT module (in the stand-alone LOFTRnNCMT code) is used to simniate simple transients with results that can be verified by hand calculations. These shnulations are called analytical simulations in the following sections.
- Second, the LOFTRAN AP CMT module (in the stand alone LOFTRANCMT code) is comptred with the results of the CMT component tests described in Sectior. 3.2.3 and Appendix A. This step includes sensitivity studies.
- Given the independently qualified LOFrRAN-AP CMT module, the last step is to verify that tl:e CM f module is correctly coupled with other LOFTRAN AP modules. His is achieved using simulatinns of the integral full pressure SPES 2 facility test results.
The first two steps are presented in Subsections 4.4 and 4.5. The third step is presented in (~] v Section 5.0. 4.2 Key Phenrmena As discussed in Subsection 3.2.2, there are two CMT operational modes that are applicabic :o non-LOCA transients analyzed with LOFTRAN:
- Single-phase natural recirculation
+ Two-phase natural circulation with moderate void generation 1his section identailes and discusses the thermal hydraulic phenomena that are involved in these modes and were simulated in the CMT component tests.
CMT secirculation results from the density difference between the cold CMT water and the hotter cold leg balance line water. Recirculation then provides colder, denser, and highly borated water to the reactor vessel from the CMT, which is replaced by botter, less dense, and lower-borated cold leg water from the balance line, here 12 a net mass transfer of water and boron from the CMT to the RCS due to the density and concentration differences, as well as a net energy transfer from the RCS back to the CMT. He rates of eneigy and mass transfer depend on the buoyancy differences and the hydraulic n resistances in the flow path. Recirculation flow continuously diminishes with time as the CMT heats C up and the resulting buoyancy head decreases. As the cold leg piping and cold leg balance line void, the buoyancy head incicases, which increases the discharge flow. Single phase recirculation oM227w non.It>-o82191 41 REVislON: 1
predominates for most norrLOCA transients with a potential for two-phase recirculation for some steam line breaks and SGTRs. There is CMT wall heat transfer during recirculation; the hot Duid from the cold leg balance line will trr.nsfer heat to the initially cold ChfT walls. Fluid mixing also occurs to a limited extent at the top of the CMT during the recirculation phase of the transient. The hot liquid from the cold leg balance line is injected uto the CMT through the nozzle and mixes with the initially colder water in the CMT. The geometrical configuration of the CMT with hotter, less dense water arriving at the top of the CMT, leads to stable thermal stratification. During a long recirculation transient, it is possible that the water at the top of the CMT remains botter than the RCS water. If the RCS pressure drops dramatically, boiling inside the cold leg balance line and inside the CMT may occur. Doiling inside the cold leg balance lines increases the buoyancy head and the recirculation Dow. Boiling at the top of the CMT reduces ihe recirculation flow. The LOFTRAN AP homogeneous slug flow model takes that into account if there is no steam stratification in the CMT circuit. Stratification may occur only if the water velxity is very low. In that situation, steam may accumulate at the top of the CMT or more precisely inside the vertical CMT inlet pipe. The LOITRAN AP CMT model is not sophisticated enough to precisely compute this phenomena. Conservative calculations are made, using a buoyancy head penalty, as soon as the water subcooling is lower than an input user data. The buoyancy head penalty calculation is made assuming that an input user length of pipe is full of steam. Table 41 summanzes the phenomena identified, giving a short description of the LOFTRAN-AP model principle and the methodology used to validate each phenomena separately. It is noted that boron transport was not simulated in the CMT component test and is therefore not pertinent to this validation exercise. 43 LOFTRAN AP CMT Component Test Facility Model l For the validation of the CMT model, the LOFTRAN-AP CMT module was isolated from the l LOFTRAN-AP code and built into a stand alone code, LOFTRANCMT, which runs in conjunction
- with a main program that supplies boundary conditions. 'Ihis section describes the module and the input used to model the CMT cr.mponent test facility. For a description of the test facility see Appendix A.
43.1 Houndary Conditions The water reservoir of the CMT component test facility is not simulated as a component with the LOFTRANCMT code. Only the tank and its inlet and outline lines are modeled. In the facility, the CMT lines operate with a very low driving presst.;e difference (=10 psi), compared to the design c umw nm Itm97 42 REVISION; I
t pressure of the CMT (2250 psia). %e simulations are performed using one test pressure measurement and one level measurement (PTl and PDT7) and calculated loop pressure drops. Multiple pressure measurements were not used because point to-point measurements, combined to obtain pressure drops, were too noisy. For the 500-series tests, steam line number one was closed dunng the natural circulation phase. Referring to Figures 4-1 and 4 2, LOFIRANCMT code needs three boundary conditions. computed as follows: PPBL = PTl + (PuT7 HEIT)
- p ,/144 PPVESS = PPBL + !!EIT
- p,/144 lillHH = enthalpy corresponding to TC75 where:
PPBL: pressure at the inlet to steam line 2 (psia) PPVESS: pressure a, the injection line outlet (psia) HHilH: fluid enthalpy at the inlet to steam line 2 (Btu /lbm) HEIT: distance from steam line 2 entrance to bottom of water reservoir (ft.) (^ ( PTI: PDT7: pressu.e at the top of the water reservoir (psia); measured data water reservoir level (ft. of water); measured data TC75: water temperature inside the water reservoir ('F) p.,: water density above the balance line inlet (Ibm /ft.3) p,i: water density below the balance line inlet (ibm /ft.3) 4.3.2 Input Deck 4.3.2.1 Geometrical Dsta ne CMT facility as built drawings were used without any modification to prepare the Chf model. Geometrical data are obtained from Reference 10. The measured volume of the CMT (18.7 ft.3)is obtained from the A-01 cold pre-operational test results presented in Reference 14. Simulation of the CMT was perfonned using a [ ]" node model. Two types of CMT node sizes are investigated:
- Variable node sizes (small at the top, large at the bottom)
- Equal node volume sizes Table 4 2 gives the water node volumes for each configuration, and Figure 4 2 shows the noding of the facility.
\ o \1227w.rmit4s2197 43 REVislON: 1
4.3.2.2 Friction Factors of the Lines The total friction factors of the lines are input to the LOFTRAN AP code based on the total hydraulic resistance of the lines, f L/D + K. wh>,re: f: friction factor used to compute the regular hydraulic resistance llD: equivalent length of a resistance to flow, in pipe diameters K: resistance coefficient for hydraulic singularities injection Line De resistance of the mjection line at maximum flow was m:asured during the ANRI and ANR2 tests presented in Reference 14. De Reynolds number during these tests was higher than that for the 500-series tests [ ja.c Cold Leg to CSIT Balance Line ne friction factor of line 2 was measured during the A06 test presented in Reference 14. [ ja.c 43.2J hietal Parameters For each node, three input pammeters are used to simulate metal-to-fluid heat transfer: UAChfT: 11 eat transfer coefficient between the Ch1T fluid and the steel multiplied by the surface area for each node, Btu /sec. "F Note: the UAChfT input accounts for the steel conductivity as well as steel-to-water film coefficient. The conductivity effect is limiting. UACh1TE: 11 eat transfer coefficient between the steel at d the containment atmosphere for each node multiplied by the surface area, Bruh .. *F eM227w non It482197 44 REVtSION: I
p \ v Note: the UACMTE input accounts for the steel conductivity as well as the steel-to-air coefficient. The air transfer is limiting. XMCCMT: Thick metal heat capacity for each node, Btu /'F The input parametets are computed using the following: XMCCMT = Ms Cp
= p, V Cp where:
Ms: miss of steel (Ibm) V: volume of steel (ft.3) Cp: specific heat capacity of steel (0.110 Btu /lbm *F) p,: density of steel (480 lbm/ft.3) UACMT = 2 Ss h/c Q where: O 55: steel to water contact surface area (ft.2) A,: thermal conductivity of the steel (65.4E 3 Btu /sec ft2 ,.p) c: average thickness of the steel UACMTE = Se he where: Se: steel to air contact surface area (ft.2) he: heat transfer coefficient, including convective and radiative heat transfer (Bruhec. ft.2) he = [ ) .b.c he = [ ]a.b.c Geometrical data concerning volume and steel surfaces are obtained from Reference 10. Table 4 3 summarites the data used.' Table 4 4 and 4-5 give the metal parameters for each water node configuration. (v oA3227w.ataib-082t97 45 REVISION: 1
4.4 Analytical Simulations Four separate analytical simulations were performed using the LOFTRANCMT model to investigate model behavior under different constant boundary conditions. In each case, [ jax Two configurations were simulated:
- Cold water (CMT temperature) at the cold leg to CMT balance line inlet - Natural circulation is expected to stop when essentially all :he balance line hot water is replaced by the cold inlet water (Cases A and B).
- Hot watet .naintained at the cold leg to CMT balance line inlet - Natural circulation is expected to stop only when all the CMT cold water is replaced by hot water (Cases C and D).
Each simulation is made with heat transfer (Cases B and D) and without (Cases A and C) heat transfer between water and CMT wall. Table 4-6 gives the run descriptions. The results of these simulations are discussed below. 4.4.1 Cold Inlet Balance Line (Cues A and B) These results are presented in Figures 4-3 to 4-5. Case A (No heat transfer between CMT water and wall) After the opening of the CMT discharge valve (t=0 seconds) the discharge flow rate increased rapidly (Figure 4 3). The maximum discharge flow rate was approximately 0.7 lbm/sec and was obtained at two seconds. The flow rate decreased rapidly as the cold water replaced the hot water in the balance line and stopped completely at 760 seconos, when a new momentum equilibrium was reached; the low density of the water at the top of the CMT was compensated by some hot water that remained in the last balance line node. Case B (With heat transfer between CMT water and wall) [ ja.b.c o A3227w nectiti.082 t 97 46 REVISloN: I
(y L/ t
. ja.b.c 4.4.2 Hot Inlet Balance Line These results are presented in Figures 4-6 to'410.
Case C (No heat transfer between CMT water and wall) After the opening of the CMT discharge valve, the discharge flow rate increased rapidly and reached 0.83 lbmhec. (Figure 4-6). Because the inlet balance line wa:er was hot, the injection flow rate decreased only when a significant part of the CMT water was warmed, more than 1000 seconds later.
- The injection flow rate continuously decreased to a very small value at 20,000 seconds (Figure 4-().
It is to be noted that the simulation was made with very small nodes at the top of the CMT and larger nodes at the bottom of the CMT (variable volume noding). This noding led to an overestimate of the long-term flow rate (see 500-series test sinnlations, Subsection 4.5).
- O 4-Case D (With heat transfer between CMT water and wall)
'J At the beginning of the transient (i.e., before time 1000 seconds), the injection flow rate was essentially the same as Case C (Figure 4-6). This was because the wall hut transfer affected only the warmed ares, which is small at the beginning cf ue transient. On the other hand, when a large portion of the CMT water was warmed, the heat losses exactly compensated for the convective heat transfer, and a new stable steady-state was reached. The injection flow rate remains high, around 40 percent of the initial value (See Figure 4-6). The temperature at the bottom of the CMT and inside the injection line stabilized at 478'F (Figure 4-8).
I ja,b,e "Ihis transient confirmed that the heat losses should not significantly affect the injection flow rate during the first 1000 seconds of a transient. On the other hand, the long term behavior was affected by heat transfer to the CMT wall. I(3 LI f cA3227w.rmIb-082197 47 REVIStoN: 1;
4.4 3 Hand Calculations of Momentum and Energy Balance To verify the CMT model momentum and the energy b*nce, hand calculations are performed for Case D. Momentum Balance The momentum balance is checked at the beginning of the transient (T=5 seconds). At this time, the buoyancy head hand calculation is simplified since the entire CMT is still cold. The following condition should be verified: BH = KinjW inj2 / p,nj + Ka 2 b W ,g / Pbs where: BH: buoyancy head at the beginning of the transient BH = (HEiT + TOPCMT ) * (p,nj - pbs) /144 (HEIT + TOPCMT) = 34.57 ft. (see Figure 4-1) p,n,; CMT and injection ime water density: 62.43 lbm/ft.3 pbM: balance line water density: 47.73 lbm/ft.3 K.inj fiiction factor of the injection line K) in
= (f UD + K) / (144
- 2
- g
- S 2) f UD + K: total resistance of the line. For Case D, the injection line is valve resistance set to provide 12.2 gpm. This leads to fIJD + K = 277.8.
S: cross-sectional area of the injection line (0.01003 ft.2) g: 32.2 ft/sec.2 Then, K )in= 297.7 psi-sec.2/lbm-ft.3 Kba: friction factor for the balance line : 21.4 psi-sec.2/lbm-ft.3 Wy: injection line flow rate calculated by LOFTRANCMT: 0.833 lbm/sec, c:\3227w.nen Ib-082197 4-8 REVISION: 1
. . . - . - .- - ._ . . . - ~ . - _ . . . . -. . - - . .
Ww: balance line flow rate calculated by LOFTRANCMT: 0.684 lbm/sec.. The balance line flow rate is lower than the injection flow rate, due to the density difference. De following numerical application shows that the momentum balance is maintained: BH [ )* C
-Ki ,) W[,[/p,,) [ )" C
-Kw Wy 2fp,, [ ja.c TOTAL [ )"'C Energy Balance -
Case D is also used to check the energy balance at time 15,000 Seconds. His time is chosen since a thermal steady-state was reached. The following condition should be met: On i Qout + Owall where : Qn: i convective energy flow at the CMT inlet Qn" i Win
- H,,
W ,: inlet flow rate computed by LOFTRANCMT: 0.3285 lbm/sec. i H,, inlet enthalpy: 530 Btu /lbm
- Qout: . convective energy flow at the CMT outlet Qout = W oo , t H ,
Wout: outlet flow rate computed by LOFTRANCMT. 0.3285 lbm/sec.
- Hoot: outlet enthalpy computed by LOFTRANCMT: 461.8 Btu /sec.
1 I. l
- j. o:u227w malt >482197 49. REVISION: 1
.= - ,
Qwd external heat losses between CMT wall and air: 22.39 Bru/sec. The order of magnitude of the value computed by LOFTRANCMT may be checked using data of Table 4-5 and an average fluid temperature of the CMT of 500 F (See Figures 4-7 and 4-8). The extemal air temperature is 97'F. The following numerical application shows that the energy balance is maintained. Qin = [ )* *
-Q, = [ l
-Qwall = [ ]*#
TOTAL [ ]* 4.4.4 Conclusions Analytical Simulations These basic simulations show that LOFTRAN AP CMT modeling leads to credible simulations that validate the CMT component test facility modeling and the method used to simulate the water reservoir tank. 4.5 500. Series Tests Simulations Matrix Tests 501 to 509 simulated the heating of the CMT water by natural circulation with subsequent draindown and depressurization. Only the natural circulation phase of the tests is simulated with LOFTRANCMT (Subsection 3.2.3). During the natural circulation phase, the water reservoir contains water (close to saturation) and steam; the level is above the line 2 inlet. Line I was closed and natural circulation was initiated by fully opening the injection line (valve V3). During the transient, the reservoir pressure was kept constant as much as possible. Only tests with the CMT completely heated are simulated because they essentially repeat the tests with a partially heated CMT (see Subsection 3.2.3). These tests are C0645% and C072509. 4.5.1 Test C064506 4.5.1,1 Description of the Runs Five mns were made to analyze LOFTRAN-AP CMT model behavior. These runs included sensitivity studies to investigate the effect of varying the time steps and noding used for these calculations. on:27w am n-m:197 4 10 REVISION: I
o)- ( L
- Run 1: Run with the LOFTRAN AP CMT default parameters / variable volume CMT nodes /
no heat transfer between the water and the CMT steel wall
* - Run 2: Same as run 1, but with heat transfer between the water and the CMT steel wall taken into account / data used are described in Section 4.3.2
- Run 3: Same as run 2. but with equal volume CMT nodes
- Run 4: Sensitivity study on the time step /same as run 3, but the time step is divided by 4
- Run 5: Sensitivity study on the water reservoir enthalpy to simulate boiling inside the CMT/same as run 3, but boiling conditions are simulated inside the loop (His configuration is credible because the test is initiated with the water temperature inside the reservoir very close to the saturation. Boiling is obtained by increasing the balance line inlet enthalpy of 5 Btu /lbm during the transient. A buoyancy head penalty is used assuming that the vertical inlet pipe is full of saturated steam when the loop subcooling is lower than 10*F. His pipe is 1.6 ft. long.)
Table 4 7 summarizes the run parameters. 4.5.1.2 Calculation Results ne calculation results are presented in Figures 4-11 to 4-43. The pressure at the water reservoir (PT1 ABS) and the temperature at the CMT inlet (TC76-COR) are used to verify the accuracy of the boundary conditions used. Run 1: Variable Node Sizes and no Water to-Steel Heat Transfer. The general behavior of the injection flow rate plot is similar to the test results. [
~ ja.b.c Both calculated and experimental plots show two points where the injection line flow rate slope changes drunatically; these are described as follows:
[ 3 oA3227w.non:Ib-o82197 4 11 REVIStoN: 1-
i
- Ja b.c ja b.e Run 2: Simulation of the Water to-Steel Heat Transfer Run 2 is a repeat of Run 1 with the addition of water-to-steel heat transfer. The [
ja b.c Figure 4-20 shows the calculated heat transfer. [ Ja b.c The calculated water-to-steel heat transfer matches the experimental values (Figure 4-21). At the end of the transient (after 1500 seconds) the injection flow rate is increasingly overestimated because [ Ja.b.c as confirmed by Run 3 (see Figures 4 23 to 4 26). Run 3: CMT Nodes of Equal Size and Water to-Steel IIcat Transfer Run 3 4 an extension of Run 2, except that equal volume fluid nodes are used in the CMT. As shown in Figure 4-27, [ l A small overestimation of the injected flow rate is observed all along the transient. The shapes of the calculated and experimental injection flow rate plots are very similar. Fluid temperature evolution (Figure 4-33 to 4-35) and CMT water-to-wall heat transfer (Figure 4 30) are also in good agreement. During the complete transient, the calculated injection flow rate is higher (5 to 10 percent) than the experimental value. This explains why the hot water reaches the CMT outlet earlier (see TC77-COR Figure 4-32). It should induce a faster decrease of the buoyancy and also a faster decrease of the injection flow rate. The probable explanation is that the friction factor of the line is underestimated at low flow; only one value is used, and the usual increase of the friction factor when the Reynolds number decreases, is not taken into account. ov227wmib 082 t97 4-12 REvistoN: I
4 Run 4: Time Step Influence "un 3 uses time steps of [- ]** afterwards. 'Ihe time step size was decreased by a factor of four for Run 4.
- Run 3 and 4 results are compared in Figures 4 36 to 4-39 and are shown to be identical. This demonstrates that [
ja.c Run 5: ' Simulation With Bolling Inside the CMT And the Balance Line Run 5 is the same as Run 3 except that the reservoir water enthalpy is increased by 5 Btu /lbm, and a calculational penalty is applied to conservatively account for the potential accumulation of steam in the piping inlet. . The initial injection flow rate is lower than that for Run 3 because the buoyancy penalty applies (Figure 4-40). As the pressura of the loop decicases from 1120 psi to 1090 psi between times 0 and 100 seconds (Figure 412), boiling occurs for the LOFTRANCMT calculation; this induces an initial increase of the injection flow to 1.9 lbm/sec., compared to 1.8 lbm/sec, for the simulation with no boiling. %e reason for this increase is that the balance line density decrease has a bigger effect than the penalty used (1.62 ft.) to simulate the potential accumulation of steam at the p CMT inlet pipe. t f']) Q (
) .c
[ ja.c When subcooling of the water reaches 10'F (conservative input data), the buoyancy head penalty is set to zero; then, the injection flow rate increases again (Figure 4-40, at time 1960 seconds). 4.5.2 Test C072509 Run 6 and Run 7 are ex cuted for C072509 test.- his test was performed at a system pressure of approximately 1350 psia. De run parameters are those described in Table 4-7. Calculation results are presented in Figures 4-44 to 4-56. Run 6: Water CMT Nodes of Equals Sizes and Water to-Steel Heat Transfer p Run 6 is similar to Run 3, except the initial and boundary conditions of test C072509 are used.' All i the comments made for the C064506 test are still applicable. Test results and calculations are in good
- oM227w.non:lb-082197 4-13 REVISION: 1
agreement. De calculation overestimates the injection flow rate by approximately seven percent during the transient (Figure 4-44). During the test, the loop pressure increases considerably during several periods [ ]*AC psia - Figure 4-45). No major experimental injection flow changes are observed during these periods. His observation indicates that there is no boiling inside the loop for this test. If boiling were occurring, the pressure peaks would have collapsed the steam bubbles and significant flow rate fluctuations would have been observed in Figure 4 44. The pressure peaks may be caused by the reservoir pressure control valve. Run 7: Simulation With Boiling Inside the CMT and the Balance Line This high is a repeat of Run 5, except that the boundary and initial conditions for test C072509 are used. As for test C064506, the inlet balance line enthalpy is increased by ( ja.c [ ja.c ja.c 4.5.3 500-Series Tests Conclusions The 500-series tests simulations presented in subsections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 show: [ Ja.c (
- ja.c I
Ja.c O eM227w nottIb o82197 4 14 REVISION: I
i
-- v ' "
I
- I ja.c i
4.6 Assessment of CMT Component Test Simulation Results ne ability of the LOFTRAN AP CMT module to predict the thermal-hydraulic behavior of the AP600 I CMT has been investigated.' he separate thermal-hydraulic phenomena identified and simulated in the CMT Component Test in Table 4-1 are addressed as follows:
- Convective heat transfer
[ 1* *
* ~ CMT wall heat transfer ja.c
. Single phase natural circulation
[ ja.e
. Two phase natural circulation I-
) .c Two sensitivity studies were performed:
[ ja.b,c
= In the range of the time steps used, the prediction is independent of the time step.
' he LOFTRAN-AP CMT hydraulic model is not intentionally biased in either the conservative or nonconservative direction. Depending on the transients simulated, conservatism is introduced with the j
- ( /- input data to provide minimal or maximal flow.
I
- j. oumw.non:Imi97 4 15 REVISION: 1
Simulations have been made with the stand-alone LOFTRANCMT code. De SPES-2 simulation results (Section 5.0) show that the LOFTRAN AP CMT module is still accurate when coupled with the other LOFFRAN AP modules. O i \ l O l c W27*.non ibm 2197 4 16 REVISION: 1 i
f-(~y N/ N ). d. O
?
E E_J 8 TA RI.E .f-l PHENOMENA II)ENTIFICATION FOR Tile AP600 CMT Phenomena LOFTRAN AP Madeling Vahdation 4 Single-Phase Natural Circulation Momentum balance solved using buoyancy Flow comparison using the 500-sedes tests. head calculation and hydraulic resistances in the flow path. Two-Phase Natural Circulation Momentum equation solved using buoyancy No available test. (Flashing of the Hot CMT Liquid Layer) head calculation and hydraulic resistances in - Addressed using buoyancy head penalty.
- the flow path. Applicable only for situation
.p with moderate void generation and high flow G rate.
Convective IIcat Transfer llomogeneous SLUG flow model. Transient temperature profile comparisons [ (Mixing at CMT Top) using the 500-series tests. t CMT Wall lleat Transfer Thermal balance between each watcr and Heat flux comparison using the 500-series CMT steel node. tests. Boron Transport - Global poir.t boren balance for the CMT. Not simulated in CMT Component Test
+ SLUG model fo- each node of the lines.
E 'i si a
'4 1 N
TABLE 4 2 O CMT WATER NODE SIZES Node Number Variable Volume Equal Volume (i = Tep) Noding (ft.3) Noding (ft.3) O eM227 non it>4s2197 4 18 REVISION' I
1 TABLE (4 CMT STEEL DA TA , Water volume ~ Steel Voluaw Steel to Watcr Steel to Air Region ( ft.3 ) ' ( ft.3 ) Surface ( ft.2 ) Surface ( ft.2 ) Upper Cap 0.545 Cylindrical Part - 17.61 Lower Cap 0.545-Total 18.70 O 1 O h' - aB227w imn.lM82897 4 19 REVISION: 1
TABLE 4 4 O METAL PARAMETERS . VARIABLE VOLUME NODING Water XMCCMT UACMT UACMTE Node Volume ( ft.3 ) ( BtufF ) ( Btu /see..*F ) ( Btu /sec. 'F ) u O l l l l I O o u227. mm 15082t97 4 20 REVISION: 1
.G .U TABLE 4 5 ' METAL PARAMETERS - EQUAL VOLUME NODING Water XMCCMT UACMT UACMTE UACMTE Volume 1985 ps! 1835 psi Node . ( ft.3 ) ( Btu /"F ) ( Btu /sec .'F ) ( Blu/sec..'F ) ( Btu /sec..'F)
- -u O
O orn27wn ib-082197 4 21 REVISION: I
O TABLE 4-6 ANALYTICAL SIMULATIONS . RUN DFSCRIPTIONS Water to Steel Default Node Description Case Number llent Transfer Volumes A No Yes Cold Inlet Balance Line B Yes Yes C No Yes Hot inlet Balance Line D Yes Yes e 1 O l o U227w non Ib-os2197 4-22 REVISION: 1
( b TABLE 4 7 l TEST C064506 AND C072509 RUN PARAMETERS Run Node Wall Heat Reduced Time - Increased Reservoir
- Test Number Sizes Transfer Step Enthalpy 1 Variable -No No No 2 Variable Yes No No 3 Equal Yes No No C064506 _
4 Equal Yes Yes No 5 Equal Yes No Yes C072509 6 Equal Yes No No 7 Equal Yes No Yes O) t U 's b)Y q ou227w.non.tba:197 4 23 REVLSION: 1
O Connectien line (Steam Line 1) ppg HST2CMT _ l Balance line (Steam line 2) pg - CMT l g- TOPCMT O WATER TANK f
; PPTK (Waterlevel)
V9 Valve ] [ u a < PPEL a , , ( XI.TK HEIT HHHil PPVESS Injection line l T ( l l l l l Figure 4-1 Derivation of Boundary Conditions and other Variables for CMT Component Test Facility Model oM227waon.it@a:197 4-24 REVUION: 1 l_ l
+,
.p.,
~.. -,
4 5 . , I, f e ,
= -
- ii
-t, -
8 ' i ,
-.r m; ;,
,=-l _.
., u &
- o
.3
- T,
. I
.I i
d' t i i
,t F
u I e "i . , 1 t i 4 4 s i s. i' 3 W k 4 T. g. i f .-- f Figure 4 2 - CMT Component Test Facility LOFTRAN.LMT Noding l -
.-eM227w. nun:Ib 082197 ' - 4 25 REVISION;l 1 s x
~
Y , I
-=~*-
s w- d- e e -+ m *
- e- >-*~w . - w s , ,e-et.e .*-+-e->ev, we_n...,--.chet e- -. + - + - + . --e---*r.c = =,,en.-i. . ..w63ne --4. - . - - +-- - .-===&r n.c O
Figure 4-3 Analytical Simulation, Cold Inlet Balance Line injection Line Flow Rate LOFFRANCMT Calculation without Heat Losses
- - - - LOFTRANCMT Calculation with Heat Losses
.:u227.u227w anorrib.os:197 4 26 REVISION: I
.- . . .-. . . . _ , - . . . . ~ . . . - . . - . . . . - - - - . . . . . - - . - - ..
I
] -
i n.e :. I" Figure 4-4 Analytical Simulation, Cold Inlet Balance Line , CMT Fluid Temperature,4.9 in from the Top of the CMT LOFTRANCMT Calculation without Heat Losses , LOFTRANCMT Calculation with Heat Losses s i; -\. 0: 0227wV227w4.non:lb-082197_' : 4-27 REVISION; I
-.eh y ,.~e < , . , , . ~ .r,
', r- - .,e , U , . . . .. r , - -e... - , .
,,e O
Figure 4 5 Analytical Simulation, Cold Inlet Balance Line OIT Fluid Temperature,11.6 in. from the Top of the CMT LOFTRANCMT Calculation without Heat Losses
--- LOITRANCMT Calculation with Heat Losses 9
u227.u227w+non.ib 082197 4-28 REVISION: I
ac. t 4 F N Figure 4 6 Analytical Simulation, Hot inlet Balance Line Iqjection Line Flow Rate LOFTRANCMT Calculation without Heat Losses
--- LOFTRANCMT Calculation with Heat Losses
...g
~
< aumwun7 4aan;ite197 - 4 29 REVISION: 1 2.. -- - ; . _. _ _ - . - - - . . . - - . - _ - . _ _ . . _ . .
a.c O Figure 4-7 Analytical Simulation, Hot Inlet Balance Line CMT Fluid Temperature,11.6 in. from the Top of the CMT LOFTRANCMT Calculations without Heat Losses
---- LOFTRANCMT Calculation with Heat Losses 9
o u227.u227w-a.non. iba2 t97 4 30 REVISION: 1
. . _ . _ . . _ . . . . _ _ . . - - . _ _ . ~ . _ _ . _ . , _ .. . _ _ - . - - - ,
d' O e.c f a v Figure 4-8 - Analytical Simulation, Hot Inlet Balance Line CMT Fluid Tv mperature,101.6 in. from the Top of the CMT LOFTRANCMT Calculation wi;hout Heat Losses
--- LOFFRANCMT Calculation with Heat Losses -
O m _ n 0;U U7WD U7W-&D0tlI M IN _4 3] REVis!ON: 1
O O l l l Figure 4-9 Analytical Simulation, Hot Inlet Balance Line Water to CMT Wall Heat Flux l LOFTRANCMT Calculation without Heat Losses
-- LOFTRANCMT Calculation with Heat Loe:-s 9
eum.cmw a.nortib oci97 4 32 REvis10N: I
. . . . . . , . . ~ . . . .
- .- . . . . - . - . . - . - . . . ~ . . - , . . . . . . . . . ~ - . . . . . .
4 F L _ ' (& . _ .i n.e - , i. s ( h i-R 1 0
- Figure 4 Analytical Simulation, Not Inlet Balance Line -
- CMT Wall to Air Heat Flux
.c,
. LOFTRANCMT Calculation without Heat Losses -
LOFTRANCMT Calculation with Heat Losses - w
- -'\ ; -;
- q n
- 7. :
=.1
- aO227wu227w*noa:tb 082197l
.. 33' REVISIM ' 1 - -
4
, 'g s 'Yvk s-- r e-+e + y +rw ' h t ~ as ee~+ - - m-m v --, -o,e -+- -me n.en v'-w= m
- a.b.c 9
Figure 411 C064506 Test injection Line Flow Rate Experimental Results
---- LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 1 O
l l 0:020002270227wenon lb O82197 4 34 RrvistoN: I l
(gi a.b.c [L., Figure 412 C064506 Test Pressure at the Reservoir Top Experimental Results
--- -- LOFTRANCMT Boundary Condition (D
U o u200J22N227* +non It482197 4 35 Revision: 1
a.b c O Figure 413 C064506 Test CMT Inlet Fluid Temperature l
- Experimental Results
------ LOFTRANCMT Calculation Run 1 1
1 0 o u:mmm:n. b non ibw2197 4-36 REVISION: I
th - - kj tb.c O Figure 414 C064506 Test CMT Outlet Fluid Temperature Experimental Results
,, ~ .
------ LOFTRANCMT Calculation Run 1 i )
- u.) enwamamw+m ib-082197 4 37 REVISION: I
a.b,c O Figure 415 C064506 Test CMT Fluid Temperature, 4.9 in. from the Top of the CMT Experimental Results
---~~ LOFTRANCMT Calculation Run 1 0
oV2(W2270227=.b ren ib482197 4 38 REVISION: l
4 I i p - - ; a b.c i i 9 i t. i i f I Figme 416 C064506 Test CMT Fluid Temperature,53.1 in, from the Top of the CMT Experimental Results -
- LOFFRANCMT Calculation - Run 1
?
- o%%M2Mi27w4 non1h062197 4 39 REVISION: 1
+
r ,r3 r-m-w- v 4-m- e. ,+..+--+3-eh w a- -.m,--c.~rr n.s ., -%,-, r w -, , , - --w y ,-- .- -rse-+4-----e- .-->..-:--rr---ee-gv-r--e.--.-w ma- w - w"
ab.c O Figure 417 C064506 Test CMT Fluid Temperature,101.6 in, from the Top of the CMT Experimental Results
-- LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run i o ow322h.tm*-b non.Ib 082197 4 40 REYlSION: I
i r O.C I i I l p 4 0 l 4 i 1 Y i s Figure 418. C064506 Test injection Line Nw Rate > Experimental Results
- LOFTRANCMT Calculation Run 2 .
I NN9 M oVJum3227 mand 227w<.aon.th082191 - 4 41 REVi$lON: 1
- . . u.,_-._. . . . _ , .._.2. . . - _ . _ , - . . _ , _ _ _ . , _ . , . . - - . . , _ _ , . . . . - . . . _ , _ , . , _ - . . , , ~ . . . _ .
o.c O Figure 419 C064506 Test Pressure at the Reservoir Top , Experimental Results
- LOFTRANCMT Boundary Condition O!
l l 0 \32000227< ion \3227w canon:lb OS2197 4 42 REVISION: 1
.- - _ - - . . _ . --- ~ . .. _ . . - . . -
- - . . . - - . . . ~ . - - - . . __
f i t f t L AC , f i t. r I s ,
?
J i i L i k e i t t b i
-I i
i i i o . J J J b I . i J 4 : Figure 4 20 C064506 Test CMT Wall Heat Tranders . l Water to CMT Wall Heat Flux - LOFIRANCMT Calculation Run 2 ! I -- - -- CMT Wall to Air Heat Flux LOFIRANCMT Calculation - Run 2 t ubem . enam L. .
. o V20m3227-noso227w-e mst ib-os2197 4 43 -REVISION: 1 I i
+-
t ,
.v.,. _.s..- -
+.,.--y S ... -. .- , ,,y,-5.-,w...,., .--#. .w.._,.,. ..--,.v...w....we .w.... .-.,-,~.*,.,.w..-,.....-wwe,.,_ #
a.b.e e ripe 4 21 C064506 Test CMT Water to Wall lleat Transfer Experimental Results
---- LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 2 O
o-u2000227+m0227.-c ren.Ib-082197 4 44 REVISION: 1
- .- . - - _ - . . . -. .... _ - = . - - - . - . - . - . _ - . - . - . - - - - . _ . . - - - _ . . . - - . . - .
L 1 i b 4 r .
~
r a,b.c
'l s
i t . r i i 1 I I I b 2 Figure 622 C064506 Test.CMT Inlet mid Temperature - ,. Experimental Results . ;
- - - LOFIRANCMT Calculttion Run 2--
i i i F 1 eM20N227-noe\3227w< mon:lHis2197 4 45- REVISION: 1 f
- . , - - =,._--=--......--i.r--% .- re.-u,.-+ww-..,-,e--2 % ,y v -, q +-w+. -temem.-.-,. , ,,m.w,-+~-w-we.- --.yww,y-y
Eb.c l O Figure 4 23 C064506 Test CMT Outlet Fluid Temperature Experimental Results
--- - - LOFTRANCMT Cateulation Run 2 0
eM20N227 nonO227w-c.non Ib-082197 4-46 REVISION: 1
i i s a,b.c C l 1
~ Figure 4 24 C064506 Test CMT Fluid Temperature,4.9 in, from the Top of the CMT
~
- Experimental Results
----- LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 2 '
[. oA320m3227-nonu227w c mlb.082197 4 47 REN1SION: 1' m asy *p-te- r? 9 mgirey-e--+e w - e t-gd. g+- i-w+"-*r.yw-We7**PN-" +- rw 1 ?
--"'Wir8 M e w * '4MPm ' ' 'd'"49-4-'3"*'""'~?"T'r 9- + - - ' " ' ' "'
o.e O Figure 4 25 C064506 Test CMT Fluid Temperature,53.1 in, from the Top of the CMT Experimental Results LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 2 0 o u20tu227.nonu227w-c.nost 1N*2197 448 REVISION: I
._.-._. _ _ _ = _ . . _ _ - . _ . - . - . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . . _ _ . - _ _ _ .._ _ _ _ _ _. . . . _ _ . . _ _ . .
P s t l 4.b.c . , i E t i I t i P i t k i P 4 t i e T 4 I t I r 1 1 g Figure 4 24 C064806 Test CMT Fluid Tensperature,101.6 in, frein the Top of the CMT
- Experimental Results . j
--- LOFTRANCtfr Calculation Run 2 C
d , k gu P avatu227annu2n c.nas:tbcs2197 ' 4-49 - REVISION: 1'-
.,... . u , ; . . ,.. .-.._....____.u._...._.,...,__...__.-_.._..______._.....__.... .._, . . . , _
ab,e O Figure 4 27 C06450ti Test injection Line Flow Rate Experimental Results
--~~ LOFIRANCMT Calculation - Run 3 O
l- o\u27wmm\3227wdam Ib-DD197 4-50 REVISION: I
v ( i o.c 1-i h I b i E P 1 i f. r i Hgme 4 28 C064506 Test Pressure at the Reservoir Top Experimental Results
--- LOFTRANCMT Boundary Conditior,
, x
> ou227w anu227w4aan n.cs2te? 4 51- REVISION: 1
.u. . _
._..___._..,__.._._.,l___-,.__.___....,....___.,____..__ , _ , . . _ . . _ _
LC O Figure 4 29 C064506 Test CMT Wall IIcat Transfers Water to CMT Wall lieat Flux LOFTRANCMT Calculation Run 3
--- CMT Wall to Air IIcat Flux - LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 3 o U227.nonu221.-d.rmitet:197 4-52 REVISION: 1
-i I
6 i e h t r . l t 4.b4 I r i i i t t f f L t t t- [ t 4 1 T i-1 T 4 h b i 7 L Figure 4 30 C064806 Test CMT Water to Wall Heat Transtw r Expedmental Results
- LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 3 -
3 -; r ounwn onwamimin 4 53 - RWISION: - 1 m..--e ry%.-. ,.,_,m,... .e..re.%., ,- -.%u., ..,.,-,---v.-- , . . .__r__,. -. . 5x [. ,,.y. .E,..+..'m.m.+y,E,g.-..,w,--,y..m--,,v,,.eg,.--.,-w,,.y,3+.-y,, , , , .
a.b,c O Figure 4-31 C064506 Test CMT Inlet Fluid Temperature Experimental Results LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 3 O oo227wamu227 4non:lt>M2197 4 54 RIPJISION: 1
i I r t
~ .
a.b.c , I r t I
-1
+
r n b h 4- 1 I t 1 i r i
~l i
1 a r
?
i 1 t I 4 i 9 e Figure 4 32 CM4506 Test CMT Outlet Fluid Tesaperature e
. Experimental Results J',..'
LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 3 - -! i r L k
's
- EU227waneu227w-d.non.Il482197 4 55 REVISION: I 9
Y m - -e we ,tw+h ' We p-- t w , at -gev' k-w-- ea---+-e---tysey7t*-t- +- A vn * -Fg-me w y*= e g *Wr y w '* w e *- 7 y m ' t r *M- w p y M'F-~v F w-*-te-w+~+--*"
l a.b c gI i O Figure 4 33 C064506 Test CMT Fluid Temperature,4.9 in, from the Top of the CMT Experimental Results LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 3 O _ J cA3227mnonU227wsl.tunit@l97 4 56 RD'l$10N: 1
a.b.c 9 i i e Maure 4 34 C064506 Test CMT Muld Temperature,53.1 la. from the Top of the CMT 4
- Experimental Resuhs LOFIRANCMT Calculation - Run 3 '
O
' o V227woon\)227w d.non.Ib42111 4 57- REVISM)N: 1-
,- -- - , , , ,.-. . ,. . ....-..,.....-... _.._..-. _ , , --. ~ . . . . - . _ - , _ . .
i g O l i Figure 4 35 C064506 Test CMT Fluid Temperature,101.6 in. from the Top of the CMT Experimental Results
------ LOFTRAN CMT Calculation - Run 3 0
o.UM7wecuuM7w4non tt@l97 4 58 REYlSION: I
f f 1 t 4 - i 1 ( ~ ~ u i L P i i 1 i i t 7, E i, F
. l' I
e i-4. Figure 4 36 C064506 Test la#ction Line Flow Rate i LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 3
+
- . LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 4 4
-- Nuwimm : 4 59 - - REVISION: - 1
,sr., g-.., +.e, +,- ,a=-, ~ .,--. , . . - - . , , -.-,4,.-
,- ,,,s...r.,,,, -wc.c. -, ,,wv..,w--v.w,-- ,+gwn+=s-=w~.* ' - -
y 9 l l Figure 4 37 C064506 Test CMT Water to Wall llent Transfer i LOFTRANCMT Calculation Run 3
--- LOFTRANCMT Calculation Run 4 O .um=um.. . mm 4-60 REYlSION: 1
i N te i 1 3 4 1 s t t b 1 t Figure 4 38 C064506 Test CMT Outlet Fluid Temperature
- LOFTRANCMT Calculation Run 3 i
.LOFIRANCMT Calculation Run 4
/ .
t j '. . eU22%esG327w1mc4L14482197 '441 IIION ~ i -- ' -. , . - . , -- . - , - . , . , . . , , . - . - . . . . , . - - - . . . . - + . . . . . , , . . . ~ . i..,,., . , - . . , , - - - , . . _ , - , . . .-.a.-, ,, . . . , - .-.,.m-i-4.-.,-, , . . . , . . - , . . -
a,e s k 1 O l Figure 4-39 C064506 Test CMT F!nid Temperature,4.9 in. from the Top of the CMT LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 3 LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 4 0
.um==um. -twaum 4-62 REVISION: I
. . ._ . . . . . _ _ . . _ . . . _ . . - , _ . _ _ . , . . _ . ~ . . . , _ . . . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ , _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _
4 9 a i
~
1 m: S - s C .- h
?
4 3 9 f i J I 4 I (.. s I 2 P 4 d 4
-l 8
Figure 4 40 = C064506 Test Injection Line Flow Rate
- LOFTRANCMT Calculation '- Run 3
. . LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 5 - t-N e au227aononw-twissai,7 .- 4 63- REVISKW: ' 1-
- r:e ib -v .~. , + .E,'. b
- . . . . . . . . . . . , , , . . _ . , . , , . . , ...w , . . , , , , ,v_..,,,__,.m %, ,m.y y_ y g , .._,%.,,_,. .,e p , ...y.p, .1._,,,_,,_7,p
r-a.b.c g i l l 1 O l I l Figure 4-41 C064506 Test CMT Water to Wall Heat Transfer i LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 3 LOFIRANCMT Calculation - Run 5 l i i l l omumnu2nw-r non:I19082197 4 64 REVISION: I l
t u t ( J + 4 Figure 4-42 C064506 Test CMT Outlet Fluid Temperature LOFIRANCMT Calculation - Run 3 LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 5 -
- >- (
e:umaanomw.rmon:ste197 - 65 REVISION: 1= w * * +- e' ----ve,-,-r-- .rw- e +,,,re, --w- . - . . -.-e- ---rr-r * ~ ...-- - - e- -- = . ,
O Figure 4-43 C064506 Test CMT Huld Temperature,4.9 in. from the Top of the CMT LOFTRANCMT Calculation Run 3 LOFTRANCMT Calculation Run 5 9 _ .J cV127 mon \3227w Imwlb 082197 4 66 REVISION: 1
. - . . . ..- . = . . - . . . . - . . - . . . . . - . . . . . . . - _ . - . . ~ . . . - . - . . - . . - . . . . . - . . . - . . . . . - . - . ~ -
t 1
' b I
I, i a.b4 :; . i i 9 . i a, : t 4 i t Figure 4 44 C072309 Test Iqjection Line Flow Rate - [ Experimental Results - LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 6 b t < ' 'oA322?non\1227w tmutib-os:197 . 4 REVISION: 1.
.+ 4 e , , - , ~ ~ , . . . - - - - -------r--+-. .- - , - - .l ,. .n.v . . <--,-, -, .n . . - - . .n- . .,
a.b.c l l l l 1 O l l l i l Figure 4-45 C072509 Test Pressure at the Reservoir Top 1 l Experimental Results
-- LOFTRANCMT Boundary Conditicn 9 - _ i c:Un7aonu227w-fann:ib.os2197 4-68 REVISION: I
. 1 i
i
!?
i _ - _ 1 i n.c , _i i
.i l
1
-l 1
?
1 I - . 1 i
.. Figure 4-46 C072509 Test CMT Wall Heat Transfers Water to CMT Wall Heat Flux - LOFTRANCMT Calculation Run 6 CMT Wall to Air Heat Flux - LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 6 -
t 1 e-h iunimanum7..tnon iisis2;e7-!:
, 4 69 REVISION: I-t ,- e.=,.y #~..I*e , - _ ..-.e. . . - - -- m-s --- - .
__s_____._
a.b.c \ e Figure 4 47 C072509 Test CMT Water-to Wall Heat Transfer Experimental Results LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 6 O
,;u m m u m..tnm.t w m 4-70
- a.b.c 1
A f 4 f 3 1
- Figure 4 48 C072509 Test CMT Inlet Fluid Temperature Experimental Results_ .
LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 6 Q ;. , L eumaanumw4=-ibm 2m 4 71 - REVISKWf 1 i _ _ J. ; _ . - . . . . . _ . . ~ . . . _ . . . . _ . - .-...;. . . . - . .
a.b.c O 9 07309 Test CMT Outlet Buld Temperatv 2 Expe
- C culation - Run 6
,, p,uw .tsow1@'" 4-72 twas 10N: I
i E M - ; $WulIE - d a.b.c : > I
\ '
j 4 i I f a d a
- Figure 4-50 C072509 Test CMT Fluid Temperature,4.9 in from the Top of the CMT Experimental Results
- : LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 6 )
(.
' 0 F.27mun\3227= 4 nce:lt e t97 ~4 73 REVISION: I l
. . . . . . - - = , - - - - , - . - - . , - . - - _ _ - - - . . _ . . . - _ _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ - _ _ _ _ . . _ .
l a.b.c O l Figure 4 51 C072509 Test CMT Fluid Temperature,53.1 in, from the Top of the CMT Experimental Results
------ LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 6 0
eM227nono221= faibos2tv7 4 74 REVISION: I
k i a.b.c , r i i 1 4 8 ( . i; Figure 4 52 C072509 Test CMT mid Temperature,101.6 in. from the Top of the CMT Experimental Results : I.OFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 6
- i
- VJ meme Sun.g au227aonU227w4aan Ib 082t97 4-75 REVISM- I
ne i O Figure 4 53 C072509 Test Injection Line Flow Rate LOFTRANCMT Calcult. tion - Run 6 LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 7 9 c:\3227nor.\3227w-3.nott i t>082197 4 76 REVISION: 1
_ . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . - ~ . . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ _ . . _ . _ . . . _ . ~ . _ ... _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . . . i 1 a.e : !, M f 4 / b s- 'l
. Figure 4 54 C072509 Test CMT Water-to-Wall Heat Transfer LOFIRANCMT Calculation - Run 6 LOFIRANCMT Calculation Run 7 co l- > -
l_ es %.9227w$ ==im197 .
~
77 REVISION: 1 l u i.,,__,.. . . . . - . . , ;_;
8.C O Figure 4 55 C072509 Test CMT Outlet Fluid Temperature LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 6 LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 7 O
.:umnonumw-s n=:tb=197 4 78 REVISION: 1 ,
- 1 :- ,
.O a.c l
2 4 E i i O 1 g f-1 Figure 4-56 C072509 Test CMT Fluid Temperature,4.9 in. from the Top of the CMT LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 6 LOFTRANCMT Calculation - Run 7 : L i 1 o:umnonu227=-smallmui97 - 4 79- ' REVISION: 1 e v -, c - b- --- ,.-s w ., , , - - . . , -
. ,..e-+ - .-- y v .,. .-- .- --e
. . . - . - m. . _. -
l l l l l l -U 5.0 LOITRAN SPES.2 MODEL AND INTEGRAL SYSTEM YALIDATION 5.1 Validation Approach he LOFTRAN AP simulations of the full-pressure SPES-2 integral effects tests are the last stage in the validation process. The simulations demonstrate the ability of the code to perform consen'ative design-basis analyses for the AP600 plant. In pFnitar, the simulations are used to confirm tnat the AP600-specific models in the LOITRAN-AP code are interacting correctly and capture the key phenomena of the plant transients (see Subsection 5.2). The simulations also provide further validation of the individual passive system models. The simulations are performed using the same code versions as used in the final SSAR Chapter 15 design basis analyses. A SPES-2-specific input deck (modified from test-to-test and from sun to run) is used to model the facility. See Subsecticas 5.3 and 5.4 for descriptions of the SPES 2 model and test specific input. The validation approach that was used to simulate the SPES-2 SGTR tests (Tests 9,10 and 11) and the steam line break test (Test 12) is outuned in tae fMiowing. O V 5.1.1 Steam Generator Tube Rupture A preliminary set of SPES 2 SGTR test simulations was presented in Reference 2, including the blind simulation of Test 11. The preliminary simulations of Tests 9 and 10 showed a need for further refinement of inputs and assumptions related to tube rupture break flow, primary- and secondary-side heat loss modeling, netal masses, line resistances, and other parameters. Heat loss and metal mass modeling is critical in SPES-2 simulations because of the facilityt large system heat. surface-to-volume ratio and metal-to-fluid mass ratio. System heat losses and metal mass heat capacity have a significant impact on the test behavior. Note that these facters are not important in analysis of the AP600 plant. De find simulations presented here include the necessary refinements. In addition several simulations of Matrix Tes; 10 are run to test sensitivity to particular heat loss treatments, time step A s, and noding.
-- New nonblind simulations of Test i1 ere run to correct an error in the blind sirnulation input and incorporate the nefinements discussed above.
The pertinet.; parameters in each simulation are compared with the test data (described in Appendix B) to demonstrate the codet ability to capture the key phenomena in AP600 design-basis analyses. The N ability to simulate CMT and PRHR performance is also examined. oM24wnonU24,5.non:lb.082tM $.1 REVISION: I
~ - - -.
ne SGTR test simulations are presented in Subsection 5.5. The assessment of the simulation results is presented in Subsection 5.7.1. 5.1.2 Steam Line Break De SPES 2 MSLB test was a blind test. Both pre-data release and post-data release simulations are included in this report. Prior to performance of the blind simulation, it was recognized that because of the conservative nature of LOITRAN AP's steam line break model and the codet limitations in modeling heat losses and thick metal heat capacity, the simulations would over-predict the speed and extent of the test facility cooldown. The approach taken for the pre-data release simulation was therefore to use the same conservative assumptions as the SSAR transient analyses, nese assumptions are:
- Break flow is saturated steam
- Break flow model assumes fUD = 0
- No steam line friction in addition, another pre-data release simulation was perfonned to confirm the sensitivity of the prediction to assumed biowdown quality, his simulation uses a quality profile constructed for design-basis containment mass and energy-release calculations.
Post-data release simulations were performed to assist in the examination of differences between the test data and the blind simulation. A blowdown quality profile was constructed based on the blowdown mass accumulation rate. He break flow model was modified to mat:h the blowdown from each SG to the test data. Heat capacity is added to the SG tube metal mass to show the sensitivity of the simulation accuracy to metal mass effects, ne simulations were assessed to show that LOFTRAN-AP is capable of performing consenative AP600 safety analysis calculations. The MSLB test simulations are presented in Subsection 5.6. He assessment is presented in Subsection 5.7.2. 5.2 Key Phenomena 5.2.1 Steam Generator Tube Rupture This subsection describes the SGTR transient and the primary LOFTRAN-AP model interactions that were validated by comparison to the SPES-2 tests. Key to these simulations is the operation of the CMT and PRHR during natural circulation flow conditions. Successful modeling of these systems duting the SGTR tests validates LOFTRAN AP for modeling integral plant response during the o.umw mom-smites 2197 5-2 REVISION: I
4 4 2 -n *Aan -A 4,&=4
- a 2': .m a tA -
<?
l ' operation of these key passive safety features, in addition to the separate CMT and PRHR test programs. Prior to CMT and PRHR ac.uation, plant behavior is similar to a standard Westinghouse PWR. De phenomena of interest ere identified for this transient in the PIRT as given in - Subsection 1.2 and Table 1 L Matrix Tests 9,10, and 11 are SGTR experiments. Each of these tests simulated a single-tube ruptare. Tests 9 and 10 differ in that Test 9 employed both operator action to control the tube rupture and employed nonsafety (control) systems. Test 11, the blind SGTR test, was similar to Test 10 until ADS actuation occurred. He LOFITR2 AP simulation of Test i1 was terminated shortly after ADS actuation (150 seconds after pressurizer low-low level was reached). De following is a brief description of the SGTR event and the system interactions valid;ted by this series of tests. AP600 design basis SGTR analyses are perfonned in part to verify that the SG will not become liquid-solid (overfill) and that the primary and secondary pressures are brought into equilibrium, terminating flow through the break. The key parameters for SGTR analyses are primary pressure, secondary pressure, f!sw through the break and PRHR heat reinoval, ne code-calculated values for these parameters shou'i compare closely to the test. CMT injection is not critical to the transieut, provided the level in the CMT does not drop. he most important parameter is the primary to-secondary break flow. Break flow is dependent upon the relative values of the primary and secondary
- pressure, which in tum is highly dependent upon the cooling provided by the PRHR.
Important automatic protection system functions in the SGTR tests include: safeguards actuation of the CM'., PRHR, RCP trip, and reactor trip on low-pressurizer level. These are cicsely tied to the
'nagnitude of the break flow. The code should predict the occurrence of safeguards actuation at essentially the same time as the test.
Based on previous discussions, key parameters for the LOFITR2-AP SGTR simulations include:
= Brea flow
- Pressurizer pressure and level
- SG pressure (faulted and intact loops)
- Primary side SG inlet and outlet temperatures (both loops)
- RCS temperature upstream and downstream of the PRHR injection point
- CMT flow and level
- PRHR flow and heat removal rate 5.2.2 Main Steam Line Break Matrix Test S01512 simulated an MSLB similar to a design-basis double-ended pipe rupture. The test was initiated by opening a power-operated relief valve on SG-A with a flow orifice scaled to simula.e U n' comparable AP600 MSLB event. Steam line check valves were temoved; thus initially, prior to steam line isolation, both SGs contributed to break flow. The test was conducted with the SPES-2 oA3227woon\3227.ison It9082197 5-3 REVISION: 1
facility at conditions comparable to hot-standby for the AP600 design. Control systems were not operable 3 and the feedwater system was isolated. The steam line break event is characterized by a rapid RCS cooldown. De rate of system cooldown can be observed by noting the evolution of the pressurizer pressure. Initially the rate of cooldown is severe because high quality steam discharges from both SGs and the primary side RCS is at full flow conditions. The rate of system depressurization decreases slightly after steam line isolation and decreases more after reactor coolant pump (RCP) trip as the RCS flow quickly decreases. After the pressurizer empties, the rate of system cooldown further decreases reducing primary-to-secondary heat transfer. De rate of systern cooldown at this point is governed by the SG blowdowr, the PRHR heat removal, and cool CMT inventory, his rate of system cooldown and pressure decrease continues until the upper head saturation pressure is reached. When system pressure reaches the saturation pressure of the upper head, the upper head acts as a pressurizer and system cooldown is controlled by the PRHR, CMT, and system heit losses. All of these break points should be predicted well by LOFTRAN-AP. Discussion and comparisons of simulation to test data are provided in Subsection 5.6. The test and simulation assume a safety signal at event initiation. After specified delays, various ! automatic protection functions occur. Protection system response includes steam line isolation, RCP trip, CMT actuation, and PRHR actuation. Passive accumulator injection occurs when the primary-side pressure drops below 700 psia. Based on this discussion and the parameters identified in Table 1-1 the key criteria for steam line break event are as follows:
- Pressurizer presst.re
- SG pressure
- Primary side RCS temperature
- RCS flow
. CMT flow and level
= PRHR flow Rese parameters are presented for the LOFTRAN-AP MSLB simulations with comparisons to the SPES-2 test data.
It should be noted that reactivity feedback effects are not included in the listed parameters. He test was conducted with the intent of maximizing the RCS cooldown rate. System heat loss compensation (important to the SPES 2 facility) was terminated at break initiation. This test did not model core decay heat or any core reactivity feedback effects. O oT3227wnan\3227 inon:lt>-062197 54 REVlstoN: 1 l
D b 53 LOFTRAN AP SPES 2 Madel Description The same version of LOFTRAN AP used for AP600 analyses models the SPES 2 test facility by calculating SPES-2 specific LOFTRAN-AP input. Some inputs include SPES-2 specific component elevations and volumes, line friction factors, and RCS pressure drops. The application of LOFTRAN. AP to the SPES-2 test facility is described in Subsection 53. Deviations from the basic LOFTRAN-AP SPES-2 model required the modeling of individual tests, these tests are described in Subsection 5.4. Consistent with the particular test being simulated, initial conditions were input into the SPES-2 LOITRAN-AP model. Heater rods controlled heat generation in the SPES-2 facility. In LOFTRAN-AP test simulations, core power was input as a function of time based on test data. For the SGTR tests, core-decay heat was simulated with channel power increased to compensate for _ system heat losses. Although the same version of LOFTRAN AP was used for the SPES 2 test simulations and the AP600 SSAR, some modihcations were made to the code specifically addressing phenomena related to the 1/395-scale SPES-2 facility, nese changes were primarily required to model the heat losses in the SPES 2 facility, which have increased significance compared to the AP600 facility. De 1/395-volume scaling results in a much larger, surface-area to-volume ratio than the actual AP600. Although { x validation of LOFTRAN-AP heat loss models is not a goal of this program, adding heat loss models was necessary to adequately model the SPES-2 system transient response. The SPES-2 facility is briefly described in Appendix B. This Subsection describes the significant features from a code modeling aspect and indicates how the major LOFTRAN models were specified to simulate the SPES-2 facility tests. 53.1 Primary System The SPES 2 primary system consists of a pressure vessel with electric heating rod , loop piping, pressurizer, SG U-tubes, and coolant pumps. Each of these components, as well as the LOFTRAN-AP model considerations, is described in the following subsection. 53.1.1 Power Channel Pressure Vessel and Reactor Coolant Loop Piping he SPES 2 power channel pressure vessel includes a lower plenum, riser, upper plenum, upper head, and downcomer, ne SPES-2 downcomer consists of an annular downcomer around the upper plenum and a tubular downcomer that connects the upper and lower plenum regions. To better simulate the AP600 riser inlet conditions, the tubular downcomer inlet to the lower plenum enters an annular t<ction. ]V o U227wnonU227.s non:t t>082I97 5-5 REVISION: I
With respect to the AP600 reference design, the total RCS volume and system component volumes (iower plenum, riser, upper plenum, downcomer, and upper head) are volume-scaled. Vertical elevations are preserved with the exception of the lower plenum and upper head, which have no influence on the natural circulation. He SPES 2 facility has two reactor coolam loops and each loop has one hot leg and two cold legs, an SG, and an RCP. De cold leg split occurs downstream of the RCP. The cold legs enter the power channel annulus downcomer through separate nozzles. The primary system loop piping maintains vertical elevations and preserves the Froude number. The horizontal portion of the hot leg has the same length-to-diameter ratio as the AP600 he power channel pressure vessel and RCPs are simulated in LOFTRAN AP with separate volume inputs for the power channel, power channel inlet, upper plenum, hot and cold leg piping, SG inlet and outlet regions, and SG rube region. The power channel inlet volume includes the downcomer, lower plenum, bottom of the riser, and bypass volumes. A separate volume input is included for the upper power channel, which includes the area above the active fuel and below the upper core plate. The reactor coolant power channel and loop volume input is divided into control volumes or nodes. The number of nodes can be specified by the user. LOFTRAN-AP can have up to 160 core sectior.s, ten hot leg sections per loop, eight cold leg sections per loop, and ten SG sections per loop. The loop l model reproduces the layout of a standard Westinghouse PWR. His general layout correlates to the AP600 design and SPES 2 facility. 5.3.1.2 Power Channel Rod Bundle l The SPES-2 facility power channel consists of 97 electrical heating rods, which have the same heated length and geometry (rod pitch, rod diameter) as the AP,600 fuel rod design. Rod heat flux is preserved. Overall core power was selected to maintain the AP600-design fluid thermodynamic condities, power-to-volume ratio, and power to-flow ratio. Rod-bundle power flux was increased to l compensate for system heat losses. For the SPES-2 SGTR and steam line break simulations, rod-bundle power is not an independent variable and was input to LOFTRAN-AP as a function of time. l 5.3.1.3 Reactor Coolant Pumps and Loop Flow Model ne SPES-2 facility has one RCP per loop. He AP600 nominal pump head and fluid loop transient i time was preserved. Pump and flow coastdown was simulated at the facility. The SPES-2 nominal flow rate was selected to achieve the same power-to-flow ratio as the AP600 design. Component elevations were preserved to accurately simulate natural-circulation flow conditions. He LOFTRAN-AP code solves the basic equation of motion including the effects of incdon pressure losses, elevation, pump head, and fluid momentum. The code computes pump head and torque based o:umwnonum samib.os2m 5-6 REVISION: I
n l \ (/ on homo 19gous RCP curves. For test simulations, pump speeJ was adjusted to match the initial flow conditions. Pump windage was adjusted to match the experimental flow corstdown in SGTR Test 10. For two-p'ase flow conditions, LOFIRAN uses a homogenous slug flow mojel; thus, the code will handle void generation. %e steam and liquid phases are always in equilibrium and there is no slip. While diis model is adequate for cases with moderate void generation, LOFTRAN AP is not intended for transients where primary side, two-phase flow effects are important. Specific SPES-2 input to the LOFTRAN AP code that is important to RCS flow includes: component elevations, lengths, and frictional pressure drop under full flow conditions for the RCS loop. neoretical pressure drops were calculated and compared to experimental values. Where available, experimental pressure drop values were used. The input-pressure-drop data are normalized to match the pump head. Test simulations were conducted with a code option, which allow frictiots factors to increase as flow decreases based on data in Reference 15. The fractional volume of the upper plenum (where rnixing occurs) is specified by input to the code. Power-channel bypass flow is also specified in the code. The fraction of bypass flow was given for each test. Due to the small size of the inlet and outlet plenna in relation to coolant flow rate, perfect mixing was assumed for test simulaticns.
/~N l (j 5.3.1.4 Pressurizer and Surge Line De SPES-2 pressurizer consists of a cylindrical vessel with flanged ends and contains submersible electrical heaters. The surge line is connected from the bottom flange to the primary-circuit hot leg.
Six external electrical heaters compensate for heat losses. The pressurizer has one safety valve located at the top of the vessel. When necessary, pressure is relieved manually through the ADS. With respect to the AP600 design, the SPES-2 pressurizer is volume-scaled, the bottom elevation is preserved, and the level swelling phenomena was reproduced. The level swelling phenomenon can occur in the pressurizer due to flashing of the contained liquid or an insurge of steam from the primary circuit. This swelling can significantly affect the quality of the fluid discharging through the
' ADS valves located at the top of the pressurizer; thus, the SPES-2 pressurizer diameter was selected using the Wilson bubble rise model (Reference 16) to match the average void fraction in the AP600 for similar thermal-hydraulic conditions.
The LOFTRAN-AP model consists of a two-region (water and steam) pressurizer model. Since the water level is expected to change during a transient, a variable control volume model is used. Condensation or superheating is allowed in the steam region and evaporation and subcooling is allowed in the water region. Water drops are uniformly distributed in the steam region and fall at a p constant rate, while steam bubbles are uniformly distributed in the water region and rise with a L/ constant velocity. The pressurizer model also has the capability to consider the effects of pressurizer heaters, spray, relief, and sdety valves. eum-num.5mitei97 5-7 REVlslON: I
Specific SPES-2 test facility input to LOFTRAN-AP includes the overall pressurizer volume, pressurizer surge line volume and frictional pressure drop, pressurizer heater output, pressurizer relief valve flow rate, initial pressurizer pressure, and initial pressurizer water volume. Initial pressurizer water volume and leve' are test-specific parameters. Precurizer pressure control system sprays and relief valves can be automatically actuated based on pressurizer pressure or be manually actuated. For the SPES-2 test, these systems were manually actuated as a function of time, simulating operator action when required. 5.3.1.5 Vessel Head Model The LOFTRAN AP model of the vessel head consists of a single volume. The code simulates the vessel head bypass flow from the reactor vessel inlet (cold leg) to the upper plenum. 'Ihe behavior differs depending on the RCP operation:
- When the RCPs operate, flow is by forced circulation from the top of the downcomer to the upper head and retums to the upper plenum. For the SPES 2 facility and the AT"00, the bypass flow is large enough to maintain the upper head temperature below the hot leg temperature.
- After the RCPs trip, natural circulation govems the flow direction. Since the upper plenum is hotter than the downcomer, flow can occur in the opposite direction (from the upper plenum to the vessel head and to the top of the downcomer into the cold legs).
- When the RCS begins cooling, flow can stop because the geometrical configuration leads to a stable thermal stratification. 'Ihe hotter (less dense) water is located at the top of the circuit.
The ten.perature of the water in the upper head volume will vary depending upon the vessel head heat losses. If a depressurization of the RCS occurs up to a point where saturation is i reached in the upper head, boiling occurs and induces draining of the upper head. This general behavior of the vessel head model has been observed during most of the SPES 2 tests. LOFTRAN AP uses a simple model based on the following user-supplied input:
- Upper-head bypass flow coefficient expressed as the fraction of the total RCS loop flow (this coefficient is constant during the transient)
- Initial water enthalpy in the vessel head To simulate the SPES-2 behavior during the SGTR tests, the upper head bypass flow was set to zero, and the initial enthalpy of the upper head water to the saturation enthalpy corresponding to the RCS o um.nooum-5.non. Sos: 97 5-8 REvlSION: 1
A, pressure at the time boiling occurs. This simulation reproduces the real phenomena only after the pumps trip, Before the pump trip, the impact is small because core flow is modified by less than one percent. 53.2 Secondary Coolant System 53.2.1 Steam Generators ne SPES 2 plant has tw .dentical SGs that allow the transfer of thermal power from the primary to-secondary circuits. The SGs consist of a pressure vessel, tube bundle, steam separator, and dryers. De SG vessel consists of a bottom plena (primary side), an intermediate section containing the tube bute.c and two external d yers, and an upper section that includes the separator and the dryers. The intermediate section consists of a tall cylindrical vessel that houses the U-tube bundle. A dividing plate p; vents the mixing of water from the two extemal downcomer pipes and feedwater, separating the riser into a cold and hot zone. The two external downcomers connect the upper SG shell to the bottom of the tube bundle. De SG section consists of a cylindrical vessel, flanged to the intermediate vessel with a large dome at the top. This section contains the feedwater nozzle and the main steam line nonle. he SPES 2 SGs are also volume. scaled to the AP600 design. De number and length of the U-tubes v is not as well proportioned, leading to a 2.5 percent less than scaled heat transfer surface area. Vertical elevations are preserved in the secondary side at the top of the steam separator. He steam dome elevation has not been maintained since it has no influence on natural circulation. He LOFIRAN AP SG secondary side model is represented by a single volume node. In the standard LOFTRAMAP version, this node consists of a homogeneous saturated mixture of steam and water. LOFITR2 AP differs from the standard version in that the node is divided into two regions. The lower region may be saturated or subcooled and the upper region may be saturated or superheated. On the primary side, the SG model contains multiple (up to [ la,b.c) tube section nodes. Primary-to-secondary heat transfer is simulated with a log-mean temperature difference (LMTD) type response. The overall heat transfer coefficient (UA) is initialized by the code to match the nominal input conditions. The code uses the primag mass flow rate, heat flux, and secondary side pressure to compute changes in the heat transfer coefficient due to changes that can affect the primary- and secondary-side film resistance.
' He ability of the SG to transfer heat depends upon four factors: the primary-fluid convective film coefficient, the SG U-tube conductive resistance, the secondary-fluid convective film coefficient, and the extent to which the SG tube bundle is covered with secondary fluid. LOFTRAN-AP has the
( capacity to model each of these parameters. LOFTRAN-AP decreases the heat transfer area linearly as k - the water mass decreases when the SG water mass reaches a value corresponding to the level at the top of the tube bundle, o\3227wnon0227 5 nortIb o82197 5-9 REVNON: 1
Specific SPES-2 test facility input to LOFTRAN for the secondary side includes feedwater temperature, overall SG volume, and initial SG water volume height from the top of the tube sheet to the top of the tt.bes, height from the top of the tubes to the riser region, SG heat transfer area, tube bundle volume, minimum water volume required to cover the tubes, tube material, and tube metal heat capacity. The initial SG water level is a test specific parameter. Default code parameters were used for the primary and secondary-side film resistance. The SG model also has the capability to model relief and safety valves. Steam and feed line isolation are simulated and check valves can also be specified. SG PORVs can be automatically actuated on pressure or be manually actuated. For the SPES-2 SGTR test 9 simulations, the PORVs were opened as a function of time simulating operator actions. No secondary-side control or safety valve operations are modeled in the steam line break simulation. 5.3.2.2 Steam Generator Tube Rupture Break Flow Model LOFITR2-AP contains a detailed and flexible failed SG tube model capable of modeling any number broken or ruptured tubes. He model considers tube frictional loses and entrance and exit form losses. The code also models criticrJ flow using the modified Zouledek correlation (Reference 17). For the SPES 2 SGTR simulations, the break location and area was provided. Break flow versus time data were available for Tests 9 and 10. This data were used to calculate an overall friction factor. The coefficient calculated from Tests 9 and 10 data were used for the blind test simulation (Test 11). 5.3.2.3 Steam Pipe Break Flow Model Stern flow is determined in the LOFTRAN AP based user selected options. Steam flow to the turbine, through the safety valves, steam dump, and break flow can be modeled. The effects of isolation valve closure and check valves can be modeled as desired. The steam header is modeled as a zero-volume node and requires a mass balance of the flow to and from the header. Steam line breaks or inadvertent steam system valve openings are modeied in LOFTRAN-AP via a user-specified break area. A steam line break per SG and a header break can be modeled simultaneously. Break flow is calculated based on the Moody critical flow correlation with fUD=0. For the SPES 2 MSLB test (Matrix Test S01512), the break was modeled on SG-A. Check valves were not r.mdeled allowing steam flow from SG-B until steam line isolation occurred. The code accounts for the pn ssure drop from the intact SG to the header by specifying the pressure drop at nominal steam flow. A SPES-2 specific value was used for the nominal pressure drop. O l oum.mmum-sun it.-os:in 5-10 REVISloN: l l
I n U 5.3.3 Passhe Safety Systems Passive safety systems important to the MSLB and SOTR tests include the CMTs, the PRilR llX, and the two accumulator tanks. 5.3.3.1 Core Makeup Tank Sptem
%e CMT system is a passive gravity-driven system that provides reactor coolant makeup and ernergency boration. De CMT system has two operating modes: water recirculnion and draindown with steam entering the CMT, and water displacement. %e MSLB and SOTR events should only experience the CMT recirculation mode. %e SPES-2 facility has two CMTs that deliver coolant directly to the reactor vessel annular downcomer through separate lines. De balance lines, which take coolt.nt from the cold leg, are connected to each of the cold legs in reactor coolant loop B (the loop opposite the pressurizer).
With respect to the AP600 reference design, the CMTs are 1/395 volume-scaled. Elevations of the CMTs and counecting lines are preserved. De metal mass is scaled to obtain the same overall condensation of stea.n o.a the CMT walls and the same water / metal temperatures during transient O simulations. This condition req >iired placing the CMTs within a secondary pressurized tank, d he resistances of the CMT lines are computed using the cold pre-operational test results. Two sets of hypotheses are used in this report, which consider the uncertainty of the pressure drop and flow measurernents. To better match actual test results, maximum line resistances are used for all calculatints, except for Run 4 of Test 10. %ese values are obtained using the maximum pressure drop arn dnimum flow measurement, according to the uncertainty of the test data. Minimum line resistwees are the result of opposite assumptions. The LOFTRAN AP code simulates the dynamics of a single CMT and assumes the performance of a second CMT as identical. De resistance of the injection line of the two CMTs differs by 20 percent (Reference 19)in the facility. An equivalent single injection line has been simulated. To compare LOFIRAN AP results with the SPES 2 tests, the flow from each CMT should be added. A separate LOFTRAN AP model validation effort was performed for the CMT system and is presented in Section 4.0. The SPES 2 tests provide additional data to validate the LOFTRAN AP CMT model during transient situations similar to the design-basis MSLB and SGTR events. Details of the LOFTRAN AP model can be found in Subsecti n 3.1 in Reference 8. 5.3.3.2 Passive Residual licat Removal IIcat Exchanger De PRHR ltX is located on the primary side of the system and is designed to remove core decav heat during emergency situations. De PRHR llX connects to loop A, which also contains the pressuriter. o U227.mm0227.s mm It,.082197 $ 11 RD1SION: I
The SPES 2 facility includes a C shaped PRilR I!X submerged in the IRWST. With respect to the AP600 design, the total heat transfer surface area, tube diameter, tube thickness end pressure drops, and elevations are preserved to the extent possible. The llX contains three tubes. The proper scaling for the AP600 is 1.7 tubes. For the SOTR tests, one tube was used to minimize event mitigation effects. For the MSLB (test 12), three tubes were used to maximire the severity of transient system cooldown. The SPES-2 PRIIR supply Ime runs from the top of the loop A hot leg. A two meter pipe elevation was added to preserve the AP600 piping elevation. This line is heated prior to tests to match the expected AP600 fluid conditions. The return line is routed to the suction line of RCP A. LOITRAN AP contains a multi. node PRilR model with inlet piping connected to the hot leg of the pressurizer loop and outlet piping connected to the 50 outlet plenum. A detailed description of the LOITRAN AP PRilR model is provided in Subsection 3.2 of Reference 8. 5.3.4 llent Losses Models The LOITRAN AP co& includes models to sirnulate heat loses at principal locations such as: the primary system, the secondary side of the SGs, and the CMTs. The SPES 2 heat losses were measured during the hot pre-operational tests. The results of Test 1101 presented in Reference 19 are used. The total heat losses of the loop (RCS and SG) have teen estimated to be about 150 kW at a stable temperature of 605'F. Test 11-01 also provides an approximate split of the heat losses: [ Ja.b.c LW for the hot legs and power channel, [ ]* k' kW for the cold legs, and [ la.b.' LW for the two SGs. As stated in Subsection 5.1, the validation of the heat losses is not a goal for this report; however, the representation is required for these specific tests because the water at the PRliR and CMT inlet pipe is close to saturation. Subcooling is lower than [ )*kF for Test 10 (Reference 19). Results from the simulation of Test 10 also show that when boiling c~urred at the inlet of the PRilR, the average flow increased and oscillations occurred due to the condensation of steam in the PRiiR. 5.3.4.1 Primary S 3stem IIcat Losses Model The RCS metal mass temperature evolutions were modeled by derming RCS water-to-steel and steel-to air heat transfer coefficients, The coefficients accounted for telative convective and conduction heat transfer resistances and are based on experimental data from the 11-01 test. Based on relative fluid and steel contact area, expenmental data, and comparbon of simulation results to the experimental data; the following assumptions were made relative to partitioning of component heat losses: O oU227mmuu227 5 rnu Ib o82197 3 12 REVisloN: 1
O e [ j'h' percent of the SGs heat losses ([ )**
- kW per 50) occur in the inlet and outlet headers on the primary side, with [ )*** percent of the 50 losses occurring on secondary side.
* [ l'A' percent of the hot legs and power channel heat losses am applied to the power charmel, with [ ]'A' percent on the hot legs.
During initial simulations, unexpected boiling occurred in the inlet PRilR pipe due to an overestimation of the hot leg water temperature by [ ]*A'*F. Investigation proved subcooling during the test was probably cauted by heat transfer between the upper plenum and the annular downcomer of the facility. These two volumes are separated by a thin tube ([ )*** mm thickness, Reference 13). Approximate evaluations show that the power exchanged between the upper plenum and the annular downcomer could have been in the range of [ )*A' kW. Since the major objective of the SPES 2 simulation is to validate specific features of the passive core cooling system (and not the heat losses of the SPES 2 loop), it is assumed that a heat transfer of [ j'A' kW occurs between the legs at the power chrmel inlet and outlet. his heat transfer gives a more accurate inlet temperature at the PRilR inlet and it also gives an adequate flow configuration (single phase during a significant period of each transient). O Table 5.31 Summarizes the RCS heat losses used for all the transients presented in this document. V his table does not account for the heat source and sink of [ ]'A' LW used to simulate the heat transfer between the upper plenum and the annular dawncomer, 5.3.4.2 Pressurizer IIcal Losses LOFTRAN AP can simulate pressurizer heat losses as a heat sink applied to the pressurizer steam phase. SIET estimated it as [ ]*A' kW at nominal conditions. De tests simulated in this report confinn this value. Test 9 used extemal pressurizer heaters to compensa'e for p4essurizer heat losses. Two of six extemal heaters remained on throughout this transient after the S signal. He power of two extemal heaters is [ )*A' kW, with [ l'A' percent efficiency ne output power of the two extemal heaters is more than pressuriter heat losses at stable and saturated conditions, and explains the reason for the presence of superheated steam in the pressurizer during Test 9. LOFITR2 AP does not simulate the SPES 2 pressurizer with extemal heaters. It is assumed that the extemal heaters exactly compensate for the heat losses. 5 3.4.3 SGs Secondary Side IIcat Losses Model p d As presented in Table 5.31. ( )*** kW of heat loss was applied to each secondary side of the SG sides. %is value is representative of ecoditions with a stable temperature ([ ]'AC*F). LOFTRAN AP oV227wnnnO227 5 non Ib.0a2197 5 13 REVISION: 1
does not take the steel mass on the SO secondary sides into account. Due to the scale of the SPES 2 facility, energy stored inside the steel of the secondary side of the sos increases considerably in relation to the energy stored in the liquid. His phenomenon was taken into account by corre.*ing the permanent heat losses, assuming that the steel mass temperature followed the fluid temperature with a typical time constant of [ )**# seconds (Estimate based on the 50 main steel walls). Because the 50 pressure increased from ( )*h* psi for Test 10, this aspect of the SPES 2 facility induced a high transfer after the MSIV isolation. ne corresponding energy needed to warm the 50 secondary steel mass is around [ J'h# Dtu per 50, or an average power of [ )**# Bru/sec. Based on the sensitivity calculation, the initial SO pressure response was adequately simulated assuming that this power varies linearly from [ ]*** the average power to zero during the period starting with MSLIV isolation ([ )**# sec, for Test 10) and the time when pressure was stable before decreasing again ([ ]**# sec. for Test 10). The final 50 secondary side heat loss values versus time are provided in Table 5.3 2. Initial heat loss is smaller for Test 9 because startup feedwater slowed the secondary side pressure increase after the MSLI valve closure. Although the integrated heat loss evolution with time reflects the global energy balance (permanent heat losses corrected by the steel mass thermal inertia), it was difficult to duplicate the full results of this test. However, experimental SO pressure evolution was well matched and this is the condition required to validate the other modules of LOFTRAN AP. 5 3.4.4 CMTs IIcat lesses LOITRAN AP simulates the heat transfer between water, steel, and air, ne interpretation of the tests performed on the CMT ccmponent test facility showed that this specific model is pertinent and provides an adequate thermal profile for CMTs with one wall (Section 4.0). De metal mass of the SPES 2 CMTs is scaled to obtain the same overall condensation of steam on the CMT walls and the same water / metal temperwures during fast transient simulations, nis required placing the CMTs within a secondary subatmospheric tank. The transients simulated in this report are long term transients and the extemal heat losses to be applied to the extemal face of the intemal tank are also important. The global thermal response of the two SPES 2 CMTs is not simulated by LOFTRAN AP. The transients presented in this report used an equivalent extemal heat transfer coefficient applied to the extemal wall of the internal tank. Since the transients simulated in the preliminary report l (Reference 2) showed a high sensitivity on the net mass injected by the CMTs in the RCS, a l sensitivity study was made to investigate the importance of these parameters. 1 l O o V227mnV227 5 non Ibo82897 $.]4 REVISION: 1
.O V ne following hypotheses for the cimulations were investigated:
- Simulation with low heat transfer ne external heat transfer was computed assuming that a perfect thermal steady state exists between the two CMT walls. De heat transfer between the two tanks and outside the extemal tank accounted for convective and radiative heat transfer.
- Simulation with increased heat transfer The heat transfer was computed assuming that the external tank remains cold at the initial temperature. His h ipothesis should have been appropriate at CMT actuation, but became inaccurate for long-term simulations.
He final assumptions used for all the calculations presented in this report were a combination of the two assumptions presented. The top CMT nodes use high-heat transfer (CMT is cold at the beginning of the transient), and nodes at the CMT bottom use low heat transfer (CMT is warmed when hot water comes to the bottom of the CMT). The number of nodes with high heat-transfer was adjusted to almost match the water temperature pro 0le inside the CMT. ( U o U227mnonU227.$ non 114:2197 5-15 FIvtstoN: I
l TAllLE 5.31 O RCS IIEAT LOSSES AT 605'F Test 1101 LOITRAN.AP Simulation Power Power Components [kW) Location [LW)
- ~~
Two llot legs 4 PC Two SGs l'out Cold Legs Total - - m. TAILLE 5.3 2 SG SECONDARY. SIDE IIEAT LOSSES, INCLUDING STEEL INERTIA IIcal Loss [ Btu /sec.] Time Test 9. Hun 1 Test 10 Run i Test 11 Run I
-- "b,c t0 = MSLIV Closure to + 300 see t0 + 400 see 3000 see _ _
O o U227 u:n 5 mm 1M*2w7 $.16 REVISION: I
_ . - . - - - _ . . - . _ _ . - - _ _ _ - . . - . = _ l' d 5.4 Test specine LOFTRAN AP Input ~ As discussed in Subsection 5.3, SPES 2 specific LOFTRAN AP input was developed for modeling the SPES 2 SGTR and st am line break tests. Gee,eral model input is discussed in that section. This subsection describes the LOFIRAN AP input for the individual simulations. 5.4.1 Steam Generator Tube Rupture Test Specine Input Initial Conditions Test specific initial conditions were input for the following parameters:
- Pressurizer pressure
- Power channel inlet temperature
- Upper vessel head temperature
- Core flow rate
- Downcomer bypass flow *
- Pressurizer level
- Accumulator volume, temperature, and pressure i
- IRV'ST temperature O
- PRiiR .1X and supply line temperatures CMT and CMT balance line temperatures
- SG water mass
- Main feedwater temperature
- Containment air temperature Additionally, power channel rod power was provided for each test, including the blind test, as a function of time. Specific input parameters used in SGTR Test Simulations 9,10, and 11 are listed in Tables 5.5.2 2,5.5.31 and 5.5.41 respectively.
Break Flow Input Key to simulation of the SGTR tests is modeling the break flow. Tube break flow is determined by the break area. SG tube friction and form pressure losses, and the primary-to-secondary side pressure difference. De SPES-2 SGTR break size was scaled to 1.2 times the area of a single AP600 SG tube with an inner diameter of ( )** inches. Using this information, a break area of [
. ]a.b.e gg,2 was calculated, in LOFITR2 AP, an SGTR results in break flow from both ends of the ruptured tube providing flow from both the hot legs and cold legs of the primary system. He SPES 2 SGTR tests simulated a n() break from the primary side of RCP B suction to the secondary side of SG-B. To model the SPES 2 test break, the friction factor for the hot leg tube break was set to a very large value, prohibiting flow . oV227wnon\3227.s sun.lt>.082197 $ 17 REVISlot 1
from the hot leg. It should be noted that although LOFTRAN allows input of separate friction factors or loss coefficients for the tube entrance and exit, inlet plenum, and tube length, the LOFTTR2 AP SPES 2 friction k ucs were simulated with a single overall loss coefficient. The loss coefficient was based on Test 10 break flow data and was calculated so that break flow matched the test data for the given primary- to secondary side pressure difference. Systern llent Losses LOITRAN AP was modified for the SPES-2 test comparisons to model heat losses in the primary. and secondary side systems. Prior to this effort, LOFTRAN AP had a metal mass heat capacity model on the primary side and for the SG tube mass. Initially LOFTRAN AP was modified to allow heat loss from the primary side to the containment. It was determined that additional heat loss compensation was required for the SGs and pressurizer (see Subsection 5.3.4). De 50 heat loss and metal mass heat capacity had a significant effect on secondary side pressure. To compensate for this effect, LOFTRAN AP was modified to allow heat loss versus transient time to be input for the individual SGs. This input was calculated based on Test 9 and Test 10 data. A similar profile was used for the blind SGTR test. Ileat losses in the pressurizer resulted in the pressurizer filling after the upper head boiled in Test 10. To demonstrate this phenomena, a simple heat loss versus time model was also added for the pressurizer (r.ee Subsection 5.3.4). Automatic Protection System Actuation Test-specific actuation times for the reactor and the RCP trip, steam line and feed line ; solation, and CMT and PRilR valve opening were provided. Matrix Tests 9 and 10 were simulated with the actual time of all the test events as input (including trip, passive system actuations, operator actions, etc.). Test 11 (blind test with calculation results previously presented in Reference 2) was simulated with both the time of the evei:ts calculated by LOFITR-AP or with the time of the events as input. Protection system response times used for SGTR Tests 9,10, and 11 simulations are recorded in Tables 5.5.2-3,5.5.3 3 and 5.5.4-2 respectively, in all cases, action is assumed to occur at the specified time. No allowances have been made for gradual valve closures. Operator Action SGTR Test 9 used operator actions to help mitigate the effect of the tube rupture. These actions were input in a simplified form, as described in Subsection 5.5.3. l O l l o u2nwamu2n.3 non itelt2197 $ 18 REVISION: I
r 5.4.2 Mala Steam Line Break LOFTRAN AP Test Specific laput With few exceptions, the base LOFTRAN AP input deck used for the MSLB simulation was identical [ to that used in the SOTR simulations. Test specific input includes initial conditions, protection system timing, and input required to model the steam line break. Initial conditions For the MSLB test simulations, test specific initial conditions were input for the following parameters:
- Pressurizer pressure
- Power channel inlet temperature
- Upper head vessel temperature
- Core flow rate
- Downcomer bypass flow rate
- Pressurizer level
- Accumulator volume temperature and pressure
- PRilR system and supply line temperature e CMT and CMT balance line temperatures
- SO water mass
(
- Containment air temperature
- IRWST temperature Heater rod power was [ la.b.c kW prior to the steam line break simulation. 'Ihis value modified the RCS metal to containment air heat transfer coefficients and was validated by a period of steady-state code simulation prior to break initiation. Specific input parameters used in the LOFTRAN AP MSLB simulations are provided in Table 5.6-1, Automatic Protection System Actuation Times Protection system actuation times were based on a pre test prediction that showed that a safety signal would occur close to break initiation, ne safety signal isolates the intact SG B, opens the CMT and PRilR valves, and trips the RCPs, The actuation times used in the simulation were supplied in the test data and are provided in Table 5.6 2. Since LOFTRAN has a single CMT, the average actuation time of 4.25 seconds was used, Similarly for main steam line isolation the average (10.5 seconds) of the two valves was used.
Operator Action and Control System Operation
. Consistent with Matrix Test S01512, no operator actions or control system operation were modeled.
V o u227=nonu227 5 non sus 2197 5 19 REVISION: l
._. - _ _ - _ _ _ _. . - ~ , _ _ _
Feedwater and Safety Feedwater Assumptions De test simulated a main steam line break with no load conditions and no feedwater flow. Safety feedwater was inadvertently added to SG A for several minutes during the event. Although the overall safety feedwater contribution was only [ Ja.b.c lbm, which is small compared to the [ ]a b.c lbm mass initially in SG-A, the safety feedwater flow was modeled in the LOITRAN simulations. To model the safety feedwater. [ la.b.c lbm of water at [ Ja.b.c.F was added to SG A using a constant flow rate from 33 to [ la b.c seconds. Component licat Loss and llent Capacity The SPES 2 facility is a full height,1/395 volume scale of the AP600 plant. There is approximately 20 times more surface area per unit volume for the SPES 2 components than for the AP600 plant. Consequently, component heat losses and stored energy in the component metal masses are more important to the SPES 2 facility than for the AP600 (except for the pressurizer, LOFTRAN AP models the primary system component metal mass heat capacities including SG tubes). Prior to th- SPFS 2 test simulation efforts, there was no way to model primary or secondary side heat losses ... LOFTRAN AP. Ileat losses in the pressurizer and SGs had a significant effect on the SGTR tests. To simulate the SPES 2 SGTR tests, LOITTR2 AP and LOFTRAN AP were modified with a very siinple heat loss / addition table for these components. A more sophisticated model was not developed since heat losses from these components during SGTR and non-LOCA events are not as significant for the AP600 plant. Modeling metal mass heat capacities, and not modeling heat losses, provides conservative results for design-basis analyses. For the MSLB test conditions,150 kW heater rod power was arquired to keep the system at hot-standby conditions. RCS to containment, air heat transfer coefficients were adjusted so that the system remained in equilibrium with a heater rod power of [ ]a.b.c kW. Based on heat loss partition data contained in the hot pre-operational test data (Reference 19), [ }a.b.c kW of heat loss was placed in ( the SGs. At steady-state conditions, the primary side of the reactor coolant system lost [ Ja.b.c (w, For the MSLB simulations, heat losses were not modeled in the pressurizer. The pressurizer heater was on at the test facility prior to the break to maintain a system pressure of 2240 psia. This is I comparable to the way LOFTRAN AP is initialized. Once 'he break occurs, heat loss in the l pressurizer is not very important to the MSLB simulations since the pressurizer drains relatively l quickly (within [ la b.c seconds). Ileat addition from the metal mass of the SGs significantly influences the SPES 2 MSLB test results. As described above, the SPES-2 facihty has a much larger component metal-mass-heat capacity Wu?wn) 5 nmites:"7 5-20 REVISION: 1
O () compared to its volume than the AP600 plant. After blowoown begins, the 50 metal mass is hotter than SO water inventor:r. He simplified SO heat loss / gain model that was added for the SPES 2 SOTR simulations is inadequate for MSLB simulations due to the speed and severity of the cooldown. De effect of SO metal mass and associated heat input on the test results is discussed in the results section. A sensitivity run is prer.ented, which simulates the effect of the large 50 metal mass un the tes: results by adding metal mass to the SO tubes and water mass to the intact S0. Steam Line Break flow Model ne steam line break was simulated in LOFTRAN AP by modeling a break area of [ la b.c ft. on SG A. His corresponds to a single-ended steam line break area of [ Ja.b.c ft in tne AP600 plant. LOITRAN-AP does not predict break flow quality, so quality as a function of time was input instead. Prior to release of the bhnd data, two cases were run: a steam quality of one, and a typical quality used in calculating steam line break mass and energy releases for design basis containment analyses. Upon release of the bhnd data. a test-specific quality was derived by matching a quality profile that replicated the experimental break flow accumulation and total mass blowdown from SG D. For design basis calculations, a conservative quality profile was used. For example, the main steam line break analyses were performed to determine core response assuming a steam quality of one. \, When a more reahstic quahty profile is used, the profile is based on NOTRUMP calculations and the values are skewed to generate conservative results relative to regulatory limits. O) i sg o outWut-5.non itws2997 5 21 REVISION: I
5.5 Test Simulation Results: Tests 9,10, and 11 Steam Generator Tube Rupture 5.5.1 Overtlew This section contains a description of the LOFTTR2 AP test simulations, including sensitivity studies. Matrix Test 10, which was a SGTR with no Operator actions, was selected to present most of the sensitivity studies. This transient is the least complicated and allows an easier analysis of the separate phenomena. The input deck simulating the test facility ana the events of each transient used experimental data. No conservatism was introduced intentionally by adjusting the input data. Almost all the data used for the simulations presented in the preliminary validation report (Reference 2) were used, but refinements were made using the final data of Reference 10. Table 5.5.1 1 summarizes the evolution of the modeling between the preliminary and the final validation report. Matrix Tests 9 and 10 were simulated with the actual time of all the test events as input (including trip, passive system actuations, operator actions, etc.). Test 11 (blind test with calculation results previously presented in Reference 2) was simulated with both the time of the events calculated by LOl'ITR2 AP or with the time of the events as input. O o0227.u2274 wn ikoa2597 5 22 REYlSloN: 1
. - _ . - . - . . - . _ . ~ _ - . - . . - . _ . . _ .
I a.b.c
~
?g e
f N I< b g d b E i R b 2E ' O !. I, C . l li 5 2 m id 5 il l 0 : ou n u n.sanostim3,7 5-23 REVISION: 1
1 5.5.2 hiatrix Test 10 Matrix Test 10 (Test S01110) was an SGTR test at full. power conditions. Nonsafety systems including the CVCS, the nonnal residual heat removal (NRHR), and the SFWS were not activated during the test. Test analysa were done using LOFITR2 AP. Actual test results show boiling in the vessel head and in the upper plenum at ( l'*# seconds. Situations with significant boiling in the upper plenum are out of the scope of LOFTRAN AP. De test simulations were continued, however, until code instabilities were detected. 5.5.2.1 Description of the Runs Test 10 was selected to perfonn most of the sensitivity studies because there are no Operator Actions and the behavior is less complicated to analyre. De following aspects have been investigated : Run 1. Initial Case ne assumptions used for the initial caw of Test 10 are provided in Subsection 5.3. Run 2. SGs Secondary Side llent Losses Using the initial case as a basis, the SG heat losses were modified as follows: Initial case: [ )*** percent on the SGs secondary side, [ )"*# percent on the RCS side
- Run 2: [ Ja.b.c percent on the SGs secondary side, [ ]**' percent on the RCS side This sensitivity case explains the reason for the SGTR back flow calculated in the initial calculation.
Because this simulation is closer to the test data, it was used as the base case. Run 3. SGs recondary Side lleat Losses Using Run 2 as a basis, SG heat losses were modified neglecting the thermal inertia of the steel masses of the SG secondary-side. This sensitivity case illustrates the influence of SG metal mass's thennal inertia on the SG pressure evolutions. Run 4. Minimum Resistance of the CMT Lines Using Run 2 as a b tis, minimum : .istances for the CMT line were used. The assumptions for computing the fri n coefficients are provided in Subsection 5.3.3.1. O con 7m7 5 non iswow? 5 24 REVISION: 1
O V Run 5. PRHR Resistance Sensitivity Study There are some uncertainties regarding the various systems that contribute to the energy balance of the facility. To investigate the effect of increased energy removal, a sensitivity study was performed by simulating an increase in the PRHR Cowrate. Using Run 2 as a basis, the friction factor of the PRHR heat exchanger was decreased by [ ja.b.c percent. Core power, heat losses, SGs, CMTs and the PRHR contribute to the energy balance. Since the influence of the other systems has been tested, the PRHR resistance sensitivity study simulates an increase of extracted power from the RCS. Run 6 and 7 Time Step Influence - A sensitivity simulation was perfonned on the time step by varying the timestep after reactor trip. Runs 6 and 7 duplicated the initial case and Run 2 respectively, with the time step size decreased by half during the stable period after the trip. Hun 8. Noding influence Run 8 duplicated Run 2 with about twice as many nodes simulating the RCS. 'Ihe noding in the CMT (fixed in the code) and in the PRHR wa.s not modified. Run 9. Heat Transfer Between RCS Water and Steel Run 9 duplicated Run 2 with heat transfer coefficients between the RCS water and swel divided by two. Although there is no rigorous justification for this sensitivity study, the intent was to try to explain why an overestimation of RCS pressure and temperature between [ ja.b.c seconds occurs. One reason may be that some RCS steel masses,like the flanges that represent about [ la b.c percent of the steel masses, are initialized at too high a temperature. After reactor trip, heat transfer between the water and steel then decreases too fast because the hot leg water temperature npidly drops by [ la.b.c.F. Decreasing the heat transfer coefficients will initialize the flanges with lower steel temperatures and cause a lower drop in heat transfer after the trip. Table 5.5.21 summarizes the parameters of each run. 5.5.2.2 Results Analysis 5.5.2.2.1 Initial Case (Run 1) A comparison of code-calculated results and actual test results is shown in Figures 5.5.21 through 5.5.217. Table 5.5.2 3 provides the sequence of the events. As mentioned previously, this test was simulated using the actual times of the events. Minor variations in the results in Table 5.5.2 3 were caused by the instantaneous closing and opening of valves in the LOFITR2 AP simulations (e.g., as in the main steam line isolation uAe closure). c:0227wuni-5 non it@0397 $.25 REVISION: 1
l RCS Parameter Evolutions ne opening of the SOTR break at zero seconds induced a loss of mass out of the RCS and a decreased pressurizer level. When the pressurizer internal heaters switched on at [ Ja.bx kW, the pressurizer pressure decreased slowly. At [ la.b.c seconds, the presr.riter level reached [ Ja.b.c ft., and the pressurizer heaters automatically turned off by the plant cm.iputer, inducing faster depressuritation. In the test, reactor trip and safeguards actuation occurred when the low pressurizer level setpoint ([ Ja.b.c) was reached, nis setpoint was reached in the test at [ Ja.b.c seconds. At [ la.b# seconds, code-calculated, pressurizer liquid level was consistent with the test and showed a level of about [ Ja.b.c it. in the pressurizer (Figure 5.5.2 8). De reactor trip induced a fast drop in core power (Figure 5.5.21) consequently, the core outlet temperature was reduced by approximately [ la.b.c.F. This reduction resulted in the contraction of the RCS water and in complete pressurizer draindown by the surge line (Figure 5.5.2 8). Various safety features actuated in the test when the low level setpoint was exceeded. Deze included: closure of main steam isolation valves, closure of main feedwater isolation valves, PRIIR actuation,
- CMT actuation, and tripping of the RCPs. After these events, the facility operated in free evolution, with no active systems. RCS pressure and temperature evolutions resulted from mass and heat transfers by natural circulation in the RCS, SGs, PRilR, CMT, break, and external heat losses.
Core power in the test was input to LOFTTR2-AP as a boundary condition. De SPES 2 core power was increased by [ la.b.c kW above the scaled AP600 decay heat (Figure 5.5.21), starting [ )s.b.c seconds after the trip, to compensate for higher than scaled facility heat losses. For a brief period after the RCPs tripped [ Ja.b.c seconds, the passive systems extracted less power than the core power, and the global energy balance was positive. Natural circulation in the RCS resulted in j the increase of the outlet RCS temperature (Figure 5.5.2-6) and also the RCS pressure. After 1 550 seconds, when the core power decreased to 400 kW, the RCS temperatures and pressure started decreasing slowly. Overall, the RCS pressure and temperature evolutions are predicted well by LOFTTR2-AP. De main differences occuned between [ ]*A seconds. RCS pressure and temperatures were overestimated by about [ Ja.b.c psi and [ la.b.c.F. Rese minor differences between the actual test results and the calculations can easily be explained by phenomenon like heat transfer between the RCS l fluid and steel heat transfer. I 1 SGs Secondary Side Pressure The SG A and B pressure evolutions are shown in Figures 5.5.2 3 and 5.5.2 4. De S0 pressures were essentially constant prior to reactor trip because SG pressure was regulated by the control system of the facility. 0 0127wu127 $.non It@90397 5 26 REYlSION: 1
l l l G l After the SO steam and feedwater valves were isolated, no mass transfer occurred in the SGs, except for in the SGTR break flow in SG B. SG pressure was then driven by the energy balance, including heat transfer with the RCS and the SGs secondary side steel masses. De temperatures of the SG steel masses depend on the steel thermal inertia and on the heat transfer with the 50 water and extemal air. After steam line isolation valve closure, SG pressure increased from [ j'A' psi as a result of the heat transfer between the RCS and the SGs. No secondary-side relief valves were opened. The reactor trip induced a fast decrease in core power and also in the hot leg temperature. As a result of core power decrease and of heat transfer with the SO steel masses (relatively cold, in thermal equilibrium with the initial SO pressures), the SG pressure stabilized at [ ) .b.c seconds and decreased slowly In addition, some subcooled water in the SGs may have cc-'ributed to stabilizing 50 presture, shortly after the trip. After the RCP trip occurred at [ la.b.c seconds, the RCS natural circulation developed with a temporary increase in the hot leg temperature to approximately [ )*AF. At the same time, heat transfer decreased in the 50 secondary side steel because the steel became warmer. The combination of these phenomena was the reason for the SO pressure increase between [ la b.c seconds. After ( )*** seconds SO pressure was mainly govemed by SG secondary side heat losses, including the thermal inertia of the steel. He RCS temperature changed slowly, inducing the same ij slow temperature variation in the SGs water. De global behavior of SO pressure was correctly simulated, but the SG pressure was overestimated by [ )*A' psi after [ la.b.c seconds. Sensitivity studies presented in Section 5.5.2.2.2 show that heat losses in the SO secondary sides and the heet stored in the steel masses are key parameters. As stated earlier, the SPES 2 facility is a 1/395 volume scale of the AP600 reference design. Volume scaling results in a much larger surface area to volume ratio for the SPES-2 facility than the AP600 facility. This significantly increased the effects of phenomena associated with system heat losses and the heat energy stored in the system metal masses. SGTR Break Flow Measured test break flow and code-calculated break flow are shown in Figure 5.5.2-5. The SGTR bitak flow is a function of the difference between the primary and secondary side pressures, ne water temperature at the break location also had an effect, ne SPES 2 SGTR was simulated with a p.pc connected between the pump B suction line and the SC B secondary-side; this may have induced some minor bias. At time zero seconds when the SGTR break opened, calculated break flow was [ Ja.b.c lbm/sec. compared to [ Ja.b.c lbm/sec. for the actual break flow. His [ la.b.c percent underestimation ] disappeared rapidly probably because of cold water in the pipe that simulated the SGTR. Before reactor trip, the differences between the measured-test and code-calculated, primary-to-secondary side o9227 win.5 non itwom97 5 27 REVIStoN: I
I
)
l pressure drop are very small and the code-calculated tube rupture flow was close to the measured flow. He integrated calculated and measured flow (Figure 5.5.217) were in excellent agreement, and validated the break flow model used in the code-calculation. Between the trip ([ Ja.b.c seconds) and [ Ja.b.e seconds, break flow was underestimated or overestimated, depending on the prediction of the pressure difference between the RCS and SG B. After [ la.b.c seconds, the SG B pressure was overestimated (up to [ Ja.b.c psia). Since the RCS pressure was predicted well, the calculated SG B pressure was slightly higher than RCS calculated pressure, and led to SGTR back flow [ }a.b.c lbm/sec. His behavior was observed in the test later in the transient at [ }a.b.c seconds. The sensitivity study (Run 2) presented in Subsection 5.5.2.2.2 showed that a small modification of the SGs' heat losses was sufficient to better simulate the SGs' pressure, and consequently break flow. De integrated break flow (Figure 5.5.217) was predicted very well up to [ ja,b.c seconds. At the end of the simulation ([ ja.b.c seconds), the integrated, calculated break flow was [ la.b.c lbm, [ Ja.b.c percent lower tha'i the experimental value. In the design SGTR analyses for plant licensing purpor.es, control system functions would be assumed so that the primary side pressure would be maximized. Using the control system to maximize primary-pressure increases, the tube rupture break flow and the duration of the break flow, which would increase the severity of the transient. De CVCS and pressurizer heaters would be assumed operational in a heensing-basis calculation. Matrix Test 10 represents a less severe transient in that the primary-side depressurization rate was maximized. As a result of this, the primary-side pressure decreased to the point where boiling occurred. He LOFITR2 cede assumes homogenous fluid conditions in the primary side. Cases involving stratification of steam and liquid phenomena are outside the range of LOFITR2. Als is why the code calculation of Matrix Test 10 terminated at about [ Vesselliced and Pressurizer Levels In the calettation, vessel head boiling occurred at [ la.b.c seconds (Figure 5.5.213), [ la.b.c seconds later than for the test as a result of the modeling (see Subsection 5.3.1.5) and of the overestimation of the RCS pressure at this time. He calculated pressurizer level was in good agreement throughout the test (Figure 5.5.2 8) and no extemal-pressurizer heaters were used during this test. The accurate prediction of the pressurizer level evolution confirms the validity of the pressurizer heat loss simulation ([ la.b.c kW at [ Ja.b c.p), After [ Ja.b.c seconds, RCS pressure decreased slowly and the pressurizer level increased. Since the RCS water was close to saturation, the only physical way to explain this behavior is that l pressunzer heat losses caused steam to condense. he accurate pressurizer-level prediction proves that pressurizer heat losses were correctly simulated. O l
.um.um.sm i>090m 5 28 REVIsloN: 1
q b CMT Flow he Ch1T actuated [ Ja.b.c seconds after the start of the transient. During the test, the CMT oper.ted only in the water recirculation mode. As expected during non LOCA events, the CMTs did not drain; therefore, the ADS was not actuated during this event. De CMT flow rate is shown in Figure 5.5.212. In the SPES 2 facility, there are two CMTs. De total code-calculated CMT How rate is consistent with the total measured test CMT flow rate. De decreaw in the total CMT flow due to the wanning of the CMT during the transient, was also well predicted. At[ Ja.b# seconds, the experimental CMT flow started to decrease faster because the hot water reached the injection line. His trend was not predicted by LOFITR2 AP, due to numerical diffusion that slightly modified the watet thermal profile in the CMT. His is typical behavior for the SPES 2 CMT. Full experimental results (Reference 19) showed that the CMT flow never stopped and remained stable at [ Ja.b.c of the initial value because the CMT heat losses continuously cooled the CMT water. Overall, die LOMRAN AP CMT model combined with the heat losses simulation as described in Subsection 5.3.4.4 predicted the CMT flow well. Figure 5.5.212 shows the measured now from each of the two CMTs in the SPES 2 test facility. Dere were no significant differences in the flow rates of the CMTs. CMT Dow rate is a function of s cold leg Guid conditions (pressure and temperature) and pressure in the vessel downcomer where the ( injection line is connected. De slight variation in CMT flow rates was due to the difference of resistance in the injection and balance lines of each CMT, indicating that symmetrical conditions occurred at CMT connection points during SGTR events, ne LOFTTR2 AP code simulates only one CMT and assumes that performance of two CMTs are identical. In licensing basis calculations, variation between the two CMT layouts is handled by using the conservative configuration for defining CMT model input. The test confm' ns the assumption that a single CMT model can be used in the code with appropriate input conservatism for steam tube mptures or any transients where symmetrical conditions are expected at the CMT to-RCS connection points. PRIIR Flow and Temperatures Matrix Test 10 was perfonned with one tube in the PRIIR The PRilR lines' friction factors (Test C-09, Reference 18) have been updated using the final results of the cold pre-operational tests, since the preliminary calculations were made (Reference 2). Using these factors results in a decrease of the PRllR flow by approximately [ ]a.b.e percent. O iI V o u227wu227 5mn itw90397 5 29 Revision: 1
Comparisons between the test data and the code predicted PR11R Dow rate, inlet temperature, and outlet temperature are shown in Figures 5.5.2 9 to 5.5.211. The PRliR was initiated [ ja.be seconds after the start of the transici.t. 'Ihe RCPs continued to run until [ lab # seconds. Because the RCPs continued running, PRiiR actual flow developed rapidly and peaked at approximately [ ) .be Ibm /sec. and after the pumps were tripped, decreased to stable natural circulation How of [ )".b.c lbnVsec. PRilR flow in the test remained stable at about [ la.b.c lbm/sec. until around [ ]*h* seconds when steam began entering the PRIIR from the vessel. After the RCP tripped, the LOFITR2 AP calculation matched the test closely. LOFITR2 AP predicts the initial surge of now, but probably overestimates it by a factor of [ la.be, From detailed investigations, it appears that the LOFITR2 AP calculation is correct. SIET has confinned that the PRiiR flow meter (F A80E) was out of range for this test (Maximum span = [ Ja.b# lbrnhec.). The range of the meter was increased after the SGTR tests. For illustration, Test 501613 indicated a PRIIR Dow of [ Ja.b.c lbm/sec., when the RCS pumps were operating (see Reference 18 and Subsection 4.2.6). Test S01613 had three tubes in the PRiiR. One tube in the FRilR represents approximately [ Ja b.c percent of the fluid resistance in the PRilR loop. With one tube, the PRiiR Dow should be approximately [ ]a.b.c percent of [ ]a.b.c lbm/sec., which is close to the value calculated by LOFITR2 AP ([ Ja.bd Ibm /sec.).
'The calculated temperature drop across the PRiiR HX is in good agreement with the test data, indicating the heat transfer models selected are appropriate.
5.5.2.2.2 Sensitivity Studies
*Ihis subsection presents the results of the sensitivity studies performed, illustrating the influence of the parameters where uncertainty exists.
Run 2. SG Steady IIcat Loss Sensitivity Study Run 2 duplicates Run 1 with a modified or distribution partition of the SGs steady state heat losses. [ la.b# percent of the steady state heat losses are accounted for in the SG secondary side, while Run I uses [ la.b# percent. Key parameters of Run 2 are presented in Figures 5.5.218 through 5.5.2 29. The decrease by [ la be kW ([ Ja.bx percent of [ Ja,b.c kW) of the steady state heat losses in the SGs induced a faster decrease in SG pressure. For example, at [ la.b# seconds, the SG B pressure (Figure 5.5.2 20) was [ la b.c p3;, [ ja.b# psi lower than for Run 1. The main impact is that the ( l calculated SGTR break flow (Figure 5.5.2-21) is cioser to the e .perimental value. The SGTR back l flow observed after [ la.be seconds for Run 1 disappeared and the integrated calculated break flow l became higher than the experimental value at [ la.be seconds ([ }a.b.c lbm for the calculation, [ } .b# lbm for the test). t o umwm.s nm ibeo397 3 30 REVistoN: 1
O V ne increased SOUt break How induced a minor decrease in RCS pressure (Figure 5.5.218). Extensive boiling in the upper plenum and in the PRIIR began at 3000 seconds, both in the calculation and in the test, ne simulation was stopped at this time. De CMT and PRHR flows are not significantly affected by this sensitivity study. Run 3. SG Secondary Sidt 'ect Mass Sensitivity Study Run 3 duplicates Run 2 without the SGs' steel mass thennal inertia factor. Key parameters of Run 3 are presented in Figures 5.5.2 30 through 5.5.2-41, his calculation clearly shows that the steel masses on the sos' secondary sides have a significant impact on the sos' pressure evolutions (Figures 5.5.2 31 and 5.5.2 32). After reactor trip, the simulation with no SGs steel masses shows a pressure peak at [ Ja.b.c p3g, [ ja.b.c psi higher than the experimental value. After [ ]a.b.c seconds, when the sos pressure starts decreasing, the calculation shows a faster rate of decrease than the experimental result because the steel masses und to minimize the temperature (and therefore pressure) evolutions. Once again, the importance of the steel masses for SPES 2 is the result of the 1/395 volume-scale of the facility, c The SG steel masses are an important factor in the total heat capacity of the loop (approximately ( [ Ja.b.c percent for each SG). These relatively cold temperature steel masses contributed significantly to the cooling of the S0 water just after the trip. His factor explains why the RCS temperatures in Run 3 (Figures 5.5.2 34 through 5.5.2 36) increased by approximately [ la.b.c.F before [ l'.b.c seconds. As a result, the RCS fluid density decreases by approximately [ ]a b.c percent. Fluid expansion was equivalent to an RCS injection of [ ]a b.c lbm of water, and was the reason for break How increases between [ la.b.c seconds (Figure 5.5.2 33). RCS pressure responded in such a way that the total integrated bred. flow increased by approximately [ la.b.c lbm (Figure 5.5.2-41). Excess break flow was the reason for the later recovery of the pressurizer level in Run 3 (Figure 5.5.2 37). De CMT and PRHR flows are not significantly affected by this sensitivity study. Run 3 was stopped at 3000 seconds, when boiling in the upper plenum developed. Run 4. CMT Line Resistance Sensitivity Study Run 4 duplicates Run 2 with CMT line resistances at their minimum valus (line resistances of Run 2 minus [ ]a.b.c percent), based upon the experimental uncertainty resulting from the flow and pressure drop measurements during the cold pre-operational tests. Key parameters of Run 4 are presented in Figures 5.5.2-42 through 5.5.2-53, (v) o9227.u227 5. noir 15o90.197 5-31 R m 51oN: 1
As expected, the reduction of the CMT line resistances by [ ]a.b.c percent induced the increase of flow injected by the CMTs in the RCS by approximately eight percent (Figure 5.5.2-51). Excess CMT flow induced a faster cooling of the RCS, equivalent to an increase of RCS power extraction of approximately [ la.b.c LW. Consequently, RCS and SO pressures and temperatures decreased slightly faster. Overall, the impact on key parameters of the transient is small. The PRHR Dow is not significantly affected by this sensitivity study. Hun 5. PRilR Line Resistance Sensitltity Study Run 5 duplicates Run 2 with the PRIIR lines resistances decreased by [ Ja.b,e percent. As mentioned in Subsection 5.5.2.1, the sensitivity study is not based on PRIIR data uncertainty, but tests the innuence of an excess of power extraction. Increasing the PRiiR flow will have the same effect as decreasing the core power or increasing the total loop heat losses. Key parameters of Run 5 are presented in Figures 5.5.2-54 through 5.5.2-65. As expected, the PRilR flow was increased by approximately [ Ja.b.c percent, and led to the increase of the power extracted by the PRilR by approximately [ ]a.b.c LW and faster cooling of the facility. The integrated break Dow is not significantly affected (Figure 5.5.2-65) because of the excess cooling in the RCS (fiuid contraction) is compensated for by faster dmining of the vessel head (Figme 5.5.2-64), which is due to the faster decrease in RCS pressure (Figure 5.5.2-54). Runs 6 and 7 Time Step Sensitivity Study Runs 6 and 7 showed a very low sensitivity to the time step in the period before boiling occurred in the PRIIR. (No figures are provided for these runs.) Run 8 Noding Sensitivity Study Run 8 duplicates Run 2 with more fluid nodes in the RCS, There are about twice the number of Guid nodes in the RCS. 'lhe results show no significant diff:.mnces between Run 8 and Run 2 validating the noding. (No figures air provided.) e o.9227mO227 3 wn itMNO397 $.32 RrvisioN: I
Run 9. RCS Water to Steel Heat Trander Sensitivity Study Run 9 duplicates Run 2 with heat transfer cc.fficients between water and steel divided by two. Key parameters of Run 9 are presented in Figures 5.5.2-66 through 5.5.2 79. The intent of this calculation is to examine the reason for overestimation of RCS pressure and temperature between [ Ja.ti.e seconds. Decreasing the heat transfer coefficients will result in initialization with lower steel temperatures, and therefore cause a lower drop in the heat transfer after the trip. As expected, the heat transfer between the RCS water and the steel in Run 9 was higher after the trip (Figure 5.5.2 78). His transfer induced a faster cooldown of the RCS (Figures 5.5.2 70 and 5.5.2-71) and consequently decreased RCS pressure (Figure 5.5.2 66) and SG pressures (Figures 5.5.2-67 and 5.5.2 68). Since the RCS and the SG pressures are both affected by this sensitivity study in the same way, the SGTR break flow is not really modified (Figure 5.5.2-69). At the end of the simulation, the integrated break flow of Run 2 end Run 9 is identical (Figure 5.5.2 77), Overall, the transient is not very sensitive to the heat transfer between the RCS water arx! steel. The O. CMT and PRHR flou are also not significantly affected in this study. 5.5.2.3 Conclusions Concerning Test 10 The simulation of SPES 2 Matrix Test 10 shows that LOFITR2 AP correctly simulated the overall trend of the transient. Based on the results of the sensitivity studies performed, it is apparent that a key parameter is heat loss from the secondary side of the SG, Heat losses caused the faulted SG to depressurize, and therefore have a strong effect on the long-term break flow. De sensitivity study performed in Run 2 shows that a modification of only 0.9 kW or 5 percent of tue total-estimated heat loss induced a 40 percent variation in the integrated break flow. Run 1 (base case) shows SGTR back flow after 1600 seconds, while in Run 2 back flow occurred after 4000 seconds. Since the uncertainty on secondary-side heat loss is higher than I kW, it is difficult to make definitive conclusions on the SGTR break flow model during the long-term phase of the transient. Nevertheless, based on Test 10 simulation results, the SGTR break flow model behaved correctly according to the RCS and SG pressure calculations. This behavior proved that the LOFTTR2 AP model will conservatively calculate break flow in the SSAR calculations, when maximum pressure drop between the RCS and the faulted SG is assumed. aun7wont-sen n> 090397 5-33 REVislON: 1
i
)
'ihe CMT and PRilR flows and temperatures were well predicted during the transient. All e,ensitivity studies performed showed that they are not overly dependant on RCS parameters when single phase flow conditions exist. In regard to time steps and noding, the simulations proved to be independent of these factors. O O o u u? u nt 5.i m 150903'? 5-34 REVislON: 1
,l
"!:'ltlii ! e i i f ! r ? l!i 1 ei i ' ! !!
/
r P e te h dn a d m m e s . a de a NT a WH t r ea
- F t
B s e D e r c e s i a e s , t r s a e e n a i n L m l t a e M.u d F e t e e s - - - - - - - H t G s D s e S G B o S N
~ r e e n d 0
1 i n a ~ m a. i T S E H 1 Lh R Re
- F e
t s D u X P R B e I R _ T A 1 M JR = - 5. O 5F hsecn I a
=
=
=
=
m u m ES LE Ti s t
- i u
a
- i n - - - - -
Mes i BI M M A D CR TUT S Y e T I e V h) I T T c.e I =
=
s S N =q -
=[
=
4 - - - 2 2 - - de E i s u S n aS o M . m 2 S n C u R R l d f f s e e s o oed i n a s r e e - r e - - - - - er - r e bNu N I c n t e s m e a r N a p e ht t . r a e ht bi m s a e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t a N ic n d
.u n R : I t
e 2 i-f I e h4sdC $ [ f h $ ?$ mUoE - _
> , ' * ,t
TABLE 5.5.2 2 COMPARISON OF TEST AND LOITTR2.AP INITIAL CONDITIONS FOR M ATRIX TEST 10 LOFTTR2.AP Condition Test Simulation Rod Power . LW Pressurizer pressure, psia Average Hot Leg Temperature. 'F Cold Leg Flow Rate, Ibmhec. IYessunzer level, it. CMT level, ft. CMT Temperature. 'F Initial SG Water Level, ft. SG MFW Temperature. 'F SO lYessure, psia Ambient air Temperature, 'F - - O o.u227 92n-s non.itm*7 5-36 REVISION: I
t
-H
( " TABLE 5.5.2 3 SEQUENCE OF EVENTS FOR MATRIX TEST 10. INITIAL CASE tRun 1) r Thee (seconds) Sienulation with - Event SpecnGed Test LOFTTR2.AP* Break Opens 0 - N Pressurizer heaters turned off - Pressurizer Low Level PZR = [ j'b' m t Setpoint Reached MSLIV Closure PZR LL [ l'6# seconds , MFWIV Closure PZR LL [ } seconds CMT Initiation PZR LL [ }'*# seconds PRHR Actuation PZR LL [ }'63 seconds SCRAM simulated PZR LL [- ]"bd seconds RCPs Tripped PZR LL [ ]'bd seconds Break Flow Terminates Pressurizer Emptics _ _ d2118 Time of the events are not computed by LOFITR2-AP for this test. Experimental times of the events are used as input data. A
\
~ oM227wu227 Smn Ib 090J97 5 37 REvtsloN: 1
--w e='+ m- -- y go g , , -q-4--- e + e- m , . . _ - - , - y
Ab.c l O Figure 5.5.21 Test 501110 - Core l'ower Experimental Results B - -- LOITTR2 AI' Calculation . Run 1 ou227wo:27 5nonwx)n? 5 38 RtvisioN: I
o ii o; \ t- ' i
- l. .I d
l 7 M l =g a.b.c -- s 4 l f I a 5 t l
?
l-i a
- Figure 53.2 2 Test S01110 - Pressuriser Pressure
- Experlaneetal Resuha B- LOFITR2 AP Calculation - Rus.1
-V.
oumwum 5.non:1b oeom .- 5-39 , REVISION: 1-f a- .....r-r-.en,,w .s -- y- y - , 3w.,my - ,-,- w .~. ~ y +- , .,w.- -- , - . . - , s. , , ,
i n.b.c O Figure 5.5.2 3 Test S01110 - SG A Pressure Experimental Results B- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 1 o.umwum.saw nb 090397 5-40 REVISION: I
I J 4 O-n.b.c -
-i i
?
f x 4 1 i i .= 1: e f Figure 5.5.2 4 Test S01110 - SG-B Pressure
. (Experimental Results - '
d B ? LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 1 f 1 ' , cA3227w\3227 5.noa:1b-000397 ' 5-41 REVISION: 1 P 4
- w we w N't s .c+-e. ,a -,.s--ec- , - + . . - - ~r .-.- s e, -e r----,. s - , ~ e. , . - , , , ., w,+ -- - , . , e - ,., nv, ,
a.b.e O Figure 5.5.2 5 Test S01110 - Tube Rupture Break Flow Experimental Results B- LOFITR2.AP Calculation - Run 1 l 1 i
..u:27 4=ite397 5-42 REVISION: 1
a.b.e O 1
- Figure 53.2-6 Test S01110 Primary Side Hot Leg Temperature -
Experimental Results Loop A
^ B- . Experimental Results Loop B g()g C -- LOFITR2-AP Calculation Loop A - Run 1 D - LOFITR2 AP Calculation Loop B - Run 1 o:\1227w-6 min)90397 $.43 REVISION: I
a.b.c O Figure S.5.2 7 Test S01110 - Primary Side Inlet Temperature Experimental Results B- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 1 eM227 4non IMn2197 5 44 REVISION: 1
_ , _ , . . . _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . ._ _ . _ . = . - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _.. _.. _ ._ . _ _- - L h i
^
a.b.e - i s 9 1 f ,i i. I 2 s Figure 5.5.2-8 Test S01110 - Pressuriser Liquid Level
- Experimental Resuks .
h f
.;\.
- B ---- LOFITR2-AP Calculation - Run 1
- i. . .
ciumw4.non: ba2197 5 45-. REVISION: I
(b.c i O Figure 5.5.2 9 Test S01110 - PRHR Flow Experimental Results B -- LOFITR2-AP Calculation - Run 1 ~ au227-4 son.ib oa2i97 5 46 RalsioN: 1
. . -. . _ . - . . . . - . . - ~ . - . . . . - . . - - . , . . . _ - . , - . - . . . .- .. - . . . -
E i
.p~ _ __
e ( a.b.c
.1 l.
4 4 Figure 5.5.2-10 Test S01110 PRHR Inlet Temperature L Experimental Results B- LOFITR2-AP Calculation - Run 1 1'
. o.\3227w-6.non.lb-082197 - 3 47 REVISION; 1 J
O
a.b.c O Figure 5.5.2-11 Test S01110 - PRHR Outlet Temperature Experimental Results B -- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 1 oA3227w4.non:lbO82197 $.48 RD1SION: I
f 6 O- - a.b.c
~ Figure 5.5.2-12 Test S01110 - CMT Flow Experimental Results Loop A B - Experimental Results Loop B C - Experimental Results Loop A+ B O- D --- LOFITR2 AP Calculation Loop A + B - Run 1 oA3227w4aan:Ib-082197 5 49 - REVISION: 1 2
,v
6.b.c O Figure 5.5.2-13 Test S01110 - Upper Head Mass and Level Level in thr. Upper Head Based on DINerential Pressure - Experimental Results B- Mass lo fne Upper IIead LOFITR2-AP Calculation - Run 1 o M227w.amon i u s:197 5-50 REVISION: I
t r!ssmswoose ruonueve_v cuss 2 a.e - t 9
- \
q. Figure 5.5.2-14 Test SC1110 - CMTs Fluid Mass - LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 1 oM2rlw4non:lb-0:2197 - $.51 REVISION: 1
westmonoest PaoratstARY class 2 a.e G O Figure 5.5.215 Test S01110 - RCS Steel Heat Transfer LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 1 - Water to Steel Transfer B- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 1 - Steel to Air Transfer ru2nw-6 matumam 5-52 ***I
. . 4._-. . . . _ . _ . _ . _ _ . . . _ . __ _ _ _ _ - . . . _ _ _ .
i WasTtwomoost Peorm ETARY CLA9s 2 A a.c t
.(
Figure 5.5.216 Test S01110 - SGs Fluid to Steel Heat Transfer LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 1 - Loop B , B- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 1 - Loop A o.u227w4mwim197 : 5-53 REVISION: 1
a.b.c O Figure 5.5.217 Test S01110 - Integrated . Break Flow Experimental Results B- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 1 o.umw4non.ib.082197 5.$4 REVISION:- 1
-~- . . . . ., , . . . . . - . - . .. . . . .. - -.- . ...-.. . . - . .--. -
b a.b.c - I (
- Figure 5.5.218 Test S01110 - Pressuriser Pressure Experimental Results .
B - LOFITR2.AP Calculation - Run 1
- C- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 2
- oA3227w 6.aon;lW197 5 55 REVISION: - 1
-frwl
- w - v w W e m- w erw w-m'- w w,-w 7--e, &'e w e ww w-- 4 N"%h -
H *swu-
i l l a.b.e O Figure 5.5.2-19 Test S01110 - SG-A Pressure Experimental Results B- LOFITR2-A.P Calculation - Run 1 C -- LOFITR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 eu 27w.6.non.itet2197 5-56 REVISION: I
.. . . - . . - - - -.. . . . . - . - . - . .. .- .. . ~ . . . . . . . _..
i 2 l a.b.c i 1 J 4 'l Figure 5,5.2 20 Test S01110 SG-B Pressure Experbnental Results B- LOFITR2 AP Calculation - Run 1 . C- . LOFITR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 game 4 ! au2nw4.mmites 5 57 REVISION: 1
s.b.c O Figure 5.5.2 21 Test S01110 - Tube Rupture Break Flow Experimental Results B -- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation . Run 1 C- LOPITR2 AP Calculation . Run 2 o m27w4non:itros2197 5 58 REVISION: 1
s r N i Jp: s'.b.c l U , i' 1 4 Figare 5.5.2 22- Test S01110 - T.Ly Side Hot Leg A Temperature Experimental Results - < B -- - LOFITR2-AP Calculation - Run 1
~ C - LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 T
c:umw4aan:tba23" 5-59 REVISION: 1
a.b.c l O l I I i 1 Figure 5.5.2-23 Test S01110 Primary Side Ilot Leg B Temperature Experimental Results B -- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 1 C --- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 oA3227w4nonlW197 $.60 REVISION: I
4 O~ - e.b.e , 'i i O e i Figure 5.5.2 24 Test Soll10 - Primary Side Inlet Temperature Experimental Results B- LOFITR2-AP Calculation Run 1 O C- LOFITR2-AP Calculation Run 2 a
' oA3227w-6.non:tW197 5-61 REVISON: 1
. . . .1, . .. . . - - .: . .:_.... ~ . _ .
a.b.c O
!*ure 5.5.2 25 Test S01110 Pressurizer Liquid Level Experimental Results B -- LOFITR2 AI Cakulation - Run 1 C - LOFITR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 l
l oA3m. 6 -tim t97 5 62 REVISION: 1
.g a.b.c '
(
\
i. 4 4 d ( -< Figure 5.5.2-26 Test SG1110 - PRHR Flow - , y Experknental Results B - - LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 1 C ---- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 au227 4non:ib.ce2197 5 63 RmSION: I
._ . . . - . - --. _ . - . ~ . .
a.b.c O Figure 5.5.2 27 Tes' S01110 - CMT Flow Experimental Results B -- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 1 C- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 aunN4 non.im2197 5-61 REVISION: I
s., _ _. . _ , ..,_ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ . _ - ._.._ _.. - . . _ . . . . ~ . _ . . _ _ _ . . ..._ _ _ _ _ . __. ._ .- _ _ . - . . E a.b.c 1 N +2 w.e J w 7-i i i j'. t Figure 5.5.2 28 L- Test S01110 - Upper Head Mass LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 1 B - :- LOFITR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 s amen sinuum
-oA3n7=4maanm197 - 5 65 REVISION: I t*e r-,- e w , v.nw :--* - - + +< --w. ,-,e ,---..I. . ...r ..-..--w-. . - - - , . . 4 ...,,, ,,- .a,-,ee. ..r-- - . . , . . . . - .- . - ~ = > ~.%. -
'l i
a.b.c O Figure 5.5.2 29 Test S01110 Integrated Break Flow Experimental Results B- LOITTR2 AP Calculation - Run 1 C -- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - 11un 2 eM227,4 aca.iba2197 - 5-66 REVISION: 1
s , o O v s.b.e O t Figure 5.5.2 30 Test S01110. Pressuriser Pressure Experknental Results B - LOFTTR2.AP Cakulation Run 2 , O _dj.
'C - LOFTTR2.AP Cakulation Run 3.
OS227w 6mnlM42197 5-67 REVISK 4: 1
e.b.c g O Figure 5.5.2 31 Test S01110 SG A Pressure Experimental Results B- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation Run 2 C-- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 3 ou227.-6. .o. id-os2 :97 5-68 RD1SION: I
i t s.b.e , i
- i i
i t e E i i e P a f a t Phure 5.5.2 32 Test S01110. SG B Pressure , i Experimental Results B-- LOITTR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 C- LOF1TR2 AP Calculation Run 3 , auznw4anmit,as2in . 5-69 RmSION: I ; g - - - - - , d--n =e e.c +yw evy,-.-ennew m.gmm wt,ry s + 4se-wy, p.wun.,esg-.- ,amy.
~ l a.b.e O
Figure 5.5.2 33 Test S01110 Tube Rupture Break Flow Experimental Results B --- LOFTTR2.AP Calculation . Kun 2 C --- LOFITR2-AP Calculation Run 3 emn.4 non:iws2197 5-70 REVISION: I
. ~ _ . . . - . _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . . . . _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - _ . _ _ _ _ -
f r - - ; a.b.c , 8 l 1 c-t 2 r Figure 5.5.2 34 Test S01110 Prhnary Side Hot Les A Temperature Experknental Results B --- LOITTR2.AP Calculation Run 2 ( C-- LOFITR2 AP Calculation Run 3 ou227 4.iionib4m2197 5 71 - REVISIOP: 1 T t s --
,-+-r+ . - , ,, v.,vs-,-
a.b.c O Figure 5.5.2 35 Test S01110. Primary Side flot Leg B Temperature Experimental Results B- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation Run 2 C- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation . Run 3 o U227w4a non:1 M *2197 3 72 RI:VistoN: 1 i
I t a.b.c l i e f t O 9
- Figure 5.5.2 36 Test S01110 Primary Side Inlet Temperature Experimental Results p B- , LOFITR2 AP Calculation Run 2 d C --- LOFITR2 AP Calculation Run 3 oU2273-6anonIbM2197 : 5 73 REVISION: 1
i a.b.c O Figure 5.5 2 37 Test S01110 Pressurizer Liquid Level Experimental Results B- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation Run 2 C -- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation . Run 3 ou227.Aum iboa:197 5 74 REVISION: 1
i 1 1 r s a. I t i f
~[
t i
+
d 3 1 I Figure 5.5.2 38 Test S01110. PRHR Flow ,
. Experknental Resuhs
- /^ B- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 - :
\ .C- LOFTTR2.AP Calculation Run 3 -
i e e umw4.==ib.ce2ivt ' L3.75 REVISION: 1
. . . , . -_ __;__._._;:-_.__ _ --_... _ _._ __.._...__.- ~. .-_._.. ...--.:_.,__ _ ___ _ _ ._, . . _ . _ - . . . _ . _
a.b.c O Figure 5.5.2 39 Test S01110. CMT Flow Experimental Results - B- LOFTTR2.AP Calculation . Run 2 C- LOF'ITR2 AP Calculation . Run 3
.:umw4 mwit> oui 97 5-76 REVISION: 1
_ _ .__ . _ _.._. . _ _. . . ~ _ . . . . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ . . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ I N a.b.c ; t f 8 . i i 1 ., b t
,l h
i P t t k P i 1 t 3.
-1 Figure 5J.2 40 Test S01110. Upper Head Mass- ,
' LOFTTR2-AP Calculation . Run 2 B- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation . Ren 3 ;
SNWil
~~
i
- ou227=4 anon:lkos2tM 5 77' REVISKP4 1 - ,
*,p-.p- g is e y p, --.%~vy q +9%iyr y crv,.=r 4s: 4. g .g y T--pg..y.g,,;y.,,., y yg-,. --.-gme,.g-g.,y--g,,,w-,,,,m.y,-.m-wypy,m e q. ggy-v,,,.9.#w -m y-gv.g.,y-i,..nig,,9%91i-,-w-9'-y 9-,g-m py-y.m+--p-97,m---q.
a ke e l'igure 5.5.2 41 Test S01110 Integrated Break Flow Experimental Results B -- LOFITR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 C- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation Run 3 auzn. a == ibes2 n 5 78 REVISION: 1
f a.b.c r F t I t t l t
' Figure 5.5.2 42 Test S01110 .Nessuriser Pressure Experknental Resuhs ,
B -- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation . Run 2 ' ( C- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation Run 4
. o n227 4 mw l M s2 m 3 79 Ra'IsION: 1
a b.e O Figure 5.5.2-43 Test S01110. SG.A Pressure Experimental Results B -- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation . Run 2 C --- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation Run 4 au:27 4 tex =isoa2197 5 80 REVISION: I
}
t i g_ _ a b.c { r i i 5 I I I i 1 1 Figure 5.5.2 44 Test S01110. SG B Pressure : 1 Experknental Results O B-C -- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation . Run 2 LOFTTR2.AP Calculation - Run 4 i o\3227=-eamm:In. 5 81 REYlS106 1 ,
- - .-. eww...-r--,,- su... e v . .w-. e c e ,- . e v - p ,- . . > -- ,--- , . . , - - + ,--rr-.---- -,.--w w y f
a.k.c l l 4 O Figure 5.5 2-45 Test S01110 - Tube Rupture Break Flow Experimental Results B- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation . Run 2 C -- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation . Run 4 ov22Etamm thos2197 5 82 RcvistoN: 1
i i-t I O a.b.e t h l t k i Figure 5.5.2 46 Test S01110 Primary Side Hot Leg A Temperature Experimental Results B- LOFTTR2.AP Calculatica Run 2 O C- LOFTTR2.AP Calculation Run 4 oV227w4a non 1b-082197 5 83 REVISION: 1
. . . . _ . ___.2 __ -_.2 ._ _ _ . _ _ -.. . _ _ . . . . _ . , _ . , . . . _ - . , _ . _ . _ . , . - ,
a b.c e Figure 5.5.2-47 Test S01110 - Primary Side llot Leg Il Temperature Experimental Results B -.. LOITTR2.AP Calculation Run 2 C- 1,OFITR2 AP Calculation . Run 4 -. ~~ o U221 6 non IM*2191 5-84 REvlsl0N: I
- - . - ~ . . - . _ . . . _ - . . - . . - . . . . - . - . _ _ - . . . - _ . . . . _ - . . . - - . . . . _ . -
1 i
~ ~
ate ; f P i 4 Figure 5.5.2 48 ' Test S01110. Primary Side Inlet Temperature i Experimental Results , B- LOFITR2 AP Calculation Run 2 k C --. LOFITR2 AP Calculation . Run 4 - t M3227w& me.lM*2197 5 85 - REVISION: 1
a.b,e O Figure 5.5.2-49 Test 501110 Pressurizer Liquid Level Experimental Results B-- LOlWR2-AP Calculation Run 2 C -- LOITTR2 AP Calculation Run 4 aV227w4a non IM*2197 5-86 REVISION: I
4 i
.l
)
a.b.e , l
?
I i i e E i i F F
?
Figure 5.5.2 50 Test S01110 PRHR Flow Experimental Results Q B -- C-LOFITR2.AP Calculation . Run 2 U LOFITR2.AP Calculation . Run 4 oU227w4a non:lt@82197 - - $ 87 REVISM: I
a.b.c O Figure 5.5.2 51 Test S01110 - CMT Flow Experimental Results B- LOFITR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 C- LOFITR2 AP Calculation . Run 4 . c.V227w4a m a lt M 2197 5 88 REVISION: I
.- . - _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . . . _ . _ . . . . _ - . _ _ _ _ ._ _ - - . _ ..
Wsammoseoues Pnoramtray class 2 O kJ a.c t L I N , Figur$ 5.5.2 52 Test S01110 Upper Head Mass LOFITR2 AP Calculation Run 2 B- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation . Run 4
. eV227=-eanon ite197 '- 5-89 REVISION: 1
_._..._.:_..__,_..~ . _ . . _ _ . . . . . . . _ - . , _ - .
N aAc 1 O l l l l l l Figure 5.5.2 53 Test S01110. Integrated Break Flow Experimental Results l B- LOFITR2 AP Calculation Run 2 C -- LOFITR2.AP Calcuintion Run 4 l e0227 4anostIbot2197 5 90 REVISION: I
P O- - a.b.c l l i V F Figure 5.5.2 54 Test S01110 Pressuriser Pressure Experisnental Results B -- LOFITR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 s C --- LOPITR2 AP Calculation - Run 5 eM227w 6b.non ibm 2197 $.91 REVISION: 1
- - . - - _ . . . _ . . . .-.:_-.. .-- - - - . . . . . . . - . . . . - - -..--...--.-.a .. -. .-.. . - . . . - . . . . - , . ~ . . . - .,
s,b.c g O l Figure 5.5.2 55 Test S01110 SG.A Pressure Experimental Results B-C _- LOFITR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 5 W l i numwa == isos:l'7 5-92 REVISION: I
i i {\ ~ - a.b.c ! i i Figure 5.5.2 56 Test S01110. SG B Pressure
'Experknental Results T B- LOFITR2 AP Calculation Run 2 s C- LOFITR2-AP Calculation Run 5 oA3227-4b.natius2197 5-93 REVISION: 1
. _ _ . . . . . . . ._.. ._ _ _.__.._. . _ ... _. __ _ _ . . . _ , . . . _ . . _. ~ _ , . . . .
a.b.c O Figure 5.5.2 57 Test S01110 - Tube Rupture Break Flow Experimental Results B -- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 C -- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 5 - a au227 4>b mon Ibes2197 5-94 REVislON: 1
.. .-. , . . - - . . . ..-. -. . . . - . - .- ~ .. -. - . - . . . . . _
l ng a,b.c f s I ( l O Figure 5.5.2 58 Test S01110 - Primary Side Hot Leg A Temperature Experimental Results ( B ---- LOFITR2-AP Calculatbn - Run 2 i i C- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 5 oE '+ . . . *lt>Ot2197. , REVISM 1 . 3 93
,4 e v-y , . - - , ,
a.b c 9 Figure 5.5.2 59 Test S01110 - Primary Side Ilot Leg B Temperature Experimental Results B- LOFTI'R2.AP Calculation . Run 2 , C -- LOFTTR2.AP Calcu!ation - Run 5
-. ~
oM227we.non:lkO82197 5-96 REVISION: I
f . N - e.b,c 4
=s Figure 5.5.2-60 Test S01110 - Primary Side Inlet Temperature Experimental Results B- LOFITR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 C- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 5
- oNi'27w4b.mwItM197.- 5 97- REVISION: I
i I i l l a.b.c O Figure 5.5.2 61 Test S01110 - Pressurizer Liquid Level Experimental Results B- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation . Run 2 C- LOF1TR2-AP Calculation . Run 5 c:\3727w4b.mm:lt442197 $.98 REVISION: 1
T i
. ',r 3 AN ' .1 F
J T g 4
- y 4
. Figure 5.5.2-62 Test S01110 - PRHR Flow Experimental Results -
.B-- ' LOFTTR2.AF Calculation . Run 2 C -- .- LOFITR2-AP Calculation Run 5
- o.V227w-6b.non:tW197 $.99- REVISION: 1
- - ~. , , , - -- -. - , . -. . - , . . . , = - , . .. , - . .
a,b,c e Figure 5.5.2 63 Test S01110 - CMT Flow Experimental Results B- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 C -- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 5 au227wa non.1b 082197 5 100 REVISION: I
- Ih ..
5 0 sb.c - L k O j 4 Figure 5.5.2-64 Test S01110 - Upper Head Mass
' LOFITR2-AP Calculation - Run 2-LOFITR2 AP Calculation Run 5 O B aumwamm:lbM197 5-101 REVISION: I , , , . - _ . _ _ . _.-,m -,m_ e..mr.r, _ yy-.,, . ,+ ._ _ , - -
i a,b,c O Figure 5.5.2 65 Test S01110 - Integrated Break Flow Experimental Results B- LOFITR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 C- LOFITR2-AP Calculation - Run 5 au227.analb-oa2197 5-102 REVISION: I
.- . . . = .
. . . . - - . . . - .. . . . - - .- .- ._.. -. .. . ~
f-Qf_ a.b,e : , t' W f 1
' Figure 5.5.2 Test S01110 - Presariser Pressure Experinnental Results ._, B-- LOFITR2-AP Calculation - Run 2
- ( . C -- LOFITR2 AP Calculation - Run 9 iumwab noiciiros2197 5-103 PEVISION: 1
a,b.c O Figure 5.5.2-67 Test S01110 - SG A Pressure Experimental Results B -- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 C- LOFTIR2-AP Calculation - Ron 9 om27. amen.tum:in 5-104 REVISION: I
e..-. . . . . . . . . _ _ . _ . _ . _ -. - _ . . . _ . . _ . _ . . _ . . . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . . . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ . . . . _ . _ _ . _ _ . . b
)
s i
\ + a b.c -
s 4 r .t, . t -. 1 a L P 4
- Figure 5.5.2-68. Test S01110 - SG B Pressure --
' Experinnental Results
- B-= - LOFITR2-AP Calculation Run 2 C- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation Run 9
,P d au227 4.n= Sos 2197 ~- 5-105 - REVISION: 1 _ ..--__..u.__ __,:.._... - _- , _ . _ -. _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ ,
a.b.c i O Figure 5.5.2 69 Test S01110 - Tube Rupture Break Flow Experknental Results B- ~ LOFITR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 C- LOFITR2 AP Calculation - Run 9 oM227w 6b.swaIM)s2197 ~ 5-106 REVISION: 1
lI n?J. n,b2 N Figure 5.5.2-70 Test S01110 - Prhaary Side Hot Leg A Temperature Experimental Resuhs
'~Q
(,/ B--
-C -
LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 2
.LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 9 o V227w 4bantiM *2197 5-107 REVISION: 1
a b.c 0 Figure 5.5.2 71 Test S01110 Primary Side Hot Leg B Temperature Experimental Results B- LOF'ITR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 C -- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation Run 9 eM227 4b.nna.lb-os2197 5-108 REVISION: I
~ -
1 s,b c l l O i 4 4 Figure 5.5.2-72L Test S01110 - Primary Side Inlet Temperature Experimental Results
-, B -- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 2
-..\ C- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 9 one-imin 5-109 REVISION: 1
___=____--_ __ _______. .- -
s.b.c 9 O Figure 5.5.2 73 Test S01110 - Pressurizer Liquid Level Experimental Results B -- LOFITR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 C- LOFITR2 AP Calculation - Run 9 oM227 4bacasos2191 5110 REVISION: I
a1: a,b,c 1 L , 1 a i 4 4 i i Figure 5.5.2 74 Test 501110 '. PRHR Flow Experimental Results ( ' B ---- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 C- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation Run 9 1 ! eM227we ==:tbas2197 . -5 111 ' REVISION: 1 L. t
1 1 a,b.c O Figure 5.5.2-75 Test S01110 - CMT Flow Experimental Results B- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 C- LOF'ITR2 AP Calculation - Run 9 osmweb.natib48:197 5-112 REVISION: 1
. . . . + . . . . . - . . _ - . - - . . . _ _ . . - . . - . _ . - . . . - , . - ~ - - . _ . . . - . . . - - . . . . . _ - . +
I
. { a,b,c
.i
+
4 s 4 t= P S d e 4 t 1 ( Figure 5.5.2-76 Test S01110 - Upper Head Mass t LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 .. B --- : LOFTTR2 AP Calculation Run 9
~
l (' ' ' '
~
, s P o u227*46 i==Imt97 -- 5-113 REVISION: I-I~
r
, . . . . . ,,.E.. _ . . . , ,
a,b.c 9 Figure 5.5.2 77 Test S01110 Integrated Break Flow Experimental Results B- LOFITR2 AP Calculation . Run 2 C -. LOFTTR2-AP Calculation . Run 9 o u227wamen:Ib-082197 5-114 REVISION: I
Warrpecuousz PaoramTAmy Class 2 y- - - 4,C - r O V Figure 5.5.2 78 Test S01110 RCS Water to Steel Heat Transfer l LOFTTR2-AP Calculation Run 2 f -B- LOFTfR2-AP Calculation - Run 9 (.
, aumwe.non:ium2197 5-115 - REVISION: 1-
Crsnmaeousz Paoruttaav Ct. Ass 2 a.c g O Figure 5.5.2 79 Test S01110 - RCS Steel to Air Heat Transfer LOFTTR2 AP Calcu!= tion - Run 2 B- LOF1TR2-AP Calculation . Run 9 o u227w-6bnos;ib-082197 5-116 REVISION: 1
/%
5.5.3 Matrix Test 9 Matrix Test 9 (Test S01309) is a single tube rupture test with the plant at full power. Nonsafety systems (CVCS, SG valves, and PORVs) were activated during this test. LOFITR2 AP was used to analyze this test. A comparison of the significant sequence-of-events in the simulation and the actual test results is shown in Table 5.53-3. Since the PORV and ADS valves 1 and 3 were opened and closed frequently (Table 5.53-2), it was not possible to simulate the exact sequence of operator actions (LOFITR2-AP can simulate up to 50 operator actions). Sequencing was grouped according to the total opening time and the integrated mass discharge by the valves. Table 5.53-4 gives the exact opening and closing sequence used for the PORV and the ADS valves in the simulation. 5.5.3.1 Description of the Runs De runs performed for Test 9 are as follows: Run 1 Base Case o ne assumptions used for the base case of Test 9 are identical to Test 10, Run 1, and are provided in Subsection $3. Run 2 SG Secondary Side Heat Losses Staning from Run 1, the SG heat losses are decreased by [ ]a.b,c between the trip and [ la.b.c. After [ ]a.b.c the heat losses of the broken SG are tuned to match the actual SG pressure evolution. This case is like a simulation where the SG secondary-side pressure of the faulted SG is a known boundary condition. Run 3 Initial Pressurizer Level The preliminary calculations presented in Reference 12 show that initial pressurizer level has a significant impact on the pressurizer pressure evolution after the trip. This sensitivity study was performed to confirm this point for final calculations. 5.53.2 Results Analysis 5.53.2.1 Base Case (Run 1) A comparison of the code-calculated results and the actual-test results is shown in Figures 5.53-1 -( through 5.53-23. As stated previously, this test is simulated according to the actual times of the om27= 6cantb os2197 5-117 REVISION:- !
events. Minor variations in Table 5.5.3 3 are due to the instantaneous valve closures and openings with LOFTTR2-AP simulations (e.g., main steam line isolation valve closura). RCS Parameter Evolution The initial phase of the transient, up to the time when the operator actions were carried out, is similar to Test 10 and is not described in detail for Test 9. In the test, the trip occurred at [ ]*AC when the low pressurizer level setpoint ([ ]a.b.c) was reached, [ ]a.b.csooner than for Test 10. Several parameters contributed to the earlier trip in Test 9 such as, higher power in the pressurizer heaters, which maintained a higher pressurizer pressure and break flow, and a higher setpoint for the low pressurizer level ([ ]*AC compared to [ ]*AC). However, the CVCS flow at [ ]*** contributed to the reactor trip delay. The pressurizer-pressure calculation (Figure 5.5.3-2)is closer to the experimental evolution. When the pressurizer emptied (around [ ]a.b.c), the rate of depressurization was similar in the LOIT1R2-AP simulation and the test (approximately [ Ja.b.c), .Ihe opening of one ADS 1 valve for ten seconds at [ ]aAe nduced a pressure drop close to [ la.b.c in both the test and in the simulation. At [ ]a.b.c, RCS pressure was overestimated by [ ]*AC. After [ ]*AC, the calculation was closer to the test result. Calculations presented in the preliminary report indicated that pressurizer-pressure evolution after the trip, was sensitive to the initial pressurizer level. Run 3, presented in Srhection 5.5.3.2.2 of this report, confirms this point. The pressurizer behavior during the repeated opening of one ADS 3 valve between [ ]*AC and [ la,b.c (Figure 5.5.3-2) was not predicted very well by the code. In the calculation, repeated opening of the valves induced a larger, pressurizer pressure drop. In the test, the pressurizer pressure increased after each ADS-3 opening. Poor, pressurizer-pressure calculation during this period was probably due to an underestimate of the pressurizer level (Figure 5.5.3-8), which induced less water flashing. Also, the external pressurizer heaters of the pressurizer and the pressurizer wall are not precisely simulated by LOFITR2-AP (see Subsection 5.3.4.2). Between [ Ja.b.c and [ la.b.c, the code becomes imstable due to boiling in the upper plenum. However, this configuration will not be encountered during the SSAR calculation. SG Pressure Evolution The SG pressure evolution (Figures 5.5.3-3 and 5.5.3-4) was in relatively good agreement with the test results. The maximum difference during the simulated transient was in the range of +/- [ la b.c, and around [ ]*AC most of the time. Compared to Test 10 (no operator action and no startup feedwater), the average rate of depressurization is increased ([ ]*AS compared to [
]*AC) due to the startup feedwater flow (Figures 5.5.3-18 and 5.5.3-19) that reduced the rate of steaming in the SGs during depressurization.
ou:27 4c rmitwoa:197 5-118 REVISION: I
(3 t i V During the PORV opening phases of SG-A, pressure evolution was qualitatively well predicted. At [ Ja.b.c, the first opening of the PORY (for 10.5 seconds) induced in the LOFTTR2-AP simulation and in the test, a pressure drop of [ ]a.b.c. Between [ ]a.b,c, SG-A pressure dropped by approximately [ ]a.b.c in the calculation and in the test. Total water mass discharged by the PORV during this period was in good agreement with the test results (Figure 5.5.3 21). Both SG A and SG-B pressure were underestimated during the transient. His behavior was probably a result of the secondary-side modeling, which uses only one water node at average temperature. In the test, the water was colder in the SG downcomer than in the riser because the startup feed water was cold. The modeling minimized potential flashing of the hotter water in the SGs when the pressure decreased, and led to a conservative calculation of the SGTR break flow. SGTR Break Flow he break flow evolution (Figure 5.5.3-5) was consistent with the pressure difference evolution between the RCS and the faulted SG. At [ ]a.b.c (end-of-simulation), integrated break flow (Figure 5.5.3-17) was overestimated by about [ ]a.b.c, o Vessel IIcad and Pressurizer Level l I Q/ In the calculation, vessel head boiling occurred at [ la.b.c seconds (Figure 5.5.313), [ Ja.b,e later than in the test. This effect is related to the modeling (see Subsection 5.3.1.5) and an overestimate of the RCS pressure at this time. The calculated-pressurizer level was in good agreement before the trip (Figure 5.5.3-8). Because the SGTR break flow was overestimated, pressurizer-level recovery happened later in the calculation and the pressurizer level emptied again after [ ]a.b.c CMT Flow The CMT injection flow (Figure 5.5.3-12) was close to experimental flow. At the end of the simulation, the calculated mass lost by each CMT added to the RCS, was approximately [ ]a.b.c (Figure 5.5.314). PRHR Flow and Temperature The PRHR flow and temperature (Figures 5.5.3-9 through 5.5.3-11) are well predicted by the code. Once again, the PRHR flow measured by the flow meter (F_A80E) is not correct, when the RCS pumps are operating. The experimental value should be closer to [ ]a,b.c, as explained in (d' Subsection 5.5.2.2.1. o umw4c natitem 5-119 REVISION: I
P 5.5.3.2.2 Sensitivity Study Two sensitivity studies were performed to simulate the influence of the SGs secondary side heat losses and the initial pressurizer level. Run 2 Steam Generator IIcat Losses Run 2 duplicates Run I with SG heat losses decreased by [ ]**
- up to [ ] .b.c and by about [ )*** after this time. Rese values were selected because they result in a better match with the test SG-B pressure evolution. A comparison of the results of Runs 1 and 2 is pirsented in Figures 5.53-24 through 5.5.3-35.
De main impact of this sensitivity study was that the faulted SG pressure decreased slowly (Figure 5.53-26) and was closer to the experimental value. This induced a better prediction of break flow (Figure 5.53-27) after the repeated opening of the ADS 3 valve. At [ ]** 8, overestimation of the integrated SGTR break flow is reduced by [ ]a.b.c (pigure 5.5.3 35). For the same reason, draining the vessel head was slower (Figure 5.53-34). The CMT and the PRiiR flows were not significantly affected by this sensitivity study. Run 3 Initial Pressurizer Level Sensitivity Study Run 3 duplicates Run 2 with the initial pressurizer level decreased by [ ]a b.c so that the calculated-pressurizer level matched the actual-test pressurizer level at the time when the trip was simulated. The comparison of results for Runs 2 and 3 is presented in Figures 5.53-36 through 5.5 3-47. Figure 5.53-36 shows that pressurizer-pressure evolution is improved after the trip but remains higher than the actual results (between [ ]** *). Since SG pressure was underestimated during this period (Figures 5.53 37 and 5.53-38), break flow was still overestimated (Figures 5.53-39 and 5.53-47). Overall, the transient was sensitive to the initial pressurizer level, but was less than initially thought during preliminary calculations (Reference 2). He CMT and PRHR flows were not significantly affected by this sensitivity study. 5.533 Conclusion Concerning Test 9 Re comments made in the conclusion conceming Test 10 (Subsection 5.5.23) apply for Test 9. The three simulations presented have a general tendency to overestimate RCS pressure after the trip and before the ADS opening (at [ ]** *). His tendency causes overestimation of the oM227 4cnon;ib os2197 5-120 REVISION: I
. .. . . . - ~ - . . . - . . . - -~ . . . . . - - - - - - - . . - . . . . . . . ~ .. . - - - . .. . - . . . - . - -
i integrated break flow by about [ _ Ja.b.c. This behavior was probably due to the modeling of
' the extemal pressurizer laters.
The sirrulation of the passive safety systems and the nonsafety systems, such as CVCS and SO valves, was accurately performed by LOFITR2-AP. a 1 4 J A I f i J C t l 4 own* A.mmite197 - 5-121 REVISION: 1 i
TABLE 5.5.31 COMPARISON OF TEST AND LOITFR2-AP INITIAL CONDITIONS FOR MATRIX TEST 9 LOFTTR2 AP Con:lition Test Simulation Rod Power , kW - n.b.c Pressurizer pressure, psia Averege Hot Leg Temperature, 'F Reactor Vessel (Core) Inlet Temperature, 'F Cold Leg Flow Rate, Ibm /sec. DC-UH Bypass Flow Rate, Ibm /sec. l Pressurizer level, ft. CMT Level, ft CMT Temperature, 'F l Initial SG Water Level, ft. SG MFW Temperature 'F SG Pressure, psia Ambient Air Temperature,'F _ O ou 27wa nea.it-os2197 5 122 REVISION: 1
O V TABLE 5.5.3 2 MANUAL SG PORY AND ADS VALVI, ACT)ATION SEQUENCE t Steaan Generator.A PORY Opened Closed At (sec.) At (sec.) (sec.) (sec.) Opened Closed o.c M4 I
- .-. l VO o u:27w-6calba2ie7 5 123 REVISION: I
TA11LE 5.5.3 2 (Cont.) O MANUAL SG l'ORY AND ADS VALVE ACTUATION SEQUENCE ADS 1 Valie Opened Closed At (sec.) At (sec.) (sec.) (sec.) Opened Closed
- a.b.c O
t I l
~
O o u:n.* == tb48:197 5124 REVISION: 1
O ' TABLE 5.8.3 2(Comt.) t MANUAL SG PORY AND ADS VALVE ACTUATION SEQUENCE ADS 3 Valve Opened Closed At (sec.) At (sec.) (sec.) (sec.) Opened Closed ?
- ~
a.b.c O O on:27. 6c.non IM*:197 3 125 REVISION: 1
?
- , - . . . , , . - . - - - . . , , . ,.,e _.n..
,, ,,., - - , . , , .,,,.n-
! TABLE 5.5.3 3
! SEQUENCE OF EVENTS FOR MATRIX TEST 9 Time (seconds)
Simulation with Esent Specified Test LOITTR2 AP' Intcak Opens 0 CVCS on 12R L = 3.1 m Pressurtrer heaters turned off Pressurtier Low Level PZR = 0.676 m Sctroint Reached MSLIV Closure 12R LL +[ ] *** M l W lV Closure PZR LL + [ ] **' CMT Initiation PZR LL + [ l'A' PkHR Actuation 12R LL + [ ] **' SCRAM simulated 12R LL + [ ] **' SIW Actuation I2R LL = [ ] *** RCPs Tnpped 12R LL + [ ] **' 13reak flow Terminates Pressurizer Empties N.21tt Time of events are not cornputed by LOITTR2 AP for this test. Experimental times of the event.t are used as input data. O o U 246c ann ite197 5126 REYlSION: I
TAR;,6 5.5.3 4 OPERATOR AC110NS FOR MATRIX TEST 9 Operator Action thee (Test Time Sec) Operator Action
- - .o.'
CVC5 5 tart PLR Heaters turned of PORV SG A Open , ADS Opened PORV SG A close AD5 Closed ADS Opened AD5 Closed ADS Opened ADS Closed ADS Opened ADS Closed ADS Opened ADS Closed ADS Opened ADS Closed ADS Opened CVC5 turned off ADS Closed O ADS Opened ADS Closed POKV SG A Opened PORY SG A closed PORV SG-A Opened PORV SG A closed PORV SG A Opened PORY 50-A closed PORV SG A Opened PORV SG A closed PORV SG A Opened PORV SG-A closed PORY SG-A Opened POkV SG A closed PORV SG A Opened PORV SG A closed PORV SG A Opened PORY SG A closed PORV SG A Opened O o u227w 6c noerite197 5127 REVISION: 1
a.b.c O Figure S.S.31 Test S01309 Core Power Experimental Results B-- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation Run 1 o u m . 6drian:itma21'1 5-128 REVISION: 1
i I t o.e I t I I I e I r t b E t
?
s i
. Heure 5.5.3 2 Test S01309 Pressuriser Pressure Experknental Results
- B- . LOFITR2.AP Calculation Run 1 ou227 anan:ises2197 5129- REVISION: 1
** - d 4,y.gw-.--y e -w y w. y = e-p r -ge, =yi-y+. w y apy,-y.--spep%Te@ pe+ w g J+ meg *es--+- 99 pdy-= met--me.aw
- a.b.c O
Figure 5.5.3 3 Test S01309 - SG A Pressure Experimental Results O B- LOFITR2 AP Calculation . Run 1 ov227 44ue:ibos2197 5-130 REVISION: I
. - . . ~ . . . - . . .. - . . . . . . . _ . - - - . . - - _ . _ - . . . - . - _ - - . . . - . - . - . . . . -
f i, d i'
' a.b.
I, i 1 - T I 5 ) Figure 53.34 Test S01309 SG.B Pressure , s Experimental Results , B- LOFITR2 AP Calculation Run 1 eu227 44non:tum2197 5-131 REVISION: 1
(b.c O Figure 5.5.3-5 Test Tube Rupture Break Flow Experimental Results B- LOFITR2 AP Calculation Run 1 aum.44 non.:ba2197 5 132 REVISION: 1
T
~ .
Lb,c
- O Figure 5.5.34 Test S01309 Primary Side Hot Leg Temperature .
Experimental Results Loop A ,
-[
C-Experimental Results Loop B LOFTTR2 AP Calculation Loop A - Run 1 [ D- LOFITR2 AP Calculation Loop B Run 15 k I U- 4 e
a.b.c O i Figure 5.5.3 7 Test S01309 Primary Side inlet Temperature i Experirnental Results B- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation Run 1 o u m = u = 1 M a2197 5-134 REvistoN: 1
e e
?
)
i
?
I aAc i i t k t i i i v i,
.. ?
i 1 i i r i 1 a J .I J i t 0 P P t h i k i , ' Figure 5.5.3 8 Test S01309. Pressuriser IJquid Level L ' t-. _ Experknental Results B --' - LOfTTR2.AP Calculation Run 1 1 : -- l :-: 1 L-- ton m .44 =:i m ist '5-135 REYl$10N: I
- r o
i-
..I, . ..._.._..,.....~...;_.._...,,- .-,--,.-;.-. J...._.m..,,.. .;,._m.=_,,,._., -_,, _ _ ,,. .,_-...,__.._,_..#..-...-..,.
Lb,c O Figure 5.5.3-9 Test S01309 PRHR Flow B-Experimental Results LOFITR2 AP Calculation Run 1 9 09:27 44 men imi'7 5.I36 REVISION: 1
g .. _ . . _ _ _ ._ . _ _ . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . r t 1 1 a.b.c - i. 0 t, ; i I - W i, 6
?
i b k
?
n
-i b
h i . i s - i i i. k i i r i e 1 b i:
-g Fleure 53.310 Test Sel309. PRHR Inlet Tensperature 7
=\ - .
i' Experimwatal Resuks B .. LOFTTR2 AP Calculation Run 1
-. eM22?w4dm:Imi'7. - - 5 137.. REvisKm: 1.
f .: 4 ', r,w --+,w. -reve,-+4---* . 4 w , n -a- ,w ,- .-.,4...-.+v-.,..-4.-. -..r--,...~,-----+,,.- .emr--+-.,-- . , . - . .-<r.-m...- . - - . -..,e,.w,. - . - ,
a.b.c O I'igure 5.5.311 Test S01309. PRIIR Outlet Tennperature Experimental Results B-- LOFITR2 AP Calculation Run 1 o un7. 6d am isoul#7 5-138 REVISION: 1
O- nA.c , O E Figure 5.5.312 Test S01309 - CMT Flow Experimental Results Loop A O B-C--- Experimental Results Loop B Experimental Results Loop A + B D-- LOFTTR2.AP Calculation Loop A + B oW7w 4d am lbell2197 $.]39 REvtsloN: 1
a.b.c 9 Figure 5.5.313 Test S01309 - Upper IIcad Mass and Level Level in the Upper IIead Based on Differential Pressure - Experimental Results B -- Mass in the Upper IIcad - LOFTTR2-AP Calculation Run 1 o u227. 6d nenate197 5 140 REVis10N: 1
r Wasyssonouns PeormatAav CLAas 2 ! i n.c . 4 .j
-t h
F t e t F 1 t
+
E 4 4
- Figure 53514 Test S01309 - CMTs Fluid Mass -
- LOFITR2-AP Calculation . Run l' F
*W7*4d aaaM*2tM 5 141. REYlSION: I
.z-----v-,. ...cr...- - - ,Ew w w U, a- .-e ,,-, - . , - . ~ , . - +o-,--e--.m.w-[,,-..-n.i-. ev...c,%--,,,,ww-.-,.wn,-e..-,w--, t,+ , - - ,,,u-.,--. .w *- we v4.- y ,-m.-e-.% ,v,..- ----,v, ,-e
l Ws.rr NGHOUbE PROPRIETARY CIA 55 2
- I I
a.c O Figure 5.5.315 Test S01309. ECS Steel IIcat Transfer LOFTTR2.AP Calculation - Run 1. Water to Steel Transfer O D -. LOF'ITR2.AP Calculation . Run 1 Steel to Air Transfer eM227 6dnon-tws2197 5 142 REVI$lON: 1
I wasnwomotas runsavrav ca.4m 2 t OW ' u : I P i
)
i Figure 5.5.316 Test S01309 a SGs 11mid to Steel Heat Transfer O
-V LOFTTR2 AP Calculation Run 1 Loop B >
B- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation Run 1 Loop A - oM221. 6d ma tus2ig7 5 143' REVISION: 1
. . _ _ . . _ - , . . _ , . , . _ _ ._ .__ - . _ . , _ _ _ . . _. ., a _
a,b.c O Figure 5.5.317 Test S01309 - Integrated Break Flow Experimental Results O B -- LOETTR2 AP Calculation Run 1 W ov22h&inon tws2m 5-144 Revision: I
1 1 i* s.b.c i Y r i
\
Figure 5.5.318 Test S01309 - Starting Feed W <r Nw - Loop A . <\ g) Expertmental Results
-B- ' LOFTTR2 AP Calculation Run 1 ou227*-6damitas2197 5 145 . REVISION: 1
a.b.c O I l l l l Figure 5.5.319 Test 501309. Starting Feed Water Flow . Loop B Experimental Results B -- LOFITR2.AP Calculation . Run 1 l o.9227 6drealba2197 5-146 REV'.SION: 1
.- _..- - . --- -. . .- -... - - . ~..-. .-._. - - - - - _ - . - . . . - . . - - . - . . - .
I t i wasmonouns Pn:WRETA!Y C1.488 2 . a.c j a
?
I i a L e t I k a
?
i L w i P f i Figure 5.5.3 20 Test S01309 PORY Flow '- LOFITR2 AP Calculation Run 1 1-g . r. u L ' . 9 m . a m t wis2 97 5-147 REVISION: 1 . l . [l _
+
I a.d.c gl l 9 l l Figure 5.5.3 21 Test S01309. Integrated PORY Flow l Experimental Results , 1 B- LOFITR2.AP Calculation - Run 1 (Note: Calculated value translated by 107 lbm to match the offset of the actual data.) OU227w4e mostlM82197 5 148 REVISION: 1
1 i wsw-= Pawamunv cuas 2 ' 1 0 u-
?
I i I I-r t h t t 1 l I
.t b
M 3 4 - . V Figure 5.5.3 22 Test S01309 ADS Flow - ~ t LOFITR2 AP Calculation . Run 1 ( , I P F eu227 -fe mn.ites2197 5-149 REVISION: I {
._._.___c._.._.._..._--_._-..,_ _ . , _ . .. _ - . . _ .. . , . , _ _ . . . _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _
wurtw; ness Paormirmy cuss 2 l a.c < l l l i l 1 l l O 1 Figure 5.5.3 23 Test S01309. Integrated ADS Flow . LOl'ITR2.AP Calculation Run 1 o u2n.-re.ruwitg*2:'1 REVISION: 1 5 150 I _
k a.b.c 6 4 J Figure 5.5.3 24 Test Som . Prmuser Prmure Experknental Results B. . LOFITR2.AP Calculation .'Run 1 , s C- LOFITR2.AP Calculation Run 2
.um -6emonab.oa2197 5 151- REVISION: ' 1
a b.c O Figure 5.53-25 Test SG-A Pressure Experimental Results B- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation Run 1 C -- LOFTrR2-AP Calculation Run 2 oM227w4e.malb 082197 5-152 REVIMON: 1
{l (~' n.ss s O Figure 5.5.3-26 Test S01309 SG-B Pressure Experknental Results b); Experknental Results Loop B
\' B- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 1 C- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation . Run 2 os u27. e = a16 os2197- 5-153 R9ASION: 1-
a,b,c O Figure 5.53-27 Test S01309 - Tube Rupture Break Flow Experimental Results B --- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 1 C -- LOFITR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 osm.emnius2197 5-154 REVIslON: 1
\l O. a.b.c i 4 O Figure 5.5.3 28 Test S01309 - Primary Side Hot Leg A Temperature
. Experimental Results B- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 1 C- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 aumw 6e.non:ius2in 5 155 REVISION: 1-
a.b.c e Figure 5.53 29 Test S01309 - Primary Side Hot Leg B Temperature Experimental Results B- LOFITR2 AP Calculation - Run 1 C- LOFITR2.AP Calculation - Run 2 ou227.+.non:itma2 97 5 156 REVISION: I
~ - - - . - . . . . - - . . . . . . . . ._ _ _ - . . . . - . - - . . . . . - - . . - - .
- h- .
b a.b.c i 4 e Figure 5.5.3 30 Test S01309 Primary Side Inlet Temperature , Experimental Results B- . LOITTR2 AP Calculation Run 1 ,
~ C L-- LOPITR2 AP Calculation - Run 2
. au:27 -ee.non:tb-082197 : 5-157 REVISION: 1-
a.b.c O Figure 5.53 31 Test S01309 - Pressurizer Liquid Level Experimental Results D --- LOFITR2-AP Calculation - Run 1 C - LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 e n 227.
- m w i u s2 97 5-158 REVISION: 1
\
G. a.b.c 4 J Figure 5.5.3 32 Test S01309 - PRHR Flow Experknental Results B -- - LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 1
- C -- - LOFITR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 D -- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation Loop A + B
!- u22heemar1&oa2197 5-159 REVISION: I
a.b.c O Figure 5.5.3-33 Test S01309 - CMT Flow Experimental Results B- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 1 C --- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation Run 2 oW27** ma.tws:197 5 160 REVISION: } l
.- . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . _ ~ . . - . - - . . - . . . . . - . . . .
. . - . . ~ . . - .. .
~
= WasTomnous PaoPRETARY class 2 -
4
- fiL .
L L. , ,, J l i i i I l h . Figure 5.5.3 34_ Test S01309 - Upper Head Mass i...
- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 1
- [Ls I
B - LOFITR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 l .. o M :7w 4e m u s2197 '5-161 REVISIOm I i
a.b,e O Figure 5.53-35 Test S01309 -Integrated Break Flow Experimental Results B -- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 1 C- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation Run 2 olu27** as tba2 tM 5-162 REVISION: I
1 o.e- 1 1 i l 1 i
- l i
I 1 l r - 1 e 4 f N 1 Figure 5.5.3-36 Test S01309 Pressuriser Pressure ExYrimental Results (R'j- B. - LOF1TR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 C- ~ LOFTTR2-AP Calculation'- Rup ' A ~
, isuntwemwib.os2in 5 163 REVISION: 1 4
, , ,w -r-. , ,4- - , - , , ,.-r-- .
a b.c O Figure 5.5.3-37 Test S01309 - SG-A Pressure
, ,. _ Experimental Results B- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 C- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 3 oil 227w44.aco:I M 82197 5 164 REVISION: I
b a.k c f l r +
+
t i s 8 4 i
/.
k i I J s 1 Figure 5.5.3 38 - Test S01309 - SG-B Pressure J. . Experknental Resuhs B -- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 ]- ' _ C --- LOFTfR2 AP Calculation - Run 3 4 4 oNr:2kee.non.iba2197 . 5-165_ - REVISION: ' 1 -
..+,a e,. .'s.ww .- -,.-,s, '. , < , + ,- w,-
a.b.c O Figure 5.5.3-39 Test S01309 Tube Rupture Break Flow Experimental Results B- LOFITR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 C- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 3 onm 4emm: stat 97 5-166 REVISI a 1
a.b.c 4 1 3 O W Figure 5.5,3-40 Test S01309 - Prhnary Side Ilot Leg A Temperature
- . Experhmental Results B- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 2
'O' C ---- LOFITR2 AP Calculation - Run 3 au227. 6e=Sas2in 5-167 REVISION: 1 L '- , , , . . -- . _ . - - - . .-..---.,,c- . . . , . 7,-
-3 a,b,c O
Figure 5.53-41 Test S01309. Primary Side Hot Leg B Temperature Experimental Results B- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation . Run 2 C- LOFITR2-AP Calculation - Run 3 eM227e ee.sost:W2iM 3 168 REVISION: I
.-. . _ . - -- . . .- . . . . . . _ . ~ . . ~ . . . . - . - . . . . - . . . .
a.d.c a
}
s Y A d A. . - E t Figure 5.5.3-42 Test S01309 - Primary Side Inlet Temperature 7-f Experimental Results 1 B- LOFITR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 i' '\ C- LOFITR2-AP Calcuhtien - Run 3 - .= au227 4enon.lb82197 5-169 REVISION: 1
,-.z...,, . . , - . . - _ - - -. .. .-. ,
m a.bx 0 Figure 5.5.3-43 Test 501309 - Pressurizer Liquid Level Experimental Results B -- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 C -- LOFITR2-AP Calculation - Run 3 l o.u227 4e=Ib-os2197 5-170 REVISION: I
O __. a,b.c \ O a E i Figure 5.5.3 44 Test S01309 - PRHR Flow Experhnental Results O B-C- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 LOFITR2-AP Calculation Run 3 o.u2nw4e non.id 082197 5-171 REVI510N: I l
a.b.c I O l l Figure 5.5.3-45 Test S01309 - CMT Flow Experimental Results B- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation Run 2 C- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 3 sumw<&m:tb.os2197 5-172 REVISION: I
O- a,b.c O Figure 5.5.3-46_ Test S01309 Upper Head Mass LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 B- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 3 o;umw*=:lWIM 5-173 REVISION: 1 _____-_u. -- -
s.b.c O Figure So.3-C Test S01309 Integrated Break Flow Experimental Results B- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 C -- LOFTfR2-AP Calculation - Run 3 oT3227w-6calb.082197 $.174 REVISION: I
(~ . 5.5A Matrix Test 11 - Matrix Test 11 (Test S01211)is an SGTR test with the plant operating at full po.ver. Nonsafety systems (CVCS, NRHR, and SFWS) were not activated during the test. Test analyses were done using LOFITR2 AP His simulation was a blind test and the blind simulation was presented in Reference 2. For Matrix Test 11, the ADS actuated [ ]a.b.c after the low-pressurizer water level signal was reached. This simulation only considered the period ofinterest to the design-basis SGTR event and was terminated shortly after ADS actuation occurred. LOFITR2-AP cannot simulate a situation with a large void generation in the RCS. ADS actuation does not occur for the design-basis SGTR event. 5.5A.1 Description of the Runs ne following three runs explain the differences between the blind simulation and test results. Blind Simulation { s Re results of the blind simulation, based on the preliminary test initial conditions presented in the Guick Look Report in Reference 20, are compared to the actual test results. Run 1: Updated Input Data ne blind simulation needs to be improved because the Quick look Report, from which the input deck was generated, has two errors:
= . Initial pressurizer level was at [ la.b.c not [ ]a.b.c,
- The pressurizer heaters were on during the first 260 seconds of transient, as described in Subsection 5.5.4.2-1.
Run 2 : Refinements - Since the preliminary report has been completed (Reference 2), refinements have been made. Run 2 of Test 11 uses mainly the same refinements as Test 10 (Table 5.5.1-1). For this run, the time of the events was considered as data. Table 5.5.4 5 summarises the evolution of the data among the blind simulation, Run 1, and Run 2. O o u:27w.7.mortib os2197 175 REVISION: l
5.5.4.2 Results Analysis 5.5.4.2.1 Blind Simulation 1 This subsectica compares the blind simulation results and the actual test results. Figures 5.5.4-1 through 5.5.415 present the code-calculated results for key parameters. Table 5.5.4 2 presents the j sequence-of-the events, in the test simulation, reactor trip and safeguard actuation were assumed to occur when the low- ! pressurizer level setpoint ([ Ja.b,c) was reached. The setpoint was reached in the simulation at [ Ja.b#. Various safeguards were actuated based on when the low level setpoint was reached. These included: closure of MSIVs, closure of MFIVs, PRHR actuation, CMT actuation, and tripping of the RCPs. These features were performed following prototypical delays after the setpoint was reached. The actuation times listed in Table 5.5.4 2 were used in the LOFITR2-AP simulation. In the test, the reactor trip occurred at [ ]=.b.c, [ ja.b.c carlier than in the calculation. As can be seen in Figure 5.5.4-8, the later trip in the calculation was mainly due to the initial pressurizer level being [ Ja.b.c, not [ Ja.b.c. as mentioned above (Reference 20). Some other incorrect preliminary input data (Reference 20) were also used with the blind test simulation:
. Test 11 used pressurizer heaters up to [ la.b.c gg [ ja.b.c. The blind simulation was perfonned with no pressurizer heaters, which explains why pressurizer pressure decreased too fast in the blind calculation (Figure 5.5.4 2).
- The power was increased by [ Ja.b.c to compensate for heat losses that were turned off when ADS 1 actuated (Figure 5.5.4-1). In reality, this happened when ADS-2 actuated and is not simulated in the calculation (Reference 19).
- Temperatures in the PRHR lines (Figures 5.5.4-10 and 5.5.4-11) were initiated with the default option of the code, which is not appropriate for the SPES 2 facility. At this time, it was known that the initialization was not correct, according to the actual results of Test 10. This point was not modified because it has very little impact. The RCS pumps operated when the PRHR was actuated. Flow in the PRHR was by forced convection and the water in the inlet and outlet pipes was rapidly replaced, typically in 10 seconds.
Due to the imperfection of the data, the blind simulation is not discussed further. Table 5.5.4-5 summarizes the errors in the input deck used for the blind simulation. O aunkt non:1&os:197 5-176 REVISION: I
L 5 5.4.2.2 Blind Simulation After Updating of the Input Data (Run 1) Run I duplicates the blind simulation after the input data was updated (Table 5.5.4-5). Key parameters of Run 1 are presented in Figures 5.5.416 through 5.5.4 30. Table 5.5.4-3 provides the sequence-of-events. He reactor trip, based on low-pressurizer level, occurs at [ ]*A* earlier than in Test S01211 (Figure 5.5A43). Pressurizer-level evolution is perfectly predicted up to [
]a.b.c. After this time, the calculated-pressurizer level decreased faster than in the test. 'Ihe reason why the level decreased faster than the test is because the RCS pressure was overestimated (Figure 5.5.417) by [ ]a.b.c, leading to a larger break flow between [ ]a.b.c and the trip (Figure 5.5.4-20). ne overestimation of RCS pressure also induced a higher water density in the RCS* and hence, a smaller volume.
As seen in Figures 5.5.4-16 through 5.5.4 30, the general trend of the actual test results is well predicted. A detailed description of this test is provided in the discussion of Run 2 in the following subsection. 5.5.4.2.3 Simulation With Refinements (Run 2) \ Run 2 duplicates Run 1 and includes refinements and correction of the PRHR line temperature initialization (Table 5.5.4 5). A comparison of the code-calculated results and the actual-test results is shown in Figures 5.5.4-31 through 5.5.4-47. Table 5.5.4-4 provides the sequence-of-events. Run 2 simulated the actual times of the events. RCS Parameter Evolutions ne opening of the SGTR break at time zero seconds induced a loss of mass in the RCS and consequently, decreased the pressurizer level. Since the pressurizeri heaters are tumed on (at [ ]*AC) as soon as the pressurizer-pressure decreases, pressurizer pressure decreased slowly. At [ la.b.e, when the pressurizer level reached [ ]a.b.c, the pressurizer heaters were automatically tumed off by the plant computer, inducing a faster rate of depressurization. In Test S01211, Run 2, the reactor trip and safeguards actuation occurred when low-pressurizer level setpoint ([ ]a.b.c) was reached. When the setpoint was reached, the pressurizer had a level of [ ]*AC. - This setpoint was reached in the test at [ ]*AC. At[ ]*AC, code-calculated pressurizer liquid level was [ ]*** (Figure 5.5.4-38). As explained in Subsection 5.5.4.2.2, a faster decrease ia the calculated-pressurizer level was due to overestimating pressurizer. The water density variation between 2000 and 1930 psi at at 600*F is 0.2 percent, equivalent to 0.26 ft. of water in the pressurizer. ouz.%7.noititros:197 5-177 REVislON: I
pressure. De rr:.ctor trip induced a sharp drop in core power (Figure 5.5.4-31) consequently, the core outlet temperature dropped sharply by about [ ]a.b.c (F gute 5.5.4 36). At the same time, the reduction in core temperature also caused contraction of the RCS water, and consequently complete pressurizer draindown by the surge line (Figure 5.5.4-38). Various safety features were actuated in the test when the low level setpoint was exceeded. Rese included closure of main steam isolation valves, closure of main feedwater isolation valves, PRHR actuation, CMT actuation, and tripping the RCPs. After these events, the facility operated in free evolution, with no active systems. RCS pressure and temperature evolutions resulted from mass and heat transfers by natural circulation in the RCS, SGs, PRilR, CMT, break, and extemal heat losses. The core power from the test was input to LOFITR2 AP as a boundary condition. SPES-2 core power was increased by [ ]a.b.c above the scaled AP600 decay heat (Figure 5.5.4-31), beginning at ( Ja,b.c after the trip, compensated for higher-than-scaled facility heat losses. After the RCPs tripped, and during [ Ja.b.e to( ]a.b.c, the passive systems extracted less power than the core power and the global energy balance was positive. Natural circultion in the RCS resulted in increased RCS outlet temperature (Figure 5.5.4-36) and RCS pressure. After [ ]=.b.c, when core power decreased to [ la,b.c, the RCS temperature and pressure decreased slowly. After ADS actuation, at [ Ja.b,c, primary pressure dropped at a fast rate. He calculation follows the actual test results closely (Figure 5.5.4-32). The simulation was tenninated shortly after the ADS valve opening. Overall, RCS pressure and temperature evolutions are well predicted by LOFTTR2-AP, but RCS pressure is overestimated by about 50 psi after the pressurizer heaters are turned off. His is likely due to not simulating the heat transfer between the pressurizer steam and the wall during this period. SGs Secondary Side Pressure SG A and -B pressure evolutions are shown in Figures 5.5.4 33 and 5.5.4-34. The SGs pressure is essentially constant prior reactor trip because SG pressure is regulated by the control system of the facility. After the SGs steam and feedwater valves are isolated, there is no mass transfer in the SGs except for the SGTR break flow in SG-B. SGS pressure is then driven by the energy balance including heat transfer with the RCS and the SGs secondary-side steel masses. The temperatures of the SG steel masses depend on the steel thermal inertia and heat transfer with the SG water and the external air. O eu227. 7*w ib-ca2197 5-178 REVISloN: 1
I (a V) After the steam valve's isolation, the SG pressures initially increased from [ Ja.b.cas a result of the heat transfer between the RCS and the SGs. No secondary side relief valves were opened. De trip induced a fast decrease in core power, and also in the hot leg temperature. Combined with the heat transfer of the SG steel masses (relatively cold, in thermal equilibrium with the initial SG pressures), the SG pressures stabilited at [ Ja.b.c and decreased slowly. Eventually, some subcooled water in the SGs contributed to stabilize SG pressure, shortly after the react. r trip. Aftu the RCP trip occurred at 496 seconds, RCS natural circulation developed with a temporary incr:ase in the hot seg temperature to about [ Ja.b.c. During the same period, heat transfer with the 50 secondary side steel decreased because the steel became warmer. De combination of these phenomena is the reason for the SG prnsure increase after 550 seconds. Global behavior of t'te SG pressures is qualitatively well simulated. SGTE Break Flow The r.casured test break flow and the code-calculated break flow are shown in Figure 5.5.4 35. De SGTR break flow is a function of the difference between the primary and secondary side pressuses. ( Water temperature at the break location also has an effect. SPES 2 SGTR is simulated with a pipe k connecting the pump-B suction line and the SG B secondary side; this may induce some minor bias. At zero seconds, when the SGTR break opened, calculated-break now was 0.122 lbm/sec., compared to 0.130 lbm/sec for the actual break flow, his six percent initial underestimate disappeared rapidly, probably due to the presence of cold water in the pipe that simulated the SGTR Prior to reactor trip, the differences between measured-test and code-calculated, primary-to-secondary side pressure drop wn aiall and the code-calculated tube rupture flow was close to the measured flow. When the reactor tapped, integrated calculated and measured flow (Figure 5.5.4-45) were in excellent agreement, and validated the break flow model used in code calculation. Between reactor trip and [ ]a.b.e, break flow was underestimated by [ Ja.b.c probably because LOFITR2 AP simulated SGTR break flow as a sink located in the SG outlet header. The calculated fluid temperature was higher than at the actual temperature at the inlet of the pipe that simulated the SGTR in the facility at this point. Integrated break flow (Figure 5.5.4-45) was well predicted. (o V) o u22N7.netb os2197 5179 Revision: 1
Vessel Head and Pressurizer Levels No boiling occurred in the vessel head during the period simulated. De calculated pressurizer level was in excellent agreement before 300 seconds (Figure 5.5.4 38). As mentioned earlier, it decreased too fast after 300 seconds, due to the RCS pressure overestimation. CMT Flow De CMT actuated [ )*h' after the start of the transient. He CMT flow rate is shown in Figure 5.5.4 42. With two CMTs in the SPES 2 facility, the total code-calculated CMT flow rate was consistent with the total-measured test CMT flow rate. During fast depressurization, the calculation indicated some peaks not observed during the test. Since these peaks were very brief, they had a little impact on the integrated injected flow. Mass balance was maintained during the peaks. PRilR Flow and Temperatures Matrix Test 10 was performed with one tube in the PRHR. Since the preliminary calculations presented in Reference 2, the PRHR lines friction factors have been updated, using the final results of the cold pre-operational tests, (C-09, Reference 18). As a result, the PRHR flow was decreased by approximately 10 percent. Comparisons between the test data and the code-predicted PRHR flow rate, inlet temperature, and outlet temperature are shown in Figures 5.5.4 39 to 5.5.4-41. De PRHR was initiated 479 seconds after the start of the vansient. De RCPs continued to run until [ Ja.b.c Because the RCPs continued to run, the PRiiR actual flow developed rapidly to a peak of approximately [
]'*
- and then after the pumps were tnpped, decreased to stable natural circulation flow at
[ ]*h 8 De initial surge of flow was predicted by LOFITR2-AP, but it appeared to be overestimated by a factor of tu (point alrtady mentioned in the preliminary validation report Reference 2) After detailed investigations, it appears that the LOFITR2-AP calculation is correct. SIET has confirmed that the PRilR flow meter (F A80E) was out of its range for Otis test (Maximum flow = [ j"*'). The range of the flow meter was increased after the SGTR tests. For illustration, Test S0161'4 indicated a PRHR flow of [ J'* C, when the RCS pumps were operating (Reference 12). Test S01613 nas three tubes in the PRHR. With one tube in the PRHR, the tube represents approximately 20 percent of the fluid resistance of the PRHR loop. With one tube, the PRilR flow should be approximately 90 percent of [ ]***, which is close to the LOITTR2 AP calculated value. Boiling in the PRHR occurred at [ )** in the calculation; the calculation is not valid after this time. This event will not occur during non-LOCA events simulated wi:h LOFTTR2 AP. ou 27w 7.non 1b-o:2197 3180 REVISION: 1
- . . . . . _ . . .~-- - - - _ - . . _ - - . - . - - - . . - - - . . _ . . . . - . .
1 t i O De calculated temperature drop across the PRHR HX was in good sgreement with the test data, indicating the heat transfer models selected were appropriate. 5.5.4.3 Comelusion Conceralag Test 11 l De initiation phase of Test 11 is identical to Test 10, except that the initial conditions are a little different, especially the initial pressurizer level and the pressutizer low level setpoint. l De calculations presented in this report show that most of the differences between the blind simulation and the actual test data can be explained by errors in the input data used for the blind simulation. With updated input data, the pressurizer low level setpoint is reached at ( i Ja.be, [ ja.bx sooner than in the test. De short period simulated after the ADS opening is correctly simulated up to the point where boiling , begins to occur in the facility. 1 r O 4 ein:7.-7. man ms2197 $.181. REVISION: 1 1 _ .. - _ . _ . - _ . _ . _ . . . _ . - _ . _ . _ . ~ . -
I l TABLE 5.5.41 O' COMPARISON OF TEST AND LOITTR2.AP INITIAL CONDITIONS FOR MATRIX TEST 11 LOITTR2 AP Condition Test Simulation Rod l'ower, LW
~** i Pretsunnr pressere, psia Averare til Temperature. 'F P.cactor Vessel (Core) Inlet Temperature, 'F Cold Leg Flow Rate, Ibm /sec.
DC Ulf Ilypass llow Rate, Ibmhec. Pressuriter level, ft. CMT level, ft. CMT Temperature, 'F Initial 50 Water Level, ft. 50 MIV Temperature, 'F SO lYessure, psia Ambient air Temperature, 'F - - M*!!1 Test results show an initial pressurirer level of [ ]sb.c comes from Reference 20) He temperature measured by this thermocouple is likely overestimated. O o um..? nm ib.os2197 5-182 REYlslON: 1
Ci Q7 .. w - TABLE 5.5.4 2 . SEQUENG OF EVEN15 FOR MATRIX TEST 11. Blind Simulation Tiene (seconds) Sienulation with Eient Specined Test LOf'ITR2 AP Break Opens "b' 0 - Pressuriret heaters turned off - Pressurizer Low Level PZR = 0.676 m Setpoint Reached MSLIV Closure PZR LL + 2 seconds MFWIV Closure PZR LL + 2 seconds CMT Initiation PZR LL + 2 seconds PRHR Actuation PZR LL + 2 seconds SCRAM simulated PZP. LL + 5.7 seconds RCPs Tripped PZR LL + 16.2 seconds ADS 1 Opened PZR 11. + 150 seconds Pressurizet Empties - - v c:o227. 7.momib m io7 5-183 REvtslON: 1
- . , . . . - _ , _ . ~ . . . ._ __ - .
TAILLE 5.5.4 3 O SEQUENCE OF EVFNIS FOR MATRIX TEST 11. Hun 1 Time (seconds) Simulation with Event Specified Test LOFITR2 AP I,reak Opens 0 - *** l'ressurizer heaters turned off Pressurtier Low Level 17R = 0.676 m Setpoint Reached MSLIV Closure 12R LL + 2 seconds MIM'lV Closure 12R LL + 2 seconds CMT Initiation 17R LL + 2 seconds PRilR Actuation 17R LL + 2 seconds SCRAM simulated PZR LL + 5.7 secondr RCPs Tnpped 12R LL + 16.2 seconds ADS 1 Opened 17R LL + 150 seconds Pressuriter Empties - - O O oV227* 7mm Ib-082197 5-l 84 REV15lON: I
. _ . . --. .- _ _ - - . _ - . . . . . _ _ - . - _ . . - . - . _ . . - . . . . = - . .- -.
TABLE 5.5.4 4 SEQUENCE OF EVENTS FOR MATRIX TEST 11. Run 2 Time (seconds) Sinnulation with Event Specified Test LOFPfR2.AP ' Break Opens *'" 0 - Pressurizer heaters turned off
~
Pressurizer Low Level PZR = 0.676 m Setpoint Reached MSLIV Closure PZR LL + 2 seconds MIMIV Closure - PZR LL + 2 seconds CMT Initiation PZR LL + 2 seconds PRHR Actuation PZR LL + 2 seconds SCRAM simulated PZR LL + 5.7 seconds RCPs Tripped PZR LL + 16.2 seconds ADS-1 Opened PZR LL + 150 seconds Pressuriier Empties - - Nitif81 Time of events are not computed by LOF*lTR2-AP kr this test. Experimental times of the events are used as input data. \ o o:27. 7 non.ib-os:197 5-185 REVISION: I
TABLE 5.5.4 5 O SGTR MATRIX TEST 11. EVOLUTION BI: TWEEN TIIE BLIND SIMULATION, RUN 1, AND RUN 2 Blind Data Strnulation Run1 Run 2 Initial Pressuri::et Level, ft. a.b.: Pressurtier lleaters,10.2 kW during 260 sec. Core Power shutoff by 150 kW _ _ Initial PRilR Line Ternperatures Tuned No No Yes Refinernents as Described in Table 5.5.17 No No Yes O O o V227w 7,non Ib 082197 REVISION: I 5 186
. __ - _ -_ . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _. _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . _ . _v. _ . _ _ _ _ .
I i a,b.c ( . t i r L [ t i b d
- Mgure 5.5,41_ Test S01211. Core Power
= Experhaental Resuhs B- LOFTTR2.AP Calculation - Blind Simulation mesma eM227w.7.sunIb-08:l" 5-187 REVI$10N: 1
-r n - - - ~ ~---r r w evr,s..~' --v - en w pmm, ,w_- --<.~.vm - swww---+-o-e-s-g-wnwe ev , .- + , --wc e'- w = , - - -r-m
a.b c O l Figure 5.5.4 2 Test S01211 Pressurizer Pressure Experimental Results O B --- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation . Blind Simulation a%322?w 7mm ibes2197 5 188 REVISION: 1
f i a,b.c t i, l P t i 2 E r t i i J- p r 9 / 4' d-i i F 9
. Figure 5.5.4 3 Test S01211. SG.A Pressure -
4 3 Expedasental Results B- LOFTTR2 AP Cakulation . Blind Sienulation
~
- ou227w tman:Ib-OS2197 - 5 189 Revism: 1
_;- . . _ _ ;-_.._._.;_...._____.__..___..-.._._. . . . . . _ _ . . _ , , . . . -_-,,.;,_...._ . ~ . . _ _ _ , _
l l a.b.c - ~ O Figure 5.5.4-4 Test 501211 - SG B Pressure Experimental Results D- LOFITR2 AP Calculation - lilind Simulation eu227w.7 == 1w:2 97 5 190 REYl$10N: 1
._ ._ . . . . . . _ _ . . _ . . . _ . _ . . ~ . _ . _ _ -_ __ .. _ ._ _ _ __... _ _ __.
k 5 i a.b,c
?
I i t 6 , + 4 7 1 r
~ Figure 5.5.4 5 Test S01211 Tube Rupture Break Flow Experknental Resuhs B- LOF1TR2 AP Calculation Blind Shnulatloa '
J
- ov:27. 7.naetIwm2197 5 191 REVISION:' I I i
.. ; .. c.. _ . - .,.._,.._.__....:.c.-...,_...,..-,;_.....:_,._....u.-._ a._._.___..__._=
s,e.: _ ~ O Figure 5.5.4 6 Test S01211 - Primary Side Hot Leg Temperature Experimental Results Loop A B~ Experimental Results Loop B C- LOFITR2-AP Calculation Loop A - Blind Simulation D- LOFITR2-AP Calculation Loop B - Blind Simulation ou:27. 7ma.ite:2197 $192 REVISION: 1
f h
.a.b,c !
r- - r i h I i t' 4 Figure 5.5.4-7 Test S01211. Prianary Side Inlet Temperature 2 O\ - Experiamental Results B- LOFITR2-AP Calculatloa Blind Simulation t ou227w 7.nonwes2 97 5 193 REVIslON:.1
- . . . . . . . - . . . . - .- ..: -- . .. .,. - - - a .. -_:--.- .-,. .-.-.-_,-.....--,.. _ ,
l a,b.c l l l 1 l l r O Figure 52.4-8 Test S01211 - Pressurizer f.lquid Level B-Experimental Results LOFTTR2 AP Calculation Blind Simulation 9 ou227 4.mettw2is7 5194 REVISION: 1 i.
a.b.c r% - (J) ('a d Figure 5.5.4-9 Test S01211. PRHR Flow r Experimental Results (
%-) - B- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation . Blind Simulation o \3227w 7.non 1M*2197 5195 REVislON: 1
l a,bc e I l I e l'igure 5.5.410 Test S01211 PRHR Inlet Temperature Experimental Results B- LOFTTR2.AP Calculation Blind Simulation
..un7w-7.non lb-os2197 3196 RD'ISION: I
a,bc L r 7 b P k Figure 53.411 Test S01211. PRHR Outlat Temperature
. Experinnental Results -
B- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation . Blind Simulation
- ou227 4 mon- 1482197-
$.197 REVISION: 1 ;
r --e, * % w wee. # - +- -:-,.,,.r,..--w,
---.,w,,,. -
,,,.%,,-. ~ , w -.r .w w m a+,- ,_ , - - - - . m--,- -ma
a,b.c O Figure 5.5.412 Test S01211 CMT Flow Experimental Results Loop A ( B- Experimental Results Imp B C- Experinsental Results Loop A + B D -- LOITI'R2 AP Calculation Loop A + B Blind Simulation c.0227w.7.non ib42197 $.I98 REVISION: 1 l
2.b,c k Figure 5.5.413 Test S01211 RCS Steel Heat Transfer '~ s LOFITR2 AP Calculation - Blind Simulation - Water to Steel Transfer ! B- LOFITR2 AP Calculation - Blind Simulation - Steel to Air Transfer oA3227 7.mtb4821'? - 5 199 REVI510N: 1 o
a,b,e
~
O Figure 5.5.414 Test S01211 SGs Fluid to Steel Heat Transfer LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Blind Simulation - Loop B B- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Blind Simulation - Loop A oun7. 7 == tte197 5-200 REVISION: I
Y i a,b,c !
-. ~ >
f 1
- i.
i t A h I i f i t l-4 b i 9 f 1-' 1 J d I Figure 5.5.415_ Test S01211. Integrated Break Flow Experimental Resuhs ! - B - = !OFTTR2 AP Calculation . Run 1- l l , O'\1227w.7. mon.lW1" - 5 201' REVISION: .1 - h
- . . 0 --w n,.m ,w ,,..v.-.a , . - ,en.,, ' , ~ . . c,--e.w o , . + ,..a ,,n,---,,,new- ,. , ,,-~v-v r .--w,enw~ ww.- ,-w,
l a,b.c O O Figure 5.5.416 Test S01211 - Core Power Experimental Results B- LOFITR2.AP Calculation . Run 1 W _ au227* 1** M21" 5 202 REVISION: I
a.bc 1 O ' 9 a
' Figure 5.5.417 Test S01211 Pressuriser Premure f' Experismental Results B- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation Run 1 o s m . 7 m a tia s2197 5-203 Rmm 1
ab.c O Figure 5.5,418 Test S01211 - SG.A Pressure Experimental Results O B --- LOFTTR2.AP Calculation - Run 1 o.0227w-7 mon IM*2197 5 204 REVISION: 1
.w a,b,c O
Figure $J.419 Test S01211 SG B Pressure Experheestal Resuks B --- - LOFITR2 AP Calculation Run 1
- oAu27 4. mon.tus2197 5-205' REVl$lON: 1-
_____=x_------____-__-. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
a,b.c O e Figure 5.5.4 20 Test S01211 - Tube Rupture tireak Flow Experimental Results B- 1 OFITR2-AP Calculation Run 1 om27w,7 mattes 2197 5-206 REVISION: I
a,b,c s l b li
)
L 7 l Figure 5.5.4-21 Test 331211 - Primary Side Hot Leg Temperature Experimental Results Loop A O B -- C --- D -- Experimental Results Loop B LOFTTR2-AP Calculation Loop A - Run 1 LOITTR2-AP Calculation Loop B - Run 1 au227.-7.natit*2197 5-207 REVISION: I
l a,b,c i i Figure 5.5.4 22 Test S01211. Primary Side inlet Temperatiire Experimental Results B- LOFITR2-AP Calculation . Run 1 oM22Ws=:tba2197 5-208 REVISION: 1
.. . . _ . _ . . . ~ . _ _. . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . - . ~ . . . . _ . _ . . . . _ . _ . . _ . . . _ . .
a,b,c , t i 4 j - 1-i Figure 5.5.4 23 Test S01211 - Pressurizer I.lquid Level Experimental Results B-. LOFTTR2-AP Calculation Run 1' oA3227w-8.non:Ib-082197 ~ . 5-209- REVISION: 1 !? i- _ . . . , . . , - , . . . . , , -.r ., . _. - .,
a,b,c O O Figure 5.5.4-24 't est 501211 - PRHR Flow Experimental Results 3- LOFFIR2-AP Calculation - Run 1 o.\3227w 8.non:lH821M REyls10N: I
a,b,c e O Figure 5.5.4 25 Test S01211 PRHR Inlet Temperature Experimental Results
.B - LOFITR2-AP Calculation - Run 1 au227w s.non;1b-os2197 5-211 REVISION: I
_ _ _ _ = _ - - _ = _ _ .
a,b,c l O Figure 5.5.4 26 Test S01211 - PRHR Outlet Temperature Experknental Results B- LOFITR2-AP Calculation - Run 1 o:0227w-8.non:lb-082197 5 21: REVISION: I
I a,b,c
- g. _
)
O p d Figure 5.5.4 27 Test S01211 - CMT Flow Experimental Results Loop A s' :B . Experimental Results Loop B -
- s. <[d C - ~ Experismental Results Loop A + B -
..D . LOFTTR2-AP Calculation Loop A + B - Run 1
. o:0227w-8.non:Ib Oil 2197 . 5-213 REVISION: I
AC i l l I l l l l l l l l I Figure f.5.4-28 Test S01211 - RCS Steel Heat Transfer l LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 1 - Water to Steel Transfer B- LOETTR2-AP Calculation - Run 1 - Steel to Air Transfor 1 c:u227w.sJnon:Ib-082197 5 214 REVISION: 1 l \
b
- ' _ 1 P
a.c . E a N l i i i i t F f i
- l. - Figure 5.5.4 29 Test S01'2 11 - SGs Fluid to Steel Heat Transfer..
c.- I - I - LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run .1 - Loop B
' B ---- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 1 - Loop A
, s
- a. -. -
o1122h-a.netib.ce2 97 -' 5-215- REVISION: 1
a.bs O Figure 5.5.4-30 Test S01211 - Integrated Break Flow Experimental Results B- LOFITR2-AP Calculation - Run 1 o:umw-8.natiM82197 $.216 REVISION: I
,1 0 ~
a.b.c :. s O n f N' ).
. Figure 5.5.4 31 Test S01211. Core Power Experknental Results (m . B ---- LOFITR2.AP Calculation - Run 2 t
(
.L o:0227w-8.non:1b-082197 ' 5-217. REVISION: 1 4
.. = v e
- a,b c 9
.(
Figure 5.5.4 32 Test S01211 Pressurizer Pressure Experimental Results B- LOFTTR2.AP Calculation - Run 2 = c:\3227.-tammm2197 5-218 REVISION: 1
4 a b.c s .j l e I ]. i 1 Mgure 5.5.4 33 - Test S01211 - SG-A Pressure Experhnental Results B-- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 h Nuee aum.mm
,0:0227w-8.IwalW197 5219 REVISION: 1
a.b.c O Figure 5.5.4-34 Test S01211 - SG-B Pressure Experimental Results B- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 oA3227w-8.nm:tbos2197 5-220 REVISION: 1
~
i 7-
.i a,b,e s >
b f l i e ( i i I' ,.
- . . Figure 5.5.4-35 Test S01211 - Tube Rupture Break Flow
~
. - _ - . Experimental Results 7 B -- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 p.
.(
1 f, .o:\3227w-8.noreIbM197: 5 221-- - REVmON: 1 I
?.1 '.i'1. .. . . - , , ,....._.m - . m.. . . , , _ . , . . _ . , , , ,_-: ,. , , ,
a.b.c e Figure 5.5.4-36 Test S01211 - Primary Side Hot Leg Temperature Experimental Results Loop A B- Experimental Results Loop B C - LOFITR2-AP Calculation Loop A - Run 2 i D - LOFITR2-AP Calculation Loop B - Run 2 _ SU227w-C non:lW197 5-222 REVISION: I
.p.
4 b.C - i r a d ( s 3 e i-j' i Figure 5.5.4-37 Test S01211 - Primary Side Inlet Temperature i . . l! Experinnental Results B- 'LOF'ITR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 c l- - osm -a.mn:itos2wi 5-223 REVISION: I e
....% ,-.n- , - , , , , + -. ,. ,
m.b.c O Figure 5.5.4-38 Test S01211 - Pressurizer Liquid Level Experimental Results B -- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation Run 2 oM2nw-s6 td oS2197 5-224 REVISION: I
5 4 a.b.c !i 4 r L f i d s
.7
.L Figure 5.5.4-39 Test S01211. PRHR Flow -
Experimental Results g B- LOFTTR2-AP Calculafjon - Run 2 - (Note: Out of span at 0.60 lbm/s)
.a
; au227w-s.mm16.os2197 5-225 REVISION: 1
i l l l I e.b.c e Figure 5.5.4-40 Test S01211 - PRHR Inlet Temperature Experimental Results B- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 o:0227w-8.non:lb 082197 5-226 REVISION: 1
s.
@w- ? .
f . y. -
;X b.c i
i I 4 k' J
- Figure 5.5.4 41 Test S01211 - PRHR Outlet Temperature .
Y. : Experimental Results
'V' B-- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 2
- a:um..s.nanw"s2tn. 5-227- REVISION: I -l 1
1 l l l a,b,c 9 Figure 5.5.4-42 Test S01211 - CMT Flow Experimental Results Loop A B- Experimental Results Loop B C -- Experimental Results Loop A + B D -- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation Loop A + B - Run 2 e:u227 4aon:imi97 5-228 REVISION: 1
g~ - a.c j. O 'l l' i i. I l Figure 5.5.4 43 Test S01211 - RCS Steel Heat Transfer l
. LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 - Water to Steel Transfer.
- I B -- LOFTTR2 AP Calculation - Run 2 - Steel to Air Transfer j- \-
I~ o:u2248.non:1b 082197 REVISION: I
$.229 i, ~
1 ( L AC O Figure 5.5.4-44 Test S01211 - SGs Fluid to Steel Heat Transfer LOFITR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 - Loop B B- LOFITR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 - Loop A a:u227w-82on:1b-os2197 '3230 REVISION: 1
s . g>h*29 4 O k @- IMAGE EVALUATION ///'gf 8 4;, 4' #
///p 1[.[ (k/' TEST TARGET (MT-3) f gy,,y> g,f <[qg+4
+ %
l.0 !! 2 Raa 5!NM il E m L24
! l.8 i_ ' " ~ '
I.25 11 1 . 4 1.6 l;-- _ _ _ 4 150mm >
< 6" >
4?A+i,
.> e, >r//.
PHOTOGRAPHIC SCIENCES CORPORATION
/R++ u. s 44 j P.O. BOX 338 ffg WEBSTER, NEW YORK 14580 4-(716) 265-1600
/
'4+?<>+f' IMAGE EVALUATION
/////
M'# , 4 k/// TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 lf8 E4 la E2d g "2.2 EL l-l 5M bN t.:
=.
"~ I.25 1.4 1.6 4 150mm >
< 6" >
h ,, _=_ .& h WEBSTER NE YORK 14580
, (716) 265-1600
4 H ) 1 \
- 1. \
1. l
. l ,s - ._
, f (J (b.c I' 1 [m .
. (- )
Figure 5.4.4-45 Test S01211 Integrated Break Flow Experimental Results B ---- LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 6')j.. oM227 4.netb-os:IS7 5-231 REVmON: 1
u O Figure 5.5.4 46 Test S01211 - ADS Flow LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 0 oAnnw s nesid es2197 - 5-232 REVISION: I
) _ _
AC P 4 i 4 l 4 ? . W i 4 Y +- Figure 5.5.4 47 = Test S01211 - Integrated ADS Flow
=' /
,- - t's - LOFTTR2-AP Calculation - Run 2 c , c au:27= a.non s os2197- 5-233 REVISM: 1.-
l 5.6 Test Simulation Results: Test 12 Main Steam Line Break 9li Results of Matrix Test S01512 LOFTRAN-AP simulations are divided into two subsections. Subsection 5.6.1 presents the results of the pre-data release simulations. Subsections 5.6.2 present the results of the post-data release simulations. An assessment of the LOFTRAN-AP MSLB simulations is provided in Subsection 5.7.2. An overall assessment of the LOFTRAN AP and LOFTTR2 AP code for use h design-basis non-LOCA nd SGTR analyses is provided in Section 6. He initial conditions and sequence of events for Test S01512 and the simulations are shown in Tables 5.6-1 and 5.6-2, respectively. 5.6.1 Pre-Data Release Simulations Matrix Test S01512 is a blind MSLB test. Prior to release of the blind data, two cases were simulated. Dese cases are referred to as the base and sensitivity cases. Due to the conservative nature of the LOFTRAN steam break model, it was known that the code would overpredict the severity of the system cooldown and break energy. The base case modeled a break on steam line-A with both SGs blowing down pure steam (with a quality of one) until a specified time when automatic steam line isolation occurred. After steam line isolation, SG-A continued to blowdown. De steam quality sensitivity case used a conservative steam quality profile consistent with a full-scale Westinghouse SG used in design-basis mass and energy rei.ase for containment integrity analyses. The intent of the sensitivity case was to show a move in the direction toward the test data. Without the test data, there was no way to know the adequacy of this profile. Also, prior to data release, it was known that the break flow from the intact SG would be overpredicted since line losses are not modeled. Although these factors contribute to the overprediction of system cooldown, these modeling techniques am used in LOFTRAN since they are conservative for design-basis calculations. Figures 5.6-1 through 5.6-3 present comparisons of pressurizer pressure and SG pressure for the two LOFTRAN AP simulations and the test data. Figures 5.6-4 and 5.6-5 present comparisons of CMT and PRHR flow rate. An assessment of the pre-data release simulations is provided in Subsection 5.7.2.1, Based on the results of the pre-data release simulations, additional simulations were performed. The results of these additional simulations are documented in Subsection 5.6.2. 5.6.2 Post Data Release Simulations To illustrate the adequacy of LOFTRAN-AP to predict the bey phenomena of the MSLB event, several variations of code input were used. Each variation is di w:d and the results are presented in the following. Additional simulation cases are presented to m aly demonstrate deviations in LOFTRAN-AP simulation results from the test data are either due to phenomena exaggerated by the a ur7w 9 non ib-oan97 5-234 REVISION: 1 l
(n) N' SPES-2 facility and are not important to the AP600 plant, or are due to intentional conservative code simplifications. In each case, the code predicted the overall trends very well and the conservative nature of the break flow model and LOFTRAN-AP code can be observed. In all cases, LOFIRAN-AP simulation results are in excellent agreement with the PRHR flow rate. The CMT flow rate was at first underprtJicted, but later reached perfect agreement. The CMT did not drain and remained in tne recirculation phase throughout the simulation. Run 1 Post kelease case A base case is defined to compare the effect of several input variations. The base case differs from the base case used to release the blind data in tha.t the break flow quality input was manipulated to achieve a mass flow rate comparable to the mass accumulation rate at the test facility. The integral of steam line break flow is r.rovided in Figure 5.6-11 for the base case as compared to the test data. Note that the test data is approximately [40]a.b.c lbm more than the simulation. This difference is largely due to the mass in the steam lines, which is not considered in LOFTRAN AP since it does not contribute to the plant cooldown. p Transient plots are provided for the key parameters described in Subsection 5.2.2. Figures 5.6-6 y/ through 5.6-13 provide transient plots of LOFTRAN AP simulation data with test data for pressurizer pressure, broken (SG-A) and intact (SG-B) SG pressure, RCS temperature, CMT flow, and PRHR flow. De pressurizer-pressure evolution, whien describes the system cooldown, was much quicker and was more severe than the t:st data; however, note that the basic trends and break points are consistent with the test data. As previously stated, CMT and PRHR flow are well predicted. He CMT did not drain and remained in recirculation mode. Run 2. SG Metal Heat Capacity Run 2 simulated the quality profile from the base case (Run 1), but it also simulated the effect of the large metal heat capacity of the SGs and the effect of reverse heat transfer from the large heat capacity of the intact SG. De effect of the large metal mass heat capacity of the SGs was simulated by increasing the SG tube metal mass, which is an existing LOFTRAN-AP input parameter. Note that the entire metal mass of one SG is 6500 lbm with a heat capacity of approximately 780 Btu / F. Since much of this metal is in locations where there would not be interaction with the flashing water, the effect was simulated by increasing the tube mass heat capacity by an amount equivalent to the l annular downcomer metal mass heat capacity. l (p) Transient plots are provided for the key parameters described in Subsection 5.2.2. Figures 5.6-14 through 5.6-21 provide transient plots of LOFTRAN-AP simulation data with test data for pressurizer l cA3:2?w-9 non:lb-082297 5-235 REVISION: 1
pressure, broken (SG A) and intact (SG-B) SG pressure, RCS temperature, CMT flow, and PRHR flow. All parameters are consistent with the test data. Run 2 was varied by increasinF the tube metal heat capacity by 20 percent or to a value equivalent to about 15 percent of the total SU metal mass capacity. This case provides the best agreement with test cata. Figures 5.6-22 through 5.6-29 provide transient plots for this case. O O o u227w-9.non: b 082:97 5-236 REVISKW: 1
J. TABLE 5.61 COMPARISON OF TEST LOFTRAN AP CONDITIONS FOR MATRIX TEST 12 Cond! tion _ Test LOFTRAN AP Simulajon R.0,G Rod Power, kW Pressurizer Pressure, psia Average HL Temperature, 'F Total CL Flowrate, Ibm /sec. DC UH Bypass Flowrate Pressurizer V.;i., n.3 Accumulatt r Water Temperature, 'F Accumulator Pressure, psia Cold Leg Balance Line Temperature 'F CMT Level CMT . Temperature. 'F SG Water Mass, Ibm l SG Pressure, psia _ _ J A [Nels:1
'[
ja.b.c [ ja.b.c l i-- ! ou227w.9non. b-os2297 5-237 REVislON: I
TABLE 5.6-2 O SEQUENCE OF EVENTS FOR TEST S01512 (MATRIX TEST 12) Event Actual Time (Sec.)m a.bx Break Opens (SG PORY A) CMT IV Opening PRIIR IfX Actuation MSLIV Closure RCPs Tilpped SFW-A Flow Began SFW-A Flow Ended ADS (4) ~ IRWST Injection (4) Notes: (1) Actual times used as LOFTRAN-AP input except where noted. [ ja.b.c [ ja.b.c (4) ADS did not actuate due to CMT level, and the IRWST did not inject throughout this transient. O oumw-9 non id-osm7 5-238 REVISION; I
. r!ssimonotes Peornist4:v ca.4ss 2
~
k g 5 I
-i 4
l t
- Figure 5.61 ~ Test S01512 . Pressuriser Pressure 1 i.
Experimental Results l B- LOFTRAN AP Calculation - Pre Release Base C --- - LOFTRAN AP Calculation - Pre Release Sensitivity
.- f A..
o0 2h-9.am:te 239 REVISION: I
Wr.smchsOUSE PaorarETA!Y class 2 a.b.c I l O Figure 5.6-2 Test S01512 SG-A Pressure Experimental Results B- LOFTRAN AP Calculation - Pre Release Base C- LOFTRAN AP Calculation - Pre Release Sensitivity eM227w-9 exwlb44.".97 $.240 REVISION: 1 L--
.- . . . ~ . - - - .. .-. ~ . . _ . . . . . . . . - . . . . - . . - ~ - . - - - . . . . . . .. . _
y.
- WasTisonooss: PaormirTray CIAss 2 p
~
.l a.b,e t
i Figure 5.6-3; Test S01512 - SG B Pressure y ExPtrimental Results
.es 1 B -- LOFTRAN AP Calculation - Pre Release Base
% C -- LOFTRAN-AP Calculation - Pre Release Sensitivity _
5
.:u227w 9.non:Im 5-241 REVISION;'1
. --.. .- .a. .
Wr.sTINCHOUSE PROPRIETARY class 2 a,b c i O Figure 5.6-4 Test S01512 - PRHR Flow Experimental Results B --- LOFTRAN-AP Calculation - Pre Release Base C -- LOFTRAN AP Calculation - Pre Release Sensitivity ou227.-9.norrib-os2297 5-242 REVISION: I
n ;
. . - . . . ~ . .. . . - . - . - . . - . . . . . . . - . . -. - - . . . .
- Westmcuouss PaornIETARY class 2
-f - - . .
t a.b,e - l 1 4 1
~
b'. O L t .(- i' Figure 5.6 5 Test S01512 ; CMT Flow - Experimantal Results Loop A + B
-B -- LOFIRAN AP Calculation - Pre Release Base 4
l( ~C- LOFTRAN-AP Calculation - Pre Release Sensitivity d
'o:u227w-9.non:ib-os2297 5-243 R.EVISION: 1:
wesmonoess PaormirTA;Y C1. ASS 2 a.b.c l l O 1 l i l l l Figure 5.6-6 Test S01512 - Pressurizer Pressure Experirnental Results B -- LOFTRAN AP Calculation - Run 1 c:u2Du 9 nortIb-082297 5 244 REVISION: I
-- Wasmcwoost Peorm ETA:nr CLAas 2 -
pi j _ PQ tb.c
.. I d
I i f I O j.'. 6 k-i i l l Figure 5.6-7 Test S01512 - SG A Pressure
; Experimental Resahs
B- LOFTRAN AP Calculation Run 1 oA3227w 9.non:!b 082297 -5 245 - REVISION: - I'
--M* e a v-e swe'W-+-t- -,--'m -*-++-i<y-w e -+-p ,e+r--tr Fr -'7*-- --ew'--- "
- P'** W '* 9- t T W d' t- 0$ v
WrsrtNonouss PaoruOTARY Ct.AS$ 2 a.b.c l l J l O i Figure 5.6-8 Test S01E12 - SG-B Pressure Experimental Results B- LOFTRAN AP Calculation - Run 1
'W7*4 == IN97 5-246 REVISION: 1
. . . .- . . . .. , - . . . - _ . _ . ~
. . . . . . - - . . . . - . ~ _ . . . . . . ..
I i i
)
1
- - WasTimpouse Paora TAav class 2.-
_( a.b,c - ! a t
- i. ._ ;
(
)
-K W t Hk
.- Figure 5.6-9 Test S01512 - PRHR Flow -
d
- Experimental Results A B - i LOFTRAN-AP Calculation - Run 1 -
ye .
- oAn27w.9mnib os2297 - 247i ' REVISION: ,' 1
,,,g .,,- g - 1--a i..,.m -.1,-sw , , . -e., - - . - , - - - , , , . - - - - = - - - - - - > -
l WEsTINCHOUSE PaorarETA0v Cuss 2 4.D.C O Figure 5.6-10 Test S01512 - CMT Flow _ _ _ _ Experimental Results Loop A B-- Experimental Results Imp B C ---- Experimental Results Loop A + B D- LOFTRAN AP Calculation Loop A & B - Run 1 o;u n7w-9 m I w n97 5-248 REVISION: I
.-s.._.._.-._,-. _ . .. _ _ . . . _. . ._~.- ___ _ _ . - . _ _ . . . . . --._ ..~. _ . . _ . _ . . - . .
Usst Monoest PeoraKTARY class 2 L ' a.b.e l t d A 1 l L[ -s 4 Figure 5.611 Test S01512 Integrated Break Flow .
- . Experimental Results
-V- B '- - LOFTRAN-AP Calculation - Run 1 au227w-9 non iw.297 5249 D'istoN: 1
.- -.,w -, , , e-+ c+-w- ,N~ve .,-v--- e . - - - ,. -m- - , -, aw - em-1 , yy.- - y ,w,- y
l
}
wumcuovse raorantuov cuss 2 i s.b.c ; i O Figure 5.612 Test S01512 SG Inlet IIcader Temperature Faulted Loop Experimental Results B- LOFTRAN-AP Calculation - Run 1 oc27. 9mminu297 5-250 REVISION: I
. - _ _ . _ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ ._. . . _ . . . . . ~ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _. _ _ _ _
wasnuonouse PoornatAmy cuss 2
. I I( '
N a.h.c
- l .
Flaure 5.613 - Tesi S01512 - SG Outlet Hender Temperature - Faulted Loop Experimental Results Loop A B ----' LOFTRAN-AP Calculation Run 1 - . f% . J
- aun?w 9.=1b osr97 5-251- REVEON:.1
WzsitNcnoess PaoraC37 cay class 2 e,b.c
.i 4
1 1 1 O Figure 5.614 Test S01512 - Pressurizer Pressure Experimental Results B -- LOFTRAN-AP Calculation Run 2 o.u227w-9 non:1bos2297 5-252 REVISION: 1
'N-
)
-j
,.Wastmcsscast PaoratriARY class 2' '
+
r
.) s.b c
~!
l 1 J o ' f n , -l + d is $ '(- a
- Figure 5.615 Test'S01512' 'SG-A Pressure
' Experimental Resuks 1 .B LOFTRAN AP Calculation - Run 2 4
. o.U227w 9.non:Ib 04 '297 '$.253 REVISION: 1.
WUTINGHOUSE PROPRIETCRY CRU 2 a,b,c O Figure 5.616 Test S01512 SG-B Pressare Experimental Results B -- LOFTRAN-AP Calculation - Run 2 o.u:27w-9,nort1u)s2297 5-254 REVISION: I
. - . . . . . . . ~ . . - - . .-. . . ~ ._.--
. wemmonoose PeormerA:v cuss 2.
1 i ( )
.%) a.b.c O
V f k-A e
- Figure 5.6-17 Test S01512 - PRHR Flow -
f~ Experimental Results - A B ---- LOFTRAN-AP Calculation - Run 2 11 c:\3227w-9.noe.:lb-082297 5-255 DIN I = t
,--s . , - . < , ,w- r- .-.r -- ,- +-w..
WrJTINGHOUSE PaorntzTAny CIAss 2 a.b.c O Figure 5.618 Test S01512 - CMT Flow Experimental Results Loop A B -- Experimental Results Loop B C --- Experimental Results Loop A + B D --- LOFTRAN-AP Calculation Loop A + B Run 2 l l o11227w-9ma: ba2297 5-256 REVIslON: 1 l l
. . . . - . ., .. . . - . , ~ ~ . . - . . . . . ~ _ . . . - . . - -~
1 Waspecuooss harTARY CLASR 2 1
, n.b.e t
I-l l l
\
i-i Figure 5.619 Test S01512 - Integrated Break Flow f
- Experimental Reruits
. B -- - .LOFTRAN AP Calculation - Run 2 t
t- -. _
. o 0227w-9 noitIb-082297 5 257 -: REVLSION: 1
West 6Ncuousz PaormarTAny CaAss 2 a,b.c O Figure 5.6 20 Test S01512 - SG Inlet IIcader Temperature - Faulten Loop Experimental Results B -- LOFTRAN Al Calculation - Run 2 a onn.7w-9aion IN'297 5 258 REVISION: I
Ur.sttNcnoest recenOTany class 2 O (b.c O 1 Figure 5.6 21 Test S01512 SG Outlet Header Temperature Faulted Loop Experimental Results O' B --- LOFTRAN.AP Calculation Run 2 o9227w 9mniba::v7 - 5 259 REVISION: 1 1 - _ _
wrmwuotts Pocentotsar Ct. ass 2 a b.c 9 Figure 5.6 22 Test S01512 Pressurizer Pressure
. Experimental Results B -- LOFTRAN.AP Calculation Run 3 oV227w 9.non It482297 $.260 REVISION: 1
-. , - . . . . . . . . . . . . - . --....-.- . . . . - - . - . . . ~ . _~-..----.~ . ~ . - -
t. Wemm,maame Pacemmuay CLASS 2 ! u l. f a.b.e , i t i 7 h f
?
h f. t I i l l. { l r i l 4 l-1 -: I -
- S 4
Figure 5.6 23 Test S01512 SG.A Pressure ;
~ Experknental Results-B --
- % LOFTRAN AP Calculation . Run 3 -
l -
- ou227A9.non;ikos:297 : ; 5 261. - REV1510N: I
- i
- w ,e#, - . . . +, >w., - ..-..,e.3,- ,r.-.,-- .~,. .- .e,__..%.,,,,.%,n.,..-, .,,.,,m.,.. . . ,.,.w_,. .,. ..nm, ._r.-.,_.., ..,_nn.,,.,,mm,,,, , , . . _ ,
memcucan Patenatcay ct.4ss 2 a.b.c O Figure 5.6 24 Test S01512 SG B Pressure Experimental Results B- LOITRAN AP Calculation Run 3 o u 27.,9 non 150 2297 5262 REYlSION: 1
.~. . . - _ . . . -.-. - .- ~. .. . ~. _ ..- .. - -- - . - .- - . _ - ... .. _ - . ,_ - _
i i t WasteNossates Peoremany CLAtt 2 , _. - j a,b.c - i i 4 i
?
I i i f
,i t
i i t I f P t e l
?
i i 1 4 Figure 5.6 25 Test S01512 PRHR Flow i Experhnental Resuhs B - LOFTRAN AP Calculation . Run 3 (- - c:um..e.aoa.im 5-263 . REVISION! l' a ,- .<u,w,,. ,s.. - , - , ..:.,,.,, .- -+ ,,-n--,.nnw .w-n-,,., , - , , , , - .-n-. ,,,--,---n .,. , . . . , - . , . . , - - , . . - , - ~ . -
T q.wsa rstema av ct. ass 2 o- -
, a.b.c )
( O Figure 5.6 26 Test S01512 CMT Flow Experimental Results Loop A B- Experinnental Results Loop B C -- Experimental Results Loop A + B D --- LOFTRAN AP Calculation Loop A + B Run 3 o u227w,s. nun. tus2297 5-264 REVISION: I
-. . -. . .. . - - ~ _ - - -
i r i Waswoossotes PooreETAsY C1.Aat 2 ,
)
- (
Lb,e i i t i 1 i i 1 i 1 t l I 4 t
- Figure 5.6 27 Test S01512 - Integrated Break Flow j.-
] Experinnental Results,
- B ~~ . LOFTRAN.AP Calculation . Run 3 -
1 1
.u2nw 9mmib.osW 5 265: REVISION: 1 4
,,s..., . w,--- ., #,-,v ,e v . . . -, ,....,m.=m,-r ,%ewv-w m..--.-r-r---,. ww,.r- e w-m
WtiflNCHut%t PN(WhiE1 ARY CLAES 2 Lbc O Figure 5.6 28 Test S01512. SG Inlet Ileader Temperature . Faulted Loop i ._ __._ Esperimental Results L B .-- LOFTRAN.AP Calculation . Run 3 cA3227* 9mm lb-00297 3 266 REVISION: 1
. . . _ __-._.,_..m...__-... ..-_ ___ _ ___.. _ ____ _ ____ _ _ _. _ _ ._.. _ . -
Wastpeossoves PoormastAmy class 2 r - - a.b.c 5 i t i l i Figure 5.6 29 Test 501512 SG Outlet Header Temperature Faulted Loop Experimental Resuks k B LOFTRAN-AP Calculation'. Run 3 i
~
- o:u227 9.non:tbasan 5-267 - REYlSION: I
_. . _ . - . _ _ .:._ :. __2. - ...,_-___._.;;_.-_.._.-._
5.7 Assessment of SPES.2 Simulation Results 5.7.1 Steam Generator Tube Rupture Test Simulations his subsection summarizes how LOFEAN-AP handles the key phenomena dermed in Subsection 5.2.1 for the SGTR simulations, in reference to the SPES 2 est results.
- Break Flow Simulations of the titree SGTR tests showed tha' the 1 OFTTR2 AP break flow model predicts an accurate flow evolution, when the RCS and faulted SG pressure are accurately predicted.
ne model responds well in direct flow as well as in back Dow, The short term, integrated break flow (during the first 2000 seconds of each transient)is predictea within ten percent. Due to the uncenalnty on the SG secondary-side heat losses, and the high sensitivity of these parameters, the calculation results are less accurate for the long term simulation. The sensitivity studies show results in the range of 25 percent.
- Pressurizer Pressure and Level Before reactor trip, the pmssurizer level and pressure evolutions were always accurately predicted, inducing the prediction of the trip time based on pressurizer low-level pressure within five percent.
During the long-term evolution and after the trip, all simulations showed a qualitatively good prediction of pressurizer level recovery, but the deviation in the integrated SGTR break flow resulted in some deviation of the pressurizer level calculation at the end of the simulation of Test 9.
. Steam Generator Pressure Simulating SG pressure using the simple thermal model, which factors in steady SG heat losses and the thermal inertia of the SG walls, resulted in prediction of the SG pressure evolution within 60 psi, for most of the transients durations.
It is important to note that for the AP600 SSAR calculations, the faulted SG pressure will be limited by the PORV valve setpoint. Derefore, the SG pressure will be stable at this setpoint, well predicted by LOFTTR2 AP. O e u:27w-9 aos itaa2297 5-268 REVIStoN: 1
C/
- Primary Side Inlet and Outlet Temperature De primary side temperature evolution was well predicted by LOFTRAN AP, and the difference between the csiculations and measurements was within i 10'F, most of the time.
- PRHR Flow and Temperature Evolutions The PRHR flow and temperature evolutions were well simulated in single. phase. The modeling was not thoroughly investigated with boiling in the PRHR because in the tests, significant boiling occurred in the outlet plenum of the facility at the same time as boiling in the PkHR.
Boiling in the outlet plenum is out of the scope of LOFTRAN AP. All the sensitivity studies performed on the RCS and SG parameters showed that PRHR behavior was not significantly affected and indicated that PRHR model is robust in single-phase.
- CMT Flow The CMT flows were always predicted well by LOFTRAN-AP. As for the PRHR, the CMT flow was not significantly affected by the sensitivity studies performed on the RCS and (j SG parameter. Once again, the modeling of the passive systems was shown to be robust.
- Automatic Depressurization System .
De short period simulated after ADS valve opening during Test 11 was correctly simulated up to the point were boiling occurred in the facility. De pressurizer-pressure drop-off was precisely predicted. l
- Nonsafety Systems Nonsafety systems such as CVCS, SG valves, and pressurizer heaters were used during Test 9.
Using the nonsafety systems did not induce perturbation of the behavior of the safety systems. ne simulations presented show that LOFTRAN AP has the capability to simulate the nonsafety systems. Table 5.71 summarizes this subsection and illustrates why the LOFTTR2 AP code is valid for AP600 SSAR SGTR calculations. 5.7.2 Main Steam Line Break Test Simulations L- !. nis subsection summarizes how LOFTRAN.AP addresses the key phenomena defined in Subsection 5.2.2 for MSLB simulations. aun7 9.nonibas2297 5-269 RrvIsloN: 1
Due to the simplified and conservative break flow model and non-prototypical characteristics of the SPES 2 facility, several simulations demonstrated the adequacy of the LOFTRAN AP code for conservative design basis analyses. Steam Line Break Modelin2 ne LOFTRAN AP steam generator and steam pipe break model is based on input derived from production codes, design data, and other more sophisticated multi-phase flow codes. For design basis analyses sensitive input parameters are adjusted in the conservative direction. De LOFTRAN AP code does not predict break flow quality. For design basis calculations either a pure steam quality of one is assumed to maximize the primary side cooldown or conservative profiles are developed based on NOTRUMP code calculations and established safety analysis methodology to maximize the effect on the parameters being compared to the applicable regulatory criteria. Steam Generator Pressure Be pressure and pressure transient evolution is related to the steam break modeling described above. Pressure in the broken SG (SG A) decreawd faster than in the test data. His variation was expected and is consistent with conservative analysis. Overall, the rate of pressure decrease is faster in LOFTRAN AP. LOFTRAN does not model the heat capacity of the SG, which contributes to the under prediction, relative to test data. In both the LOFTRAN-AP simulations and the test, SG-A blew down to ambient pressure at relatively the same time, For SG D, the pressure decreased rapidly to a pressure comparable to the test data. Reverse heat transfer for SG B to the primary side occurred giving the same general trend as observed in the test data. It should be noted that LOFTRAN AP does not model heat losses from the SG. Pressurizer Pressure he rate and extent of primary side cooldown is illustrated well by observing the pressure evolution. Comparison of LOFTRAN-AP with SPES 2 data shows a tendency of LOFTRAN-AP to overpredict the system cooldown. This overprediction is a result of the conservative models developed for safety analysis calculations. LOFTRAN-AP predicts pressure break points and overall trends very well. As demonstrated by the sensitivity cases, given a more sophisticated break flow model and secondary side component metal mass model, nearly perfect agreement to the test data would occur. Primary Side Temperature Prediction of primary-side temperature evolution was consistent with pressurizer pressure. LOFTRAN-AP tends to overpredict the primary-side cooldown response to the SG blowdown. cm27 9.non.It os2297 5270 REVISION: 1
i i () Sensitivity runs showed that overprediction is related to the conser ative break flow model and the effect of the 50 metal mass. RCS Flow LOFTRAN AP adequately predicted RCS How during the time span of interest for design-basis non-LOCA analyses. LOFTRAN does not allow negative flow in the loop with the pressurizer. l{owever, since the pressurizer loop also contains the PRHR system, loop flow never approached reverse-flow or stagnant-flow conditions. CMT Behavior CMT behavior was adequately simulated by the LOFTRAN AP code model, initially, LOFTRAN AP utJer-predicted CMT flow, which is conservative for design basis analysis. As the transient progressed, the code and test data converged to the same value. In both the test and code simulations, the CMTs did not drain and remained in the recirrulation phase. The behavior of the individual CMT flow test data shows that even for an asymmetric MSLB event, both CMTs behave alike. This behavior provides justification for using the single CMT model in g conservative design basis analysis applications. ( l \s Overall, the LOFIRAN AP code demonstrates the ability to conservatively model the CMT system for design basis, steam line break (and other non-LOCA) events. PRHH Behavior
*Ihe LOFTRAN AP code precisely predicted PRHR flow during Test 12. The apparent difference between the test and simulations is the result of a slightly positive bias in the test data. Simulated PRilR flow rate was not sensitive to the rate of system cooldown. ,\
i i N) ov22 /w.9xe iba2297 5-271 REVISIO.N: 1
e C d y TABLE 5.7-t ASSESSMENT OF SPES-2 SIMULATION RESULTS ~ I I LOFITR2-AP Simulation
- M y Component & System f Phenomenon SPES-2 AP600 Comments Pressurizer Pressure & Level + +
Steam Generator Pressure +/- ++ SPES-2 simulation not excellent, due to the uncertainty on the actual test SG heat losses and the high sensitivity of the simulation on this parameter. AP600 SSAR calculations will be perforned with SG pressure controlled by the PORV setpoint. RCS Temperature + ++ AP600 temperatures should be better predicted because the effect of phenomena associated with heat losses and the energy stored in tie system metal masses are less important for AP600 than for SPES-2. The LOFTIR2-AP modelling of this phenomena is simple. d Break Flow +/- ++ Excellent conservative prnfiction expected for AP600 because the SG pressure is fixed by the PORV setpomt, and the RCS pressure is maximized. PRHR Flow and Temperature + + CMT Flow + + ADS + + AP600 and SPES-2 simulation valid only during a limited period, before boiling in tie RCS. Non Safety Systems + + Note:
- Simulations are ranked as follows:
- Poor h + Good d ++ Excellent O. .
U O O O
O V 6.0
SUMMARY
OF THE LOFTRAN CODE VALIDATION ElYORT Dis section summarizes the overall code validation effort and the results presented in this report. This report provides details of the LOITRAN simulations of the ChtT and SPES 2 tests used to validate the LOFTRAN ChtT model and integral plant response during transient situations. %e Ch1T l model validation is based on sepwate effects tests conducted at the ChfT test facility. The SPES 1 l natural circulation tests, which also support code validation are included in this section. , While not a primary purpose of this report, the validation exercises herein further validate LOFTRAN models. 6.1 Role of LOFTRAN in Safety Analysis ne LOFTRAN code is used to calculate NSSS transients given a set of boundary conditions and a transient forcing function. %e code simulates the transient based on user supplied input. By specifyin- waimum or maximum initial conditions, safety system setpoints, relief and safety-valve capacities, -ore kinetics' parameters, and safeguards system, thermal-hydraulic performances, the code supplies conservative and bounding analysis results. He transient forcing functions, such as the steam break model, also contain conservative modeling assumptions or are supplied with conservative input parameters to achieve a conservative system response. Code inputs are based on design data and where applicable, uncertainties are included and applied in the direction, which provides conservative response relative to acceptance criteria or safety analysis limit. %e safety analysis limit includes margin to design limits. De overall approach then includes conservative models, minimum or maximum code input values, and margin in the acceptance criteria giving an overall conservative irsult. LOFTRAN is used in conjunction with other codes. For example FACTRAN, a detailed fuel rod model, is used for detailed, heat flux calculations, and THINC or WESTAR is used for DNBR calculations. LOFTRAN provides conservatise and bounding boundary conditions to these codes, 6.2 Adaptation of LOl?TRAN and LOFTRAN Based Safety h!cthodology to Advanced Passive Plant Designs ne primary role of the LOFTRAN code is to pe.~ form conservative simulations of non-LOCA and SGTR licensing basis events for pressurized water reactors. The LOFTRAN code has a long history of use in conservative design basis analysis crJeulations. LOFTRAN has been extensively reviewed by the USNRC and is approved for use in the non-LOCA and SGTR event, design basis analyses. o un7.+ non ib-oan97 61 REVISION: I
,~- .. , -. . - -
Specifically, the LOFTRAN code is used to analyze the following subsei of transients presented in AP600 SSAR (* - denotes transients which use or are the result of passive AP600 features).
- Feedwater system malfunctions resulting in cooldowns
- Excessive increase in secondary steam flow
- Loss of load / turbine trip
- Complete loss of forced RCS flow
- Uncontrolled RCCA bank withdrawal at power
- Partial loss of forced RCS flow
- LockcJ or broken RCP shaft Startup of an inactive RCP
- Inadvertent RCS depressurization
*. Inadvertent opening of a steam generator relief valve, steam system piping failure
*- Loss of ac power, loss of normal feedwater
*. Feedwater system pipe breaks
*- CVCS malfunction resulting in increase in RCS inventory
*. Inadvertent PRHR operation
*- Inadvertent operation of the CMTs
*- Steam generator tube rupture LOFTRAN AP is a modified version of LOFTRAN, which includes models for the passive safety systems. Of the above transients, approximately half do not actuate any of the AP600 passive features and are analyzed with previously licensed LOFTRAN models.
The rnethods used in conjunction with LOFTRAN have been previously reviewed and are consistent with NUREG 0800 (Reference 25) . The methods used and applied to the AP600 plant are consistent with methods used for operating PWRs with active safety systems. Adaptation of previously used safety analysis methods to the AP600 plant is described in the Code Applicability Document (Reference 8) and Chapter 15 of the AP600 SSAR. 6.3 Code Validation Tests 6.3.1 SPr&1 Natural Circulation Tests l Validation of the LOFTRAN natural-circulation flow model based on SPES 1 tests is presented in this I subsection. I LOFTRAN natural circulation verification is carried out by comparison of the LOFTRAN results with I tests performed at the SPES-1 facility. O o u227 -9 non itsoa2297 6-2 REVIStoN: I
o b l SPES 1 is a three loop full height facility scaled in the ratio of 1/427 with respect to a standard l Westing $ouse PWR 3 loop plant. Scaling criteria are particularly aimed to the simulation of natural I circulation and small break LOCAs. I I ne SPES 1 facility has been used to perform a series of single- and two-phase natural circulation I experiments at different decay power levels and secondary inventory, l l De AP600 LOFTRAN verification is based on test # SPNC-Ol; that is the only SPES 1 test that I focuses on single-phase natural circulation conditions. I l The test was divided into two different parts and reported in Reference 9. I 6.3.1.1 SPES 1 Test # SPNC-01. Part 1 l l In the first part of the test, five atfferent power step changes have been performed, starting from an I initial power level corresponding to about two times the estimated plant heat losses and increasing onc
! percent at a time. Figures 6.3.1.1 1 and 6.3.1.12 show the core and steam generator (SO) heat flux l respectively. During this first part of the test, primary and c.econdary masses v ere held constant at their i nominal value. ,r3 I
() l A LOITRAN model for SPES 1 has been set up to simulate the test. De power levels and heat losses I are adjusted to match the test conditions. For this part of the test, the primary interest of the I comparison is in the steady state conditions reached between the different power steps. l l De results of the comparison between the LOFTRAN simulation and the SPES 1 measurements are I summarized in Table 6.3.1.1 1. De results show a very good capability of the LOFTRAN code to l predict natural circulation flow rates. I l ne RCS flow rate is predicted with an error of less than four percent for the various power level and I heat losses cases. Moreover, the code can be easily adjusted to predict a conservative response in terms I of flow rates and pressure drops. His provides flexibility for the users to achieve a conservative l predictions,if needed. l l 6.3.1.2 SPES 1 Test # SPNC-01 Part 2 l l The operating conditions of the facility at the end of the first phase provides the initial conditions for i the f.econd one. The second phase of the test examines the influence of the secondary side masses on I the primary circulation. I l With the power level at about five percent of nominal value (Figure 6.3.1.21), the secondary system () n I was dried out in a series of eight draining steps. The SG water level was controlled according to the l scheme reported in Figure 6.3.1.21, until core heat up was reached. His test is important for the l l o 9227w 9mn Ib-ns:297 6-3 RtvisioN: I l
i l model verification since it permits the evaluation of LOFTRAN natural circulation capability during the O1 l transient condition (SGs dried up) encountered in many accident events. l l ne test is simulated in LOFTRAN by means of two 50 mass drainages. De first one represents the I draining performed in the test facility between 7,000 to 14,000 seconds in Figure 6.3.1.21. The second I simulates the drainage performed in the test facility between 14,000 to 18,000 seconds. Dese l drainages result in RCS heat up and bring about peak two phase natural circulation flow in the test I facility as shown in Figure 6.3.1.2 2. I 1 The drainages are simulated in the LOFTRAN code numerically by means of negative feedwater How l rate delivered to the SGs and is sFown in Figure 6.3.1.2 3. l l %e predicted RCS flow rate transient as the steam generator secondary side mass is being drained is I shown in Figure 6.3.1.2-4. It indicates that LOFTRAN calculates single phase flow rate similar to the i test, up to the second simulated drain. After the second simulated drainage, with the SGs almost dried, I the RCS temperatures start to rise, and saturation conditions are reached in the hot leg. The RCS flow I starts to increase and two phase natural circulation now begins. The two phase flow rate reaches a l peak before dropping off. Both the peak flow rate and the trend of'he flow rate transient compare l favorably with the test results. The peak flow rate in the SPES 1 test is reached, however, much more i gradually than predicted by LOFTRAN. This is believed to be due to ur.derprediction of the fdction i factors under two phase flow conditions (LOFTRAN does not correct for the increase due to two-phase I flow). He two phase flow rate calculation is outside the scope of the LOFTRAN calculations. l l 6.3.2 Ch!T Tests l l Validation of the LOFTRAN ChfT model is based on comparisons to Westinghouse ChtT Test Facility I data. Details of the ChtT validation effort are presented in Section 4 of this report. Based on the I results presented within this report it is concluded that the LOFTRAN ChtT module provides an i accurate representation of the AP600 ChtT system. For single phase, natural-circulation, the code i predicted injection flow rate in the range of 5 to 10 percent higher than the experimental results. For I two-phase flow, a buoyancy head penalty is used to provide conservative simulations. l l ne LOFTRAN ChtT hydmalic model is not intentionally biased in either the conservative or l nonconservative direction. The 5 to 10 percent overprediction is explained by differences between the l Dow conditions in ChtT tests and the flow conditions in the cold pre-operational tests used to develop l user specified, friction factor input. Conservatism is introduced in two ways. First, the ChtT model l assumes perfect mixing of boron in the tank with the fluid entering from the cold leg balance line. 1 During the ChtT recirculation phase, applicable to non LOCA events, this has the effect of instantly I diluting the relatively higher boron concentration in ChtT water with the replacement RCS water, I conservatively underpredicting the boron concentration of the ChtT injection. Secord the user can i adjust code input to provide minimum or maximum now as appropriate for a given analysis to provide o um. 9 non ib-um97 6-4 REVislON: 1
i l cont.crvative analysis results. CMT modeling assumptions in relation to particular Oon LOCA events or ; I SGTR are provided in Chapter 15 the SSAR. ! l l Comparisons of LOITRAN simulations to SPES 2 data show tu the LOITRAN CMT module
'l continues to provides an accurate representation, when ec upled with the other LOFTRAN modules, r l The SPES 2 test data showed that individual CMT behavior is amenable to simulations with the single l CMT LOITRAN module. For both the SPES 2 SOTR and MSLB tests, which are asymmetric l secondary side transients, the SPES 2 test data showed relatively symmetric CMT flow rates.
I l - 6.3.3 SPES 2 Tests l l 6.3.3.1 SGTR Test Simulations l l SOTR event car,es were run with and without nonsafety systems. Coraparison of LOITRAN l simulations to SPES.2 test data show good agreement with all key parameters identified in the PIRT. I In particular, the code did a good job of predicting the CMT and PRHR behavior. Combined with 1 - analyses assumptions which maximize SO tube break flow, it is apparent that LOFITR2.AP provides a I good model foi use in conservative, design basis SOTR calculations. I l LOFFRAN predictions of CMT and PRHR behavior during the SOTR event demonstrated good to O I excellent agreement with test data. The code models showed little variation in the sensitivity case, I indicating that the design of these passive systems is robust for single phase flow conditions. I l The individual CMT flow rates in the SGTR tests behave very much the same providing justification I for the use of the LOITRAN single CMT model in SGTR analyses. I , l 6.3.3.2 MSLB Test Simulation l l Comparison of LOFTRAN simulations with the SPES 2 MSLB test data demonstrated that LOFTRAN-l AP accurately predicts the overall transient trends and provides conservative results suitable for design-I basis safety analyses. Evaluation of the main steam line break code simulations and comparisons to test I data determined the primary reasons for differences with the test data. These are: a consenative I blowdown model developed to maximize break flow, break quality uncertainty, and thick metal heat 1 capacity and system heat losses effects. The thick metal heat capacity of the steam generator and I system heat loss effects are exaggerated by the SPES 2 facility. These differences are explainable and I are related to phenomena not associated with the passive plant design. l l Comparison of the SPES 2 MSLB test data for the PRHR and CMT passive systems showed good I agreement with LOFTRAN simulations. Consistent with the SGTR test data, the behavior of the l individual CMTs was essentially the same throughout the MSLB providing justification for the use of l the single CMT LOFTRAN model in MSLB analyses. om27 9mni64s:297 6-5 REV1SloN: 1
! LOTTRAN genet fly emplois conservative, transient forcing functions. Combined with the use of l ininimum or maxiraum input value assumptbns designed to minimize the margin to applicable I regul6.ory limits, LOiTRAN-AP provides an accurate, but conservative analysis tool. 6,4 LO}%/.N Application Envelope The LOFTRAN cnde is not intended for use where significant two-phase Dow occurs. Transients which employ LOFTRAN, in general, do not exhibit significant two phase now conditions. If two l phase Dow cw!d occur, acceptat.cc criteria are established based on prohibiting large scale RCS boiling Additionally, LOFTRAN is not used: vhere CMT drain down could occur, for post trip ADS, during GW3T injection phase, cr fo, lor g term cooling phases. LOFTRAN models the two CMTs as a single CMT. For transients in which asymmetric cold leg transients in ccajunctius G CAC inJenon occurs, analysis assumptions are selected to conservatively bound actual plant resposw. 6 5 Conclusions This report presentrx! the final phase of the LOFTRAN AP code validation effort. Key to the validation of the LOFTRAN AP code version is demonstration that the code adequately predicts the behavior ci pastre plant features as identified in the PIRT, such as the PRHR and CMTs and the integral plant response under conditions in which the passive features are required. Validation of the code with test data in conjunction wra conservative input assumptions and methodologies described in the Code Applicability Docwnent provides a sound basis for using the LOFTRAN-AP code in design-basis safety analyses. Natural-circulatien capability was ulidated by comparing LOFTRAN simulations to SPES 1 test data. 1 The results show a very good capability of the code to predict natural circulation in single-phase now. I The LOFTRAN PRHR model validation of integral effects is provided by comparison to the SPES 2 SGTR and MSL3 tests. In all cases, the results show an excellent capability of the code to predict PRilR behavior under the range of conditions analyzed in the non-LOCA and SGTR events. Furthermore, the code provides Ocxibility through user selected input and options to provide conservative responses suitable for bounding design-basis calculations. LOFTRAN-AP code simulations of SPES 2 SGTR test data show that LOFTRAN accuratt.ly predicts the operational behavior of the passive systems as well as the integrated plant operation under transient conditions. Comparison to the test data shows good agreement with all key parameters identified in the PIRT, in panicular, the code did a good job of predicting CMT and PRHR behavior. Combined with analysi assumptions, which maximize break Dow, it is apparent that LOFTPR2 AP provides a good model for conservative, design basis SGTR calculations, o;u227w-9 non ib-os:297 6-6 RmStoN: 1
l' i \ Comparison of LOITRAN AP simulations with the SPES 2 MSLB test data demonstrated that LOFTRAN AP accurately predicted the overall transient trends and provides conservative results suitable for design-basis safety analyses. LOFTRAN provided good predictions of CMT and PRHR behavior for the SPES-2 MSLB test. Based on compt.rison of LOFTRAN simulations to SPES 2 SOTR and MSLD tests presented in this repost LOFTRAN AP adequately predicts the key p.arameters identified in the PIRT during the applicable time fame analyzed for the SSAR. Comparisons of LOFIRAN simulations to SPES 2 data show that the LOITRAN CMT and PRiiR modules continue to provide as accurate representation, when coupled with other LOFTRAN modules. "Ihe SPES-2 test data showed that individual CMT behavior is relatively symmetric: thus, it is amenable to simulations with the single CMT LOFTRAN module. This report concludes that the LOFTRAN code provides an accurate model of the AP600 plant over the range of conditions required for the analysis of design-basis non LOCA and SGTR events. In conjunction with conwnative input parameters based on established safety vialysis methodologies, LOFTRAN provides an excellent tool for design basis safety analyses. I U
/^T
\ } v M7* h it'*2'7 6-7 REYlSION: I
l TABLE 6.3.1.1 1 i NATURAL CIRCULATION VERIFICATION COMPARISONS BETWEEN LOFTRAN l PREDICTIONS AND SPES 1 MEASUREMENTS FOR TEST #SPNC-01 l Core Power (Kw) 270 321 398 470 531 l SG heat flux (%) l SPES1 2.55 3.26 4.11 5.48 6.12 l LOFTRAN 2.54 3.26 4.51 5.48 6.43 l Mass Flow rate l SPES-1 (lWs) 4.69 5.17 5.83 6.36 6.72 l LOFTRAN (IWs) 4.75 5.13 5.75 6.13 6.47 l Error (%) 1.26 .7 1.37 3.61 3.72 O O o U227w.9 non IMA1297 68 REVISION: I
i i i Core Heat Flux (Fraction of Nominal) 0.10 0.08 - r ( O.06 - I 0.04 -
' ' ' ' ' ' ~
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Time CSec) Ti Figure 6.3.1.11 Simulated Core Heat Flux for SPES 1 , Natural Circulation Test # SPNC 01, Part 1
. o 9227=-9 non.ib-os2297 6-9 REVISION: I N + m-
i e ! I l 1 l SG Heat Flux (Fraction of Nominal) : 0.08 ; W 0.06 - r J g 0 04 - y ' g_ J 0.02 - - J
! l l l l l O
O 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 T i me (Sec) l'igure 6.3.1.12 Simulated SG IIcat Fittx for SPES 1 Natural Circulation Test # SPNC 01, Part 1 09:27.-9 nce ib-os2297 6-10 REVISIO.N: 1
e Core Power (KW) 700 - SG Downcomer Leve I (M) 18 1 600 -
- 16 -
~~
Power 500 - 14 - 12
..~
Wa 400 r e", 'ir w %, , N 10 - O > 6 300 - 8 - 200 - 6 - 4 _. 100 - so Level 2 - I I I ' 0 - 0 I I I I 1000 5000 9000 13,000 17,000 T ime (Sec) . ,e3 Figure 6.3.1.21 Core Power and SG Downcomer Levels for
. SPES 1 Natural Circulation Test # SPNC-01, Parts 1 and 2 o \322?w-9m It>-082'97 6-1I REVISION: 1
O d F lowrate (Kg/ S) 1.4 1.2 1.0 - Loops 1 ard 3
- f. II- 'NM Loop 2 0.4 0.2 -
' I I I O
1000 5000 9000 13,000 17,000 Time (Sec) Figure 6.3.1.2-2 Primary Coolant Loop Flow Rate for Natural Circulation Test # SPNC-01, Parts 1 and 2 e u227w 9 non ib.os2297 6-12 REVISION: 1
SG Mass (Lb) 400 300 -
. 200- -
100 - I I I I I I I 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Time CSec) ,/^' % )y Figure 6.3.1.2 3 Simulation of SG Mass for SPES 1 Test # SPNC-01, Part 1 o 9227.-9.im :6.os2297- 6-13' REVISION: 1
O Core F low Rate (Fract ion of Nomi ra l) D .10 - 0.08 b
- \
0.05 ! O i 0.04 0.02 I l i I I I I l 0 I 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Time (Sec) i i Figure 6.3.1.2-4 Simulation of Core Flow Rates for SPES 1 Test # SPNC-01, Part 1 o.un7w-9.non.ib-osR97 6-14 REVISION: I
,0 V
7.0 REFERENCES
- 1. M. Lambert, LOFTRAN ChfT Preliminary Validation Report, MT01 GSR-002, (Proptictary),
November 1994,
- 2. E. Carlin, M. Lambert, W. Scherder, LOFTRAN Preliminary Validation Report for SPES 2 Tests, PXS-GSR-001, (Proprietary), April 1995.
3, Dumett, T. W. T., LOFTRAN Code Descrip.*!on, WCAP 7907-P-A (Proprietary) and WCAP-7907 A (Non proprietary), April 1984.
- 4. Thomas, C. O. (NRC), Letter to P. Rahe (Westinghouse) Regarding Staff Acceptance for Referencing of WCAP 7909 (Proprietary) and WCAP-7907 (Non-proprietary), "LOFTRAN Code Description," July 29,1983.
- 5. Lewis, R. N., et al., SGTR Analysis hiethodology to Determine the Afargin to Steam Generator Overfill, WCAP 10698 P A (Proprietary) and WCAP-10750-A (Non proprietary), August 1985.
- 6. Lewis, R. N., et al.. Evaluation of Ofsite Radiation Dosesfor a Steam Generator Tube Rupture q Accident, Supplement I to WCAP 10698-P-A (Proprietary) and Supplement I to WCAP 10750-A Q (Non-proprietaryL March 1986.
- 7. Lewis, R. N., et al.. Evaluation of Steam Generator Overfill Due to a Steam Generator Tube Rupture Accident, WCAP 11002 (Proprietary) and WCAP 11003 (Non proprietary), February 1986.
l 8. Dachrach, U.. Carlin, E. L., LOFTRAN & LOFTTR2 AP600 Code Applicability Document, i WCAP-14234, Rev.1 (Proprietary), May 1997.
- 9. Dotti, S., et al.,
- Experimental Data Report SPES test SP NC Single Phase Natural Circulation (15% of Nominal Power)," SIET 0001 rd 89, December 1989.
- 10. Delose, F., Facility Description Reportfor AP600 Core Afakeup Tank (CofT) Test Program, WCAP-14132 (Proprietary), July 1994.
o
- 11. AP600 Core Afakeup Tank (CofT) Test Specification, WCAP-13345 Rev. 4 (Proprietary),
August 1994,
- 12. Aumiller, D. and L.E Hochreiter, Scaling Logicfor the Core Afakeup Tank Test.
WCAP 13963 (Proprietary), February 1994.
,/ ) 13. SPES-2 Facility Description, WCAP-14073 (Proprietary), SIET Document #00183Rl92, May 1994.
oM227w-9 non:Ib-082297 71 REVISION: I
i
- 14. Leonelli, K., Core Makeup Tank Test Data Report, WCAP-14217 (Proprietary) November 1994.
- 15. Crane Co. Technical Paper #410. Flow of Fluids Through Valves, Firtings, and Pipe,1978.
- 16. Wilson, J. F. et al, Steam Volume Frection in a Bubbling Two Phase Mixture, Trans. Am. Nucl.
Soc.,4,356-357 (1961).
- 17. Zaloudek, F. R., Steam Water Critical Flow From High Pressure Systems Interim Report,"
HW-80535, January 1964.
- 18. Not used.
I9. Conway, L et al., AP600 Design Cenification Program !,?ES-2 Tests Final Data report WCAP-14309, March 1995.
- 20. Quick Look Reportfor Full Pressure Full Height Test 501211 in SPES-2 (Blind Test),
LTCT-T2R-031. October 1994.
- 21. Not used.
- 22. NS-EPR 2648, Letter from E. P. Rahe, Jr., Westinghouse to C. O. 'Ihomas (NRC), Summary of NRC/ORNL/ Westinghouse Technical Review Meeting of July 13-4,1982, dated August 27,1982,
- 23. Do. ket 50-244, Letter from J. E. Maier (RGR) to D. M. Crutchfiel (NRC), " Response to Safety Evaluation Report - NUREG-0916, Steam Generator Tube Rupture Incident. R. E. Ginna Nuclea-Power Plant," dated November 22,1982.
- 24. AP60C FIIFP Integral Systems Test Specification, WCAP-14053, Rev. 2 (Proprietary), April 1995,
- 25. NUREG-0800, Revisior. 2, "USNRC Standard Review Plan," July 1981.
O ount.-9 non id.osr97 7-2 REVISION: I
O APPENDIX A CMT COMPONENT TESTS O O oA3227w-lanorrib4)82297 REVISION: 1
V A.1 CMT Component Test Facility Description The AP600 Core Makeup Tank Component Test Facility was located at the Westinghouse Waltz Mill Site in Madison, PA within two steel frame, steel panel clad buildings. A schematic representation of the AP600 Core Makeup Tank Test Facility is provided on Figure 3-2.
'Ihe facility consisted of the following major components and systems:
- 1. Core Makeup Tank - a single core makeup tank is modeled using a 10 ft. high,24-inch outside diameter carbon steel pressure vessel. A prototypic level instrument is also installed in the test CMT for evaluation.
- 2. Steam / Water Reservoir - a 10 ft. high,36-inch inside diameter pressure vessel which represents the reactor coolant system.
- 3. Steam Supply System - a steam generator,1164 ft.3 dry steam accumulator and pressure control valve designed to provide saturated steam over a range of pressures sufficient to capture all CMT modes of operation.
( p 4. Test Facility Piping simulates the primary features of the RCS to CMT balance line and C CMT discharge line piping,
- 5. Test Instrumentation
- 6. Data Acquisition System (DAS)
The test Core Makeup Tank was an instrumented test vessel (1/2 scale in height and in.77 scale in diameter) designed to model the key thermal-hydraulic phenomena related to all modes of CMT operation. The SteamAVater Reservoir (SAVR) simulated the remainder of the AP600 RCS in that it provided a source of steam to the CMT, and stored water drained from the CMT. The test facility piping modeled the cold leg balance line piping from the RCS cold leg to the CMT and the CMT drain line piping from the bottom of the CMT to the reactor vessel. Saturated steam was supplied to the SAVR using a high pressure steam generator, accumulator and pressure control valve to accommodate the entire range of test pressures. A data acquisition system (DAS) was provided to record signals from the various test instruments which include thermocouples, pressure sensors, and flow meters. The Core Makeup Tank test article, related piping, steam supply and ancillary support systems were situated in a 32-foot wide by 46-foot long by 65-foot high building which was selected because of the
,_s headroom available o model actual plant elevations.
I \ N.Y oM227w-tanon1tr082297 A-1 REVISloN: 1
s The facility control room, which housed the test loop controls and data acquisition system, was located in an adjacent building. All test operations were conducted from the control room area. A full description of the test facility is provided in Reference 10. A.2 CMT Component Tests Used for LOITRAN Code Validation Simulations of the CMT component tests provide primary validation of the LOFTRAN-AP CMT model. During the design-basis nor. LOCA and SGTR transients analyzed with LOFTRAN AP, subcooling exists in the RCS cold legs. During these events, the CMT exhibits recirculation rather than the draindown made of injection, which is expected for a LOCA. Therefore, only the recirculation phase of the 500-series tests is used for validation of the LOFTRAN AP CMT model. The 500-series tests are documented in Reference 14. Matrix tests 501 to 509 simulated heating of the CMT water by natural circulation and with subsequent draindown and depressurization. Only the natural circulation phase of the tests is simulated because this is the mode relevant to LOFTRAN-AP non-LOCA and SGTR transient analysis, and the draindown phase is outside the scope of the LOFTRAN-AP code. During the natural circulation phase of the tests, the water reservoir contained water (close to saturation) and steam; the level was above the line 2 inlet (Figure 41). Line 1 was closed, and natural circulation was initiated by fully opening the injection line (valve V3). This valve remained fully open throughout the natural circulation phase. During the transient, a pressure control valve operated to keep the reservoir pressure constant by admitting steam from the steam accumulator. Three parameters differentiate tests 501 to 509: e ne pressure target of the loop (1,085 or 1,835 psi)
- The duration of the natural circulation phase (until one-fifth, one-half, or the entire CMT is heated)
- Re setting of the injection line valve for the draindown phase (the draindown phase is not simulated in this report)
Only tests with the entire CMT heated are selected for simulation for LOFTRAN-AP validation because these tests essentially duplicate the tests with a partially heated CMT. These tests are C064506 (Matrix Test 506) and C072509 (Matrix Test 509). He parameters of test C064506 and C072509 are summarized in Table A-1. Full test results may be found in Reference 14. O eM227w.lanen lb.082297 A.2 REVISloN: 1
. _ - . . - . . - . _ . - .. . _ _ _ . _ . _ .. . ~ . . . . - - . - - . .-.--..-
( ._ TABLE A 1 CMT 500 SERIES TESTS USED FOR LOFTRAN AP VALIDATION Limited
- Test Run Test Pressure Drain Rate Number Date (psig) (spm)
C064506 8/29/94 1085 16 C072509 9/14/94 1835 16 O O O U227w.itnon. it@82297 A-3 REVISION: 1
ap-
r.,,n
',b _
i
-?
3 a- - c a- - J t- -
+
~~
-,3 T
u 5 9 tf .
't i
1 I
.e
( -- 1, ' APPENDIX B SPES 2 TESTS '. : 6 i d 1 3 l l e 5
?
o , ? 4 i b 1a I i-,!p
...4_
F - l^ -
?
h i t' t' 4-I i-
;z'-
4 e
\
.4
- t j e
Au22E2=1b.cs2297? ' REVISION: I s , , 4 w ws + w*r .e ...ri, h ,a. .. 2., _ _ w _______.---m -
, *_.-m. -,m--.. mew. .w.-.r<.. e - - * ~ _ - - .-.es--. ....-e-ws.. --e.-.eb-
. ,R
- B.1 SPES 2 Test Facility Description B.1.1 Introduction 1
De SPES facility is an experimental plant located at SIET (Societa Informazioni Esperienze Termoidrauliche) laboratories in Piacenza. Italy. De SPES facility was substantially modified to simulate the AP600 plant while maintaining full-scale elevation, full-pressure, and full-power at a volume and power scaling factor of 1/395. He resulting SPES-2 facility retained some major
- components of the previous facility (rod bundle, pressurizer, steam generators), but had significant
, changes in the power channel and the primary pumps. In addition, all of the main coolant loop piping and the passive safety systems were expressly designed and constructed for SPES-2 in order to model the AP600. A complet; description of the SP51S 2 facility is provided in the SPES-2 facility Description Report (Reference 13).
B.I.2 Facility Scaling Summary The SPES-2 facility was designed tn simulate the following: l
- The primary system
!'~
l (j%
- ~ - = The secondary system up to the main steam line isolation valves (MSLIVs)
- The passive safety systems: accumulators, core makeup tanks (CMTs), in-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST), passive residual heat removal (PRHR), and automatic depressurization system (ADS)
- The nonsafety systems: normal residual heat removal system (RNS) and chemical and volume control system (CVS)
The overall scaling factor was specified to be 1/395 and the main characteristics were specified to be:
- Process fluid water
. Loop number 2
* . Pump number 2 a' Primary design pressure 2900 psia
= Secondary design pressure 2900 psia a Primary design temperature 690*F l
- Secondary design temperature 590'F l
== Maximum power - 9MW
' Elevation scaling 1:1 34 t
)
/ .'
l-l ou:27 2.non:1b-os:297 B-1 REVISION: 1
l The SPES-2 scaling was intended to preserve the following parameters: 9l
. Fluid thermodynamic conditions e Vertical elevations e Power-to-volume ratio e Power-to-flow rate ratio e Transit time of fluid
. Heat flux For example, the surge and passive safety system lines, where friction pressure drops are relevant to scaling of the AP600 plant, were designed to maintain the dimensions of the reference plant, whereas the facility piping was designed with the Froude number conservatism in order to preserve the slug to stratified flow pattern transition in the horizontal piping.
The passive safety systems were designed according to the criteria described above in order to reproduce, as accurately as possible, the thermal hydraulic phenomena il, AP600 during a transient. Also, when deemed necessary, the layout of the connection lines was desigt.ed to preserve the similarity of the full scale AP600 layout. B.I.3 Facility Description As discussed above, the SPES 2 facility is a full simulation of the AP600 primary and passive core cooling systems. The stainless steel test facility uses a 97-rod heated rod bundle that has a uniform axial power shape and uses skin heating of the heater rods. There are 59 heater rod thermocouples distributed over 10 elevations with most located at the top of the bundle to detect the possibility of bundle uncovery. De heater rods are single ended and are connected to a ground bus at the top of the bundle at the upper core plate elevation. All but two rods are designed to have the same power. Two heater rods are hot rods that have 19 percent higher power. The primary system, as shown in Figure 3-3, includes two loops--each with two cold legs, one hot leg, a ceam generator and a single reactor coolant pump (RCP). The cold leg flow splits downstream of the simulated RCP into two separate cold legs, which then flow into an annular downcomer. The pumps can deliver the scaled primary flow, and the heater rod bundle can produce the scaled full-power level such that the AP600 steady-state temperature distribution can be simulated. The steam generators have a secondary side cooling system that removes heat from the primary loop during simulated full-power operation. Startup feedwater and power-operated relief valve (PORV) heat removal is provided following a simulated plant trip. The upper portion of the simulated reactor vessel includes an annular downcomer region, where the hot and cold legs, as well as the safety injection lines, are connected. He annular downcomer is connected to a pipe downcomer below the direct vessel injection (DVI) lines; tne pipe downcomer then connects to the vessel lower plenum, in this fashion, the four cold leg, two hot leg characteristics omnnamn-osrw B-2 REVISION: I
of AP600 can be preserved along with the downcomer injection, here are tuming devices to direct the safety injection flow downwards in the annular downcomer, as in the AP600. A full-height, PRHR heat exchanger, constructed in a C-tube design, is located in a simulated IRWST that is maintained at atmospheric pressure, ne line pressure drop and elevations are preserved and the heat-transfer area is scaled such that the natural circulation behavior of the AP600 PRHR heat exchanger is simulated. The design of the CMTs is unique and has been developed by the SIET engineers so that the CMT metal mass is scaled to the AP600 CMT, The SIET CMT design uses a thin-walled vessel inside a thicker pressure vessel, with the space between the two vessels pressurized to approximately 1015 psi. In this manner, the amount of steam that condenses on the CMT walls during draindown is preserved. Since the CMTs are full height and operate at full pressure, the metal mass-volume ratio of a single pressure vessel would have been excessive, resulting in very large wall steam condensation effects. A SPES-2 ADS combines the two sets of AP600 ADS piping off the pressurizer into a single set with the first , second and third-stage valves. An orifice in series with each ADS isolation valve is used to i achieve the proper scaled flow area. The three ADS valves share a common discharge line to a condenser and a collection tank that has load cells to measure the mass accumulation. A similar
,-- measuring arrangement is also used for the two ADS fourth-stage lines, which are located on the hot
( legs of the primary system. [ Pipe breaks are simulated using spool pieces that contain a break orifice and quick-opening valve. The break discharge is condensed and measured by collecting the flow into a catch tank. I The specifics of the key systems / components are discussed in References 13 and 19. B.I.4 Instrumentation Data Acquisition System [ The SPES-2 facility instrumentation has been developed to provide transient mass and energy balances . on the test facility. There are approximately 500 channels of instrumentation that monitor the facility l and component pressure, temperature, and mass inventory. A variety of different methods and components were used to measure the significant thermodynamic quantities that are direct (absolute and differential pressure, temperature, voltage, current, etc.) and derived quantities (mass velocity, flowrate, etc.) as shown below: Ouantity Method or Comoonsnj Pressure - Pressure transmitters g Differential pressure - Differential pressure transmitters Temperature - Thermocouples/thermoresistances
- o:u2nw.2 nalb os2297 B-3 REVISION: 1
Collapsed level - Differential pressure transmitters Density - pdensitometers Velocity - Turbines / orifices, venturi tubes Flow rate - Turbines / orifices, venturi tubes Integral flowrate - Catch tanks Electrical power - Voltage drops and shunts The Hows into the simulated reactor system, such as the CMT discharge flow, the accumulator flow and the IRWST flow, are measured using venturi flow meters. Flows out of the test facility, such as break flow and ADS flow, are measured with a turbine meter and condenser / collection tank. The use of condensers allows accurate mass now versus time measurements of the two-phase ADS and break flow streams. He use of collection tanks following the condensers provides redundancy for the critical measurements of the mass leaving the test system. Differential pressure measurements are ananged as level measurements on all vertical components to measure the rate of mass change in the component. There are also differential pressure measurements between components to measure the frictional pressuce drop, both for single- and two-phase flow. The CMTs are instrumented with wall and fluid thermocouples to measure the CMT condensation and heatup during their operation. The PRiiR liX is also instrumented with wall and fluid thermocouples so that the tube wall flux can be calculated from the data. There are thermocouples in the simulated IRWST to measure the fluid temperature distribution and to assess the amount of mixing that occurs. The rod bundle power is measured accurately to obtain the rod heat Hux and the total power input to the test facility. The data acquisition and elaboration system collects and handles measured signals from the plant. The large amount of operations necessary to the user are implemented in appropriate software procedures in order to avoid errors and loss of information. B.1,5 Control Loops During the test, control loops managed and controlled the key plant parameters. Most of the contro! loops are electronic and are located on the control room main board. These main control loops regulate:
- Primary pressure and level
- Steam generator pressure and level
- CMT external containment air pressure
- SRV, NRliR, CVCS flow rates
- Bundle power ne basis for the SPES-2 bundle power decay is to simulate the heat flux versus time from the AP600 fuel rods, including stored energy and fission product decay heat. This power decay versus time has been determined based on AP600 LOFTRAN analyses. The fission product decay heat versus time is based on the ANS 1979 decay heat standard plus two sigma encertainty. The SPES-2 heat loss eM22h2 na tt4sr97 B-1 REVislON: I
C's U compensation value (150 kW) is based on pre-operational testing and is added to the SPES-2 bundle power decay. The core power versus time simulation is discussed in detail in Reference 19. l l The day before a test, the facility is checked out. On the day of the test, several key steps are performed to bring the plant up to initial conditions. When nominal conditions are reached, they are maintained fer about 500 seconds before starting the transient. To start the transient, a specific break valve (or valves if required) is opened to begin break flow. At this point, the transient follows a course of events that is specific to the test procedure for that particular matrix test. However, some events are common to most of the tests. Once a serpoint is reached initiating the reactor trip R signal, the inain feedwater (MFW) isolation valves are closed and the power decay simulation is begun. Upon S signal initiation, the CMT isolation valves and the PRHR isolation valves are opened, and the main steam line isolation valves are closed, all with a 2-second de ay, 16.2 seconds after S signal, the RCP coastdown is initiated. ADS-1 is actuated on CMT volume of 67 percent with the other ADS stages following the delay time specified in the test procedure. Heat loss compensation is terminated with ADS stage I actuation. The accumulators begin injecting when the primary system pressure falls to ~700 psia. The IRWST begins injecting water when the primary system pressure is 26 psia. The test is terminated when final conditions are achieved as specified in the test procedure. The specific facility operation and configuration for each test used in g LOFIRAN AP validation are discussed in subsection B.3. b B.2 SPES 2 Tests Used for LOITRAN Code Validation Simulations of the SPES 2 SGTR and MSLB tests validate the integral AP600 plant response with the passive safety systems. These tests also provide additional validation of the LOFTRAN-AP CMT and PRHR models. l For the LOFTRAN AP code validation, data from the following SPES tests is used: l Matrix Test No. 9 - Steam generator tube rupture with nonsafety systems operational and operator action for mitigation (SPES-2 test 501309) Matrix Test No.10 - Steam generator tube rupture without nonsafety pumped injection / heat removal systems and without operator action (SPES-2 test S01110) l Matrix Test No. I1 - Steam generator tube rupture without nonsafety pumped injection / heat removal systems and with no operator action other than manual ADS actuation (SPES-2 test S01211, blind test) Matrix Test No.12 - Large single-ended steam iine break at hot standby conditions without l () nonsafety systems and with no operator action. (SPES-2 test S01512, blind test) oM227w-2 non:1t482297 B.5 REVISION: I
B.3 Test Descriptions This section summarizes the SPES-2 SGTR and MSLB tests. Complete descriptions of the tests are available in the final test report (Reference 19). B.3.1 Design Basis Steam Generator Tube Rupture with Nonsafety Systems Operational and Operator Action for Mitigation (SPES 2 Matrix Test S01309) This section summarizes the details of the SPES 2 matrix test S01309 that are relevant to the LOFTRAN-AP simulation. Additional details and data for matrix test S01309 can be found in Reference 19. His matrix test simulated an SGTR with both the passive and nonsafety systems operational and with operator action for mitigation. There were two operator actions simulated for this test: cooldown of the pri: nary system by dumping steam through the intact SG power-operated relief valve (PORV) to obtain hot leg subcooling while limiting the overall cooldown rate of the primary system; and subsequent controlled depressurization of the primary system to terminate primary-to-sec<mdary leakage using an ADS-1 valve. Dere was no CMT draindown during this transient. Derefore, there was no action of the ADS primary system depressurization function, no IRWST injection, and no significant accumulator injection. The chemical and volume cuatrol system (CVCS) and startup feedwater system (SFWS) were automatically initiated and controlled throughout this test. Plant personnel manually perfonned the following actions:
- Five minutes after the S signal, the faulted steam generator was isolated by closing the SFW isolation valve.
- From 2381 to 2669 seconds and reoccurring every 40 seconds, the ADS-3 valve was mistakenly opened for 10 seconds instead of the SG A PORV.
- Beginning at approximately 3000 seconds and reoccurring every 40 seconds, the SG-A PORV was opened for 10 seconds until it was left fully open at 4074 seconds.
- Beginning at 5276 seconds and reoccurring every 30 seconds until the test was tenninated, the ADS-1 valve was opened for 10 seconds.
De single SGTR was simulated via a line connected from the primary side (coolant pump B suction piping) to the secondary side of SG-B (approximately 3.9 ft. above the tube sheet), with a break orifice diameter scaled to simulate 1.2 times the area of a single AP600 SG tube diameter. Table B-1 shows the initial test conditions. The sequence of events for S01309 is listed in Table B 2. O c um. 2.= lM*2297 B-6 REVISION: I
/ T U Re event phases identified to evaluate the thermal hydraulic phenomena that occurred within the primary and safety systems for the SGTR event are as follows:
. Initial depressurization phase
. Pressure decay phase Initial Depressurization Phase (0 to 910 seconds) ne initial depressurization phase began with the break at time zero and continued for 900 seconds until the primary system depressurization was slowed (when primary system pressure was supported by the saturation pressure of the upper plenum and hot legs). This period included the following major events: initiation of the break at zero seconds; initiation of CVCS makeup flow to the primary system when pressunzer level decreased to the low-level setpoint of 10.2 ft. at [ ]a.b.c; shut-off of the one operating pressurizer internal heater when tlie pressurizer level decreased to [
]a.b.c; and simultaneous reactor trip (R) signal and safeguards (S) signal initiation when the pressurizer level decreased to the low-low level serpoint of 2.2 ft. at [ ]a.b.c, The R and S signals irntiated the following actions: the main steam line isolation valves (MSLIVs) and main feedwater isolation velves (MFWIVs) closed; the CMT injection line valves and the PRHR g HX return line isolation valve were opened - all with a 2-second delay; power decay was initiated after a 5,7-second delay; IRCP coastdown was initiated after a 16.2-second delay; and the CVCS setpoints were reset to ON when pressurizer level was less than 10 percent (2.2 ft.) and to OFF when pressurizer level was greater than 20 percent (4.4 ft). Also dunng the initial depressurization phase, operator action to isolate startup feedwater flow from the faulted SG-B was simulated at 767 seconds (S signal + 5 minutes), and operator action to initiate additional primary system cooling by opening the steam generator A PORV was simulated beginning at S signal + 7 minutes. The ADS-1 valve was inadvertently opened with the SG-A PORV at approximately 900 seconds.
Pressure Decay Phase (910 seconds to end of event) The pressure decay phase began at approximately 900 seconds when the system pressure was initially supported at the saturation pre'sure determined by the primary system core outlet temperature. The ADS-1 valve was opened by the facility control computer at about 900 sec., causing a drop in pressure from approximately [ ]a,b.c, His phase. of the event was characterized by a slow decrease in the overall system pressure and temperature. Operator actions to ebtain hot leg subcooling margin and to reduce the primary system temperature and pressure were not effectively initiated until approximately 4100 sec. and 5300 sec., res; ectively, As a result, throughout most of the pressure decay phase, the hot leg side of the primary system was close to or below saturation, and primary pressure was mainly dictated by the pressurizer steam bubble pressure, om2%2 non;itwos2297 B-7 REVISION: 1
he test was terminated when the primary- and secondary system pressures equalized. B.3.2 Design Basis Steam Generator Tube Rupture without Nonsafety Systems and No Operator Action to Isolate the Steam Generator (SPES 2 Matrix Test S01110) This section summarizes the details of test 10 that are relevant to the LOFTRAN-AP simulation. Additional details and data for test S01110 can be found in Refer:nce 19. His matrix test simulated an SGTR without any nonsafety systems operating or operator actions, and with only the automatic passive safety systems used for accident mitigation. Re pressurizer internal heaters were supposed to shut-off at break initiation and the CVCS, NRHR function, and SFWS were shut-off for this test. During the test, heaters were mistakenly left on for 250 sec. at a power of approxime.tely 11 kW, During mitigation of the SGTR, there was no CMT, accumulator, or IRWST injection throughout the transient. The single SGTR was simulated via a line connected from the primary side (RCP B suction piping) to the secondary side of SG A (approximately 3.9 ft. above the tube sheet) with a break orifice diameter scaled to a single AP600 SG tube diameter. Table B-3 provides the initial test conditions. The sequence of events for S01110 is listed in Table B 4. Since this SGTR event did not result in ADS actuation, only the first two event phases observed in loss-of-coolant (LOCA) recovery occurred. He event phases are as follows:
. Initial depressurization phase
= Pressure decay phase Initial Depressurization Phase (0 to 1050 seconds)
The initial depressurization phase began with the initiation of the break at time zero and lasted until the primary system pressure was supported by the saturation pressure for the upper plenum and the hot legs. This period included the following events: initiation of the break, the activation of the R and S signals, closure of the MSLIVs, opening of the CMT injection line valve. opening of the PRHR HX retum line isolation valve, and closing of the MITVIVs, all within a 2-second delay. Rod bundle power was reduced to 20 percent with a 5.7-second delay. Decay power simulation us initiated with a 14.5-second delay, and RCP coastdown was initiated after a 16.2-second delay. Pressure Decay Phase (1050 Seconds to End of Event) The pressure decay phase began when the system pressure was supported by the saturation pressure in the hot leg fluid of the primary side and continued urtil the end of the test. This phase was characterized by a slow decrease in the overall systera pressure and temperature. He core power (decay heat loss compensation) was reduced from 215 kW to 220 kW. au227w.2 non:1b.os2297 B-8 REVistoN: 1
At 2000 seconds with core power at 245 kW, the PRHR was removing approximately 83 kW; the CMTs provided approximately 84 kW of effective heat removal when the cold CMT water replaced the hot water entering the CMTs through the balance lines; the break flow removed about 7 kW; and facility heat losses were approximately 125 kW. The total heat removal exceeded the heat input (299 kW versus 245 kW); there was no boiling in the power channel, and system pressure decreased slowly. From 1500 to approximately 3000 seconds, the top of the upper plenum and upper head drained and partially refilled the pressurizer. At 3000 seconds into the event, the primary- and secondary-side pressure equalized, the SG U tubes begin to drain, and the break flow and the heat transfer to the secondary side decreased. Periodic boiling in the core and related oscillations in temperature, void fraction, flow through the core, and system pressure oscillations began in the pressure decay phase at about 3000 seconds into the event and continued throughout the rest of the event. The U tubes of SG-B were drained and the pump suction B was partly drained at about 6000 seconds into the event. For SG A, the flow continued until the end of the test; however, there was an oscillating void fraction at the top of the SG A U tubes. The test was terminated at about ( 7500 seconds after the primary and secondary side pressures equalized. B.3.3 SGTR with Inadvertent ADS Actuation (S01211) This matrix test simulated a double ended rupture of a SG tube followed by inadvertent ADS actuation. This test was performed without any nonsafety systems operating. The CVCS, NRHR, and SFWS were tumed-off for this test, The SGTR was simulated via a line connecting the primary side (coolant pump B suction piping) to the secondary side of SG-B (3.9 ft. above the tube sheet), with a break orifice diameter scaled to simulate [ ]*AC times the area of an AP600 SG tube to obtain the same flow as a double-ended break of an AP600 SG tube. The ADS l flow path was opened 2.5 minutes after the reactor trip (R) and the safety systems actuation (S) signals were generated. Tables B 5 and B-6 show the initial conditions and sequence of events for this test. Only the initial depressurization phase of this test is relevant to LOFTRAN-AP validation. After ADS 1 actuation, the event became a LOCA. The phase began by opening the SGTR break valve at time zero and ended when ADS-1 was actuated at 626 seconds. When the break valve was opened, primary system fluid flow to the secondary-side SG-B resulted in a decrease in pressurizer level and
~
pressure. The pressurizer level decreased to ( )*AC at[ - }*A* simultaneously actuating both the R and S signals. The SG main steam line isolation valves (MSLIVs) closed. The CMT injection line isolation and PRHR HX retum line isolation valves opened after a [ ]a.b.c delay. 7
-( The heate.r red power step changed from 100- to 20- percent power after a 5.7-second delay, The
_ RCPs were shut off after a 16.2-second delay. Flow through the PRHR HX and CMTs began , ou::7. 22on:ib-os:297 - B-9 REVis!ON: 1 . i
immediately when the istMion valves opened. Rod bundle power remained at 20 percent through 14.5 seconds after the R signal. At this time, the SPES 2 integrated heater rod power into the primary system matched the scaled AP600 core power decay. The SPES-2 heater rod power then decreased, simulating the scaled AP600 core decay heat but maintained an additional 150 kW, compensating for the SPES-2 facility heat losses. Pressurizer level rapidly decreased to [ la.b.c when the R and S signals occurred due to rapid cooldown and shrinkage of the power channel hot leg side water prior to RCP shut o'f. Pressurizer pressure decreased rapidly from about [ Ja.b.c to [ Ja.b.c as a result of this cooldown. Pressure increased slightly after the RCPs were shut off as the hot leg side fluid temperature increased, then rapidly decreased toward the power channel hot leg side fluid saturation pressure. Here was little or no boiling in the power channel throughout the initial depressurization phase. After the RCPs coasted down, some heat transfer from the primary to secondary side occurred since primary system pressure was higher than the secondary-siae pressure until about [ la b.c, B.3.4 Large Steam Line Break at Ilot Standby Conditions with Passive Safety Systems (S01S12) Matrix test S01512 simulated a large steam line break with the facility at zero power and in hot standby conditions. Only passive safety systems were operating to mitigate the accident. The purpose of this test was to demonstrate that the CMTs would not drain and initiate the ADS; therefore, cooldown of the primary system was maximized by having no decay heat simulated, no heat loss compensation, and using three PRHR HX tubes. The CVCS and the NRHR did not provide pumped injection. The startup feedwater system (SFWS) was not operated for this test since it would have been isolated by low-low T-cold in the AP60n plant. The break was simulated by opening the SG-A PORV The check valves in the main steam lines were removed to permit flow from the intact SG to the faulted SG until the individual SG steam line isolation valves closed. The SG A PORV line had an orifice installed with a diameter of [ ]a.b.e, which corresponds to a single-ended steam line break area of ( Ja.b.c n the AP600 plant. There was no CMT draindown throughout the transient; therefore, there was no ADS actuation or IRWST injection. The facility pressure remained sufficiently high to prevent any accumulator injection until [ ]a b.c into the transient. He initial coaditions and sequence of events for S01512 are listed in Tables B-7 and B-8. Two event phases are relevant to LOFTRAN-AP simulation:
- Initial depressurization phase l
. Pressure decay phase l
l l l nu2:7w-: non it>.082297 B-10 REVISION: I
l I l l laitial Deprewurization Phase
~
The initial depressurization phase started with the opening of the break valve (SG-A PORV). All power to the heated rods and pressurizer heaters was stopped immediately at break opening. The safety. system actuation (S) signal was actuated one second after the break opening signal. When the S signal was activated, the CMT and PRHR isolation valves were opened with a two-second delay, the SG-A and'-B steam line isolation valves were closed with a [ ]*** delay, and the RCPs were shutdown with a [ ]a.b.c delay. The opening of the break valve resulted in a rapid depressurization and level decrease in both SGs until the individual SG steam isolation valves closed at about 10 seconds. Steam blowdown from - SG A continued untii the water inventory in SG A flashed and boiled away. The large amount of heat removed from the primary system by the SGs (primarily the faulted SG A), combined with PRHR HX and recirculating CMTs, resuhed in a rapid initial cooldown, water shrinkage, and depressurization of the primary system. The rate of primary system depressurization began to decrease as the SG A secondary side inventory decreased. This depressurization rate decrease was apparently due to a decrease in the heat transfer (decrease in the tube surface area covered with water) to SG-A. He primary system depressurization rate then increased when the pressurizer was completely drained. After SG-A had boiled dry at [ ]*AC, the primary system continued to depressurize toward the pressure / temperature of the intact SG B. Primary system flow through the faulted SG A stopped at [ ]a.b.c when the SG-A dried out. Flow continued through SG-B only until approximately [ ]a.b.c, at which time the SG-B - U tubes began to drain. Also at this time, the rate of the primary-side pressure decrease slowed, since primary-side pressure was controlled and matched the SG B saturation pressure corresponding to the SG B secondary temperature of [ ]a.b.c Rese conditions ended the initial depressurization phase. Pressure Decay Phase The pressure decay phase for this test began at [ ]aA' and ended at approximately [ ]*AC, when the test terminated. This steam line break event was characterized by a slow, continuous decrease in the primary system pressure in conjunction with the intact SG-B
. secondary-side pressure / temperature. The primary system pressure was maintained by continued voiding in the SG-B U-tubes, and by the expanding steam bubble in the power channel upper head.
' As shown in data plots 21,23, and 31, the upper-head water level decreased slowly from approximately [ - ' ]**** to [ la.b.c,.and SG-B U-tubes were approximately [ ]a.b.c drained at approximately [ ]*AC, at which time the test was terminated.
A The power channel temperatures (with the exception of the upper head) decreased continuously during I this test. 'Ihe primary system cooldown was due to heat removal by the PRHR HX, heat removal oA3227w.2.ncall>0R2297 . B.l l REVISION: 1 l . - ,
resulting from energy stored in the CMTs during their recirculation mode of operation, and facility heat losses. Heat transfer to and from the SGs was limited because there was no secondary water in i SG A, and S0-B U-tubes were voided. There was, therefore, essentially no primary system now through either SG. The primary system water inventory, with the exception of the upper head, f remained subcooled throughout the test. l l The pressurizer, which emptied at approximately [ Ja.b.c, began to refill at approximately [ Ja.bs. Therefore, at this time the volume addition due to CMT recirculation, and upper-head and SO U tube voiding was comparable to the primary water shrinkage (density increase) due to the temperature decrease. Pressurizer level had increased to approximately [ ]a b.c. when the test was terminated. Part of this increase (approximately [ Ja.b.c) was due to water addition from the accumulators that began to inject beginning at [ ]a.b.c. Throughout the test, the CMTs did not draindown, but maintained their recirculation mode of operation. Therefore, during the steam line break recovery, the primary loop cold leg piping remained water filled, so the CMTs remained water-Olled and no ADS actuation was required. O O c:\3227w.2 non. lt Otr2297 B-12 REVISION: I
n N_,] ' i TABLE B-1 COMPARISON OF SPECIFIED AND ACTUAL TEST CONDITIONS FOR S01509 (Mxtrix Test 9) Condition Specified Actual _ Comment Rod Power 4991.6 100 kW* g, OK Pressurizer Pressure 2251129 psia OK Average ill Temperature 599.9 2 9'F OK OK OK OK Reactor Vessel (Core) Inlet 529.5 9'F OK Temperature Core Flow Rate 51.2 0 55 lbm/sec. Accepted Cold Leg Flow Rate 12.91 0.22 lbm/sec. OK OK q Accepted i s_j OK DC UH Bypass Flow Rate 0.39 0.11 lbm/sec. OK Pressurizer Level 12.4 1.25 ft. GK Accumulator Level 7.66 0.36 ft. OK OK Accumulator Water 68 19'F OK Temperature Accumulator Pressure 711 14.5 psia OK OK IRWST Leve! 27.9 0 32 ft. OK Note:
. ja,b.e
[ . f'T L) on227w.2.non.ibos:297 B-13 REVISION: I
TABLE B 1 (Cont.) O COMPARISON OF SPECIFIED AND j ACTUAL TEST CONDITIONS FOR S01309 (Matrix Test 9) ; Condition Specified Actual Comment I l
- ~
IRV'ST v!sier Temperature 68 9'F OK l
.u l
.c PRHR Supply Line > 212'F OK l Temperature UH Average Tempersture 529.5 9'F OK CL Balance Line Temperature > 329'F OK OK CMT Level 20.5 ft. 0.1 ft. OK OK CMT Temperature 68 9'F OK OK SG Level 4.86 ! OA9 ft. OK OK SG MFW Temperature 439 12.6*F OK OK SG Pressure 711 29 psia OK OK O
o u:27w-2.twn ibm:297 B-14 REvtslos: 1
.,-~.
I
- k. '! TABLE B.2 SEQUENCE OF EVENTS FOR TEST S01309 (Matrix Test 9)
Event Specified Actual Time (sec.) Break Opens 0 w CVS On PZR Level = 10.0 ft. PZR Internal Heater Off PZR Level = 6.6 ft. Pressurizer Low Level PZR Low Level = 0.676m (R, S Signals) MSLIV Closure PZR LL + 2 sec. MFWIV Closure PZR LL 4 2 sec. CMT IV Opening PZR LL + 2 sec. _ PRHR HX Actuation' PZR LL + 2 sec. Scram PZR LL + 5.7 sec. Startup Feedwater L-010P = 0.676m l Reactor Coolant Pumps Tripped PZR LL + 16.2 see. SFW 150! to SG.B S + 5 min. ADS-1 CMT Level 67%
+30 sec.
SG.A PORV Open Permission S + 7 min. Accumulators P-027P = 710 pe!! ADS-2 CMT Level 67%
+125 sec.
ADS-3 CMT 1.evel 67%
+245 sec.
ADS-4 CMT Level 20% 1
+60 sec.
IRWST Injection P.027P = 26 psia l HT7.it:
,a l \ )
v l o u227-.:.non.15cs2297 B-15 REVISION: 1
TABLE B 3 O COMPARISON OF SPECIFIED AND ACTUAL TEST CONDITIONS FOR S01110 Glatrix Test 10) Condition Specified Actual Comment Rod Power 4991.6 100 kW* ,. OK Pressurizer Pressure 22512 29 psia OK Average flot Leg Temperature 599.9 2 5'F Accepted Accepted OK Accepted Reactor Vessel (Core) Inlet 529.5 e 3.6'F Accepted Temperature Core Flow Rate 51.220.55 lbm/sec. OK Cold Leg Flow Rate 12.91 2 0.22 lbm/sec. OK Accepteu (F-A02P) OK OK DC-Ull Bypass Flow Rate 0.3920.11 lbm/sec. OK Pressuriier Level 12.4 e 1.25 ft. OK Accumulator Level 7.66 2 0.36 ft. OK OK Accumulator Water 68 9'F Accepted" Temperature Accepted" Accumulator Pressure 711 14.5 psia OK OK IRWST Level 27.9 t 0.32 ft. - - OK b'pqtg: ( ]d' before time 0 Ambient air temperature in facility was unusually high due to plant heatup and hot summer weather. O l ! on:27 -2 nonib-os:297 B-16 REVISION: 1
-. m41.a 4 n , _ > , , , ,.4-.
, _ _n _. r: m Am,-
C \. LJ TABLE B 3 (Cont.) ! COMPARISON OF SPECIFIED AND ACTUAL TCST CONDITIONS FOR S01110 (Matrix Test 10) Condition Specified Actual Comment IRWST Water Temperature 6819 'F ab.e ' Accepted
- PRHR Supply Line 347 45'F Accepted. Sufficient to Temperature initiate natural circulatica flow.
UH Average Temperature 564.8 9'F Accepted Cold Leg Balance Line 509 t 9'F Accepted Temperature Accepted. Sufficient to initiate natural circulation flow. CMT Level 20.5 ft. (full) OK OK CMT Temperature 68 1 9'F Accepted (T-A411E)* Accepted
- SG Level 4.86 0.49 ft. Accepted ok PJ SG MFW Temperature 439 12.6*F OK OK SG Pressure 711 29 psia OK OK Note:
- Ambient air temperature in facility was unusually high due to plant heatup and hot summer weather.
O-l' & l o11:nw-2 nan:tb-os:297 B-17 REVISION: I
l TABLE B.4 O SEQUENCE OF EVENTS FOR TEST S01110 (Matrix Test 10) Event Specified Actual Time (sec.) Break Opens' O Pressurizer Low Level R PZR Low Level = 0.38m MSLIV Closure P'I.R LL + 2 sec. MFWlV Closure PZR LL + 2 sec. CMT IV Opening PZR LL + 2 sec. PRIIR HX Actuation PZR LL + 2 sec. Scram PZR LL + 5,7 sec. RCPs Tripped PZR LL + 16.2 sec. ADSI CMT Level 67%
+30 sec.
Accumulators P.027P = 710 psia ADS 2 CMT Level 67%
+125 sec.
ADS 3 CMT 1.evel 67%
+245 sec.
ADS 4 CMT Level 20%
+60 sec.
IRWST Injection P 027P = 26 psia Erit'
- ADS, accumulators, and IRWST did not actuate or inject throughout this transient.
O o umw.2 mon. Ibos2297 0,.18 REVISION: I
TABLEB5 COMPARISON OF SPECIFIED AND ACTUAL TEST CONDITIONS FOR S01211 (Matrix Test 11) Condition Specified _ Actual _ Comment Rod Power 4991.6 100 kW* a.b.c OK Pressurizer Pressure 2251 29 psia OK Average HL Temperature 599.9 9'F OK OK OK OK Reactor Vessel (Core) Inlet 529.5 9'F Accepted Temperature Core Flow Rate 51.2 0.55 lbmhec. OK Cold Leg Flow Rate 12.91 0.22 lbm/sec, Accepted OK OK OK DC-UH Bypass Flow Rate 0.39 0.11 lbm/sec. OK Pressurizer Level 12.4 1.25 ft. OK Accumulator Level 7.66 0.36 ft. OK OK Accumulator Water 68 9'F Accepted Temperature Accepted Accumulator Pressure 711 14.5 psia OK OK IRWST 1 evel 27.9 .32 ft. OK IRWST Water Temperaturc 68 9 'F Accepted PRHR Supply Line >212'F - - Accepted Temperature helft
- 4893.7 kW before time 0 V
_ o:u:27w.2.non 1b.082297 B.]9 REVISIO.N: I
TABLE B 5 (Cont.) O COMPARISON OF SPECIFIED AND ACTUAL TEST CONDITIONS FOR 501211 (Matrit Test 11) Condition Specified _ _ _ Actual __ Comment UH Average Temperature 529.5 9'F .,be Accepted PR to CMT Balance Line 644 + 45'F N/A Temperature N/A Cold Leg Balance Line >329'F OK Temperature OK CMT Level 20.5 ft. (full) OK OK CMT Temperature 68 9'F Accepted Accepted SG Level 4.86 0.49 ft. Accepted OK SG MFW Temperature 439 12.6'F OK OK SG Pressure 711 29 psia OK
- - OK O
l l on:27w.2 non isos:297 B-20 REVISION: I l l
,O i $ \d TABLE B-6 SEQUENCE OF EVENTS FOR TEST S01211 Esent Specified Instrument Channel Actual Time (sec.)
Break Opem 0 a.b.c Z_002B0 Pressurizer Low Level Pressurizer low L 010P level = 2.2 ft. MSLIV Closure Pressurizer low Z_A04SO, F_ANS level + 2 sec. Z_B04SO, F_B04S MFWIV Closure Pressurizer low Z B02SO, F BOIS level + 2 sec. Z_A02SO, F_A0lS CMTIV Opening Pressurizer low Z_AG40EC, F-A40E level + 2 sec. Z_B040EC, F-B40E PR11R 11X Actuation Pressurizer low Z_A81EC, F_A80EG level + 2 sec. O Scram Pressurizer low - level + 5.7 sec. RCPs Tripped Pressurizer low 1 AIP, S-AIP level + 16.2 sec. 1-BIP, S BlP ADS-1 Pressurizer low level + 150 sec. Z_00lPC ADS-2 Pressurizer low level + 245 sec. Z_002PC Accumulators P-027P = 710 psia F_A20EG F_B20EG ADS-3 Pressurizer low level + 368 sec. Z_003PC ADS-4 CMT Level = 3.9 ft. L_B40E
+60 sec. Z_0NPC, F-040P IRWST Injection P-027P = 26 psia F_A60EG F_B60EG ou2n -2.nonab-osr97 B 21 REVISION 1
TAllLE 117 O COhfPARISON OF SPECIFIED AND ACT11AL TEST CONDITIONS FOR 501512 Condition (Instruments) Specified Actual Comment Rod Power (W-00P) 150 5kW OK Pressuriier Pressure (P-027P) 2251 ! 29 psia OK
/.verage llot Leg Temperature 545.0 1 9'F Accepted, avg hot leg is (T A03POfT-A03PU [ ]d'
- T B03POff B03PL)
Accepted OK Accepted, avg IIL is [ ja.b.c Reactor Vessel (Core) Inlet 543 2 1 9'F Accepwd, avg core AT is l'F 1emperature (T 003P) as expected Core Flowrate (F_003P) 51.2 1 0.55 lbm/sec. Accepted, cold leg total flow is[ la.b.c Cold Leg Flowsate 12 91 0.22 lbm/sec. OK (F_A0lP/F.A02P/F_B0lP/ OK F_B02P) Accepted, avg Loop B flow is 13.05 lbm/s OK DC Ull Bypass Flowrote 0 39 2 011 lbm/sec. OK (F_014P) Pressuriier Level (L_010P) 6.56 ft. < PZR level UK 5 8.2 ft. . Accumulator Lesel 7.66 0.36 ft. OK (L.A20E/L_B20E) OK Accumulator Water 68 19'F OK Temperature (T A22F) T il22E) ; OK Accumulator Pressure 711 i 14.5 psia OK (P A200/P-D20E) '4 OK IRWST Level (L 060E) 27.9 .32 ft. _ _ Ok i O o 91:42 non ibat::97 B 22 REYlSION: I
(3
\j TABl.E B 7 (Cont.)
COMPARISON OF SPECIFIED AND ACTUAL TEST CONDITIONS FOR 501512 Condition (Instruments) Specified Actual Comment IRWST Water Tetaperature 6819'F "' " OK (T 063E) 1RilR Supply Line > 212'F OK Temperature (T A82E) Ull Averare Ternperature 543.2 1 9'F Accepted, delayed flashing of (T 016P) Upper licad maximites the required CMT Makeup. Cold Leg Italance Line > 329'F OK Temperature (T A142PL/T B142PL) OK CMT Level (L.A40E/ 20.5 ft. 0.1 ft. OK L.B40E) OK CMT Temperature 68 1 9'F OK (T A411Eff B411E) OK SO Level (L A205/L.B20S) 4.8610.49 ft. OK
\
OK SG MFW Temperature * (T AOIS/T BOIS) , SO Pressure (P ANS/ 1001 29 psia OK P DNS) OK WI ht!!I
' Not applicable for this test.
O V I 1 ov227. 2 en Iba2297 B-23 REVISION: I
TABLE B 8 SEQUENCE OF EVENTS FOR TTST S01512 Event Specified lustrutnent Channel Actual Time (sec.)
~ ~
Z-00280 Break Opens (PORV A) 0 S Signal Break oper.irig + 1 sec. N/A CMT IV Opening S signal + 2 sec, Z_ANOEC, F.A40E Z_BNOEC, F.B40E PRilR llX Actuation S signal + 2 sec. Z_ABI EC, F_A80EG MSLIV Closure S signal + 4 sec. Z_A NSO F_A04S Z_B04SO, F_BNS ItCPs Tripped S signal + 16.2 sec. DP A00P DP BOOP SIV-A Flow Began N/A F A20A SIM A Flow Ended N/A F.A20A Accumulator / Injection P-027P = 710 psia F_A20EG F_B20EG - ADSl CMT level 67% L_Il40E
+30 sec. Z_00 lit ADS 2 CMT level 67% L_B40E
+ 125 sec. Z_002PC ADS 3 CMT level 67% L_B40E
+245 sec. Z_003PC ADS-4 CMT lesel 20% L..B40E
+60 sec. Z_001PC, F-NOP
- IRWST Injection P-027P = 26 psia F_A60EG F B60EG as=-----m Neit ADS did not actuate due to CMT level, and the IRWST did not inject throughout this transient.
O vu227.-2 non ib-082291 B-24 REVIS10N: I
{ i C) U P I e APPENDIX C i I RESPONSE TO NRC REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI) ON THE AP600 LOFTRAN AP AND LOFTTR2 AP FINAL VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION REPORT l i eM227w-2.nce IM62297 gyggg g
i O During its review of the AP600 LOFTRAN-AP and LOFTTR2 AP Final Verification and Validation Report, the NRC generated formal questions on this report (WCAP 14307). These questions were , formally answered by Westinghouse during the review process. The following appendix contains the ! NRC questions and the Westinghouse responses related to WCAP-14307 (RAls 440.447 through 440.462). In generating Revision 1 of the report some changes have been made to the text of the report as a result of the questions. The table below lists the questions that have been attached. O ( . (~ I l \ I oO227* 2aon ib482297 C-1 REVISION: 1 l l ..
f Table C.I. RAI Reference List RAI# Description of item Reference Where Answered RAI 440.447 Question on WCAP 14307 See attached response; WCAP 14307, related to the basis for the Revision 1 PIRT updated. PIRT. RAI 440.448 Question on WCAP 14307 See attached response; WCAP 14307 related to missing plant system Revision 1 modified to include the design figure, figure. RAI 440.449 Question on WCAP 14307 See attached response; Responses to related to void generation in RAI 440.284 and 440.315 are provided l LofTRAN. in WCAP 14234. Revision 1. RAI 440.450 Question on WCAP 14307 See attached response, related to voiding in SPES 2 Test 10. 1 RAI 440,451 Question on WCAP-14307 See attached response. l related to friction factor calculations for SPES 2 and AP600. 1 RAI 440.452 Question on WCAP-14307 See attached response. related to heat transfer coefficients for metal slabs. RAI 440.453 Question on WCAP-14307 See attached response. related refill in CMT tests. RAI 440.454 Question on WCAP 14307 See attached response. related to break now modeling for steamline break. RAI 440.455 Question on WCAP 14307 See attached response. related to break flow modeling for steamline break. RAI 440.456 Question on WCAP-14307 See attached response. related to break now modeling for steamline break. RAI 440.457 Question on WCAP 14307 See attached response, related to pressure drop calculations. o umw.2 non ius2m C-2 REViStoN: I
l i O Table C 1. RAI Reference List (cont.) RAI# Description of item Reference Where Answered l RAI 440.458 Question on WCAP 14307 See attached response. ! related to scaling of heat transfer coefficients. RAI 440.459 Question on WCAP 14307 See attached response. related to tuning of input parameten. RAI 440.460 Question on WCAP 14307 See attached response: WCAP 14307, related to CMT flow in Revision 1 modified to correct reference i Tests 10 and 11. to figure 5.5.4 50. De response to RAI ; 440.283 is provided in WCAP-14234, Revision 1. RAI 440.461 Question on WCAP 14307 See attached response, related to Test 10 differences in < calculated and experimental pressurizer and hot leg O conditions. RAI 440.462 Question on WCAP 14307 See attached response: De response to related to Test 12 differences RAI 440.283 is provided in WCAP. between calculated and 14234. Revision 1. experimental flows and pressures. O o u227.-2.non ib.os2297 C-3 REVISION: 1
--c-.- -
-my &-- .-r y -
w-- y +-e+w g-9 -, -g---ee- m ,,-p-, y y-ye. -- - - w- ,, ----_.-ig +-ygse.em-+ wi
NMC REQUEST FOM ADDITIONAL INFORMA110N 1
.....~
Queston 440.447 Re: WCAP.ld)07 (AP600 LOFTRAN.AP and LOFTTR2.AP Final Verificadon and Validadon Report) Please erpand upon the P!RT shown on pages 15 and 16 of WCAP.14307. Specifically, provide justification for the rankings.
Response
Tables 440.4471 through 440.4471) are attached and provide justification for the rankings found in the subject PRT. In rnost cases, each of the attached tables represents a single event, and provides a discussion for each of the phenomena originally defined in that PRT, Because the events are no similar so one another, with respect to the PRT entries, a single attached table (440.447 8) has been provided to justify the rankings for the Loss of Forced RCS Flow & Imkad or Broken RCP ShaA events. The majority of the entries in the stached tables simply justify the rankings currently coraained in the WCAP 14307 PRT; a few entries involve revisions to the information provided in the PRT of WCAP.14307. Revised inputs are identafled in the anached tables using footnotes. - The tevi*ed inputs fall into two general categories. The first consists of actual changes in the ranking finen those of the WCAP to reflect the methods and results of the latest nos.LOCA analysis. In some cases, the non LOCA ,
. analysis found in the most recent SSAR revision includes modined assumpdoes that are not consistent with the j PRT chart entries la WCAP 14307, la other cases, the pesperance of & reponse has resuhed in a reconsiderados of the previous rankings. Howevw, for the changes that fall into this first causory, the phenomena described in that original PIRT remain unaffected.
The second caugory of changes to the WCAP.14307 P!RT'lavolve the addition of two entries to the " Component
& Sysum Phenomenoe" column. SpeciScally, the attached tables laclude the addition of "RWST Initial Temperature" and "Ausoenadc t'+R d .sados System
- to this coluna la the P!RT. Both these items reflect key passive components and their interacoon with the nos LOCA events. It was therefoes coesidered desirable to add .
them to the P!RT. These were added to make the PtRT more compleen. To auist la the review of the current response, a revised P!RT that is consisteet with the table entries of the response has also been anached as Table 440.44714. 6 uo.u1 1 J
l DEC MQUEST ! ADDmONAL BWOMEATION i M - i TABLE 4dt.447-1 ! FEEDWATER MAIJUNCHON JUST1FICATION FOR RANKING IN TABLE I-I (PIRT CHART) OF WCAP-I4397 i C- ,_ - - & Sysessa Rankseg M&=== for Rankseg i Chascal Flow WA Huid flows in the pnamary and -- _' y side never ,,- ---A crwscal flow c-aw w t seized core inlet - , - - _ desennenes magaseude Vessel H Higidy asyuumeeric cold leg outlet -- ,- - I Mining of power escursson & serongly aNects predeceed :- _ - DNBR Flasimag in Upper Head WA Does not arr=r denng this event . H - Reactivity feedback modelmag desenesses . r ' of power escwsson whsch serongly affects Core Reactivity Feeeeck DNBR , Reactor Trip H Ternunsees she tr===ent L Does not aNect analysed portson of eranssent; only aNects non-lunating posteip conde.sms Decay Heat i Forced Convecison H RCPs opersee duoughout event; forced convecison is F:" - - " heat transfer anode , WA' RCPs opersee i_ _f :1: event; forced convection is y_?- - - hear transfer snode Nasural Ciremiesson How & Heat Treasier RCP Caesadows Performance WA8 RCPs opersee 1_ -f r analyaod portsos of she event L Preseenaer level is aNected by core power & RCS seenpereswe er--; shese icvel changes do aos Pressuriser ! Pressunaar Heid Imel serongly aNect hausses W- cneena Has sanali eNect on rancs of change in pressurimr level & -e, small effect ce muniawas DNBR i Surge I.ine Pressene Drop L H Highly asyenasemic onessa genersoor heat oransfer is cause of event Seeman Generseer Heat Transfer i
.Ws.
1 [ M Affects pnenary no -:-:- ' y heat oransfer over typecal range of possible analysis as l c-- - _'- ,r'a= &s==== should not be large effect 1 i 4 -2 er- e ,
gg g , I
\
TABIE 440.447-I FEEDWATER MAIJUNCTION j JUSTW1CA110N FOR RANKING IN TABLE I-I (PIRT CHART) OF WCAF-34387 i
; ----e & Syseesa Rambag Justification for Rambag C--
Phemosnenen L Safety analyses conservenively anodels aero scored heat in RCS pipseg and c- ,- :-; the presence , RCS Wall Secred Heat of scored heat would be a benefie since it would reduce the RCS cooldowe & assocnesed reactivity l i insertson I CMT (All ha-sad Ph*=a-tas) NA CKrs do not acessee during this event i
. h =aars WA As===d=ames do not - dunes shis event In,h Flow Race PRHR WA FRIR syneesa does not acasene dunng this event ,
i t Flow Race & Heat Transfer i WA FRHR syseesa does not scenese and heat eransfer to RWST does not occw dunne this evens I RWST laissal T- ,--_-. l Autosnatic C , _ -isasson WA ADS does not aceusee dunng this non-LOCA eveses Syseern' l t i H - High * , --e f L M - Modersee * . _ -- = Law " :+
^- ,
L - WA - Not .^J *i i
- 1. This p- ---- x has been added to shone found in WCAP-14307, to provide nuove casuplete infonnsoon. l
- 2. This emery less been revised frone that in WCAP-I4307, to reflect the current SSAR safety analysis. l l
l t i i t t
- 440.447-3 e e
l TABLE 440.447-2 EXCESSIVE INCREASE IN SECONDARY STEAM F1 OW JUSTIf1 CAT 10N FOR RANKING IN TABLE l-1 (FIRT CHART) OF WCAF-14387 C- , m ; & Syseena _ Ranking AsseiGr=e= for Ranksag I Phenaenesee WA Fluid flows in die pnamery and ---- "_-y side sever approach entscal now condemons I Cnesed Flow Vessel L S, _ - - k tre wish sespect to loop h- degne of saiming does not anec2 ressies Mities Mi;in Uppe Head WA Does not occur during this event ) Core M Analysis esplicitly conssders range of reactivity feedback; rose of core power change is anected bus ' Reactivity Feeshack over range of feedback considered. effect ce suesseusn DNBR is sniall Reactor Trip L Safety analysis does not predict reactor wip; plant snabdiaes at new 4* ' _- pe=cr level _ Decay Heat L Does not affect analyzed postion of treensiest; only anects non-innissag post eip condeskuis H RCPs opersee throngliout event; forced convectson is r. - - fluid heat wansfer issode Forced Convection L RCPs operuse ' . _4 :-_: eveet; forced convectson is y__"_ - - fluid heat sansfer enode Nasural Circusseson Flow & Heat Transfer RCP Coesadown perfonnance WA No reactor tiP r- T ^ "; P lant sembdimos at new , ' '
- power level Pressuriser L Samall effect ce RCS gueseuse whsch penaree a e-M e5ect ce predacted DNBR '
l Pressunaer Flisid tevel l i l
IMEQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL WEORMATION TABLE 448.447-2
- EXCESSIVE INCREASE IN SECONDARY STEAM FLOW JUSTIFICATION FOR RANKING IN TABLE I-I (PIRT CHART) OF WCAP-14357 C-: . :--: : A System nantseg s.sor-*- ser Reasag Phenomenon l :
1 l Surge Line Pressure Drop L Has sanell c&ct on reses of change in pressuriser level & psessine; sanell effect on predeceed DNPR f Seeenn Genereser Hese Transfer H Secess genereser heat ransfer drives she wenssent 1 i h- '--P y h L Affect prinnery to ----- " y heat arensfer; over typscal range of peessWe snelyses , _ n ;. should not be Ierge eMect i RCS Well Sensed Heat L Safety analysis conservasively models aero seosal heat in RCS pipsag and _ _ , 2; the presence of stored heat would be a benefit since it would seduce she RCS cooldown & associased reactivity CMT (All Renssed Phenomens) NA CMTs do not actuene during this event A-:--
*^
e WA Accuenelesars do not acasase dunng this event . f lapectson How Rene PRHR , WA PRHR syneens does not actusee denng this event Flow Raee & Heat Transfer , RWST Initial Tensperonsre' WA PRHR system does not actusee and heat transfer to IRWST does not occur dunng this event Asseomatic Depressunratson WA ADS does not actusse dunas any non-LOCA events Syseem' i H High Isnportance j M - Moderase Issiportance L - Imw Isnportance WA - Not Apphcable i
- 1. Tn' is phenomenoon has been added to those found in *VCAP-14307, so provide snore complete infonnecon.
440.447 5 5 -
feCEEQUE Of AD0mONALIpWOW4ATION . TABLE d48.4tT-3 STEAMIJNE BREAK JUSTIFICATION FOR RANKD4G IN TABLE l-1 (FIRT CHART) OF WCAF-14357 Juseincasion for Rambag C- , a & Syseean Ranksag . Phemoeiemen Desennenes predscsed blowdown ruee through the tweak in she secame " anecas r A=d RCS Critical 190w H cooldown wieck defines c;, 12 & rase of r activity immertion m susting deterswees Vessel H Hir ady asynumeenc cold leg oude L , - _;; & core sector inlet 4 Mining snagnitume ofr_ a escursson & serugly affects predicted enseenasse DNBR M Occurs dunng this event due ao rapid RCS depressunnamoe and esaprying of pressuriser. fannamon Flashsag in Upper Head of upper head void valuene helps to stabilize RCS pressure which aNects predicted DNBR H Core reactivity f-shar* deserneines ensire namore of arenssent; highly negative MTC is ===M Core whsch r._f ++ a large reactivity insermon in response to an RCS cocidown Reactivity Fmahark H Worth of anpped connel rods provides a ==h=*==a>=t part of the conservative nununusa shundown Reecear Trip niergia that is assunned in the safety analysis t L Safety analysis r===ervasively snedels aero decay heat; she y-m a of decay heat is Lafie for SLB Decay Heat since it woubt reduce the RCS cooldown and she assocsaned reactivity insertson n,s.of the saral H RCPs opermee dunng inessel posson of the S2.5 event. dunng thes einse when Imrge r Forced Convecison RCS cocidown occurs, forced convecmon is r I - --- ^ thsid heat arensfer snade i RCPs trip early in SLB cvent; natural circulatsoa shes becomics r f: - - thsid liest tressler ~2: Namaral Circulassoe H l l Flow & Heat Transfer l t l 1 i
*~ ' '~-
*i
MGEST FOR ADWT90NAL 3500WAATION i TABLE 448.447-3 STEAMERE BREAK JUSTI71 CAT 10N FOR RAMKEMG IN TABLE I-I (PERT CMART) OF WCAP-14387 C_ - , - a Syseen Rambag Jusadicanos for R e= h ms Phenomeses RCP Caesadows Perfor===re L RCFs wir early se SIE ewest; consedewe characnensecs aNect pened of massmen Ivem fun flow so moeural condma-.
^
M ismaial level aNeces how rapidy die pressunser espeses; can aNect she rese of RCS " __ Pressunaer Pressanaer Huid tevel which could have sonne eflect se pr=dicted useissues DNBR Use Pressuse Drop L Sans e5ect en ruses of change in psesswiser level and pressuse; samen effect en seiesenese DNBR S i Seeman Generuser Heat Trasefer H Seese generaser heet enester ruse is major fecaer in desmenuseg ruse and - . -
- of RCS J
cootA.ma C-_
,Condmons H Aflect rase and - . " of the RCS cooldews i
i* Safety smalyses __ ._.J, =adels aero sensed heat in pipseg and n; the presesace of etCS WaN Seered Heat L , - scored heat is a benefit for 512 since it would setence she RCS cooldows and essocieerd resceivity i i H CMTs de armamar durir d this event; secimslessen flow ruse determunes esmount of baron is cose CMT . of secure so power: . T - effect en predicted essesamum t>NBR Recircelsoom Wien whsch aNects .' j C.. 2, Drassung Vw WA Only reciscuisesse imyar*== 'vese afie CMTs occurs dunes een-LOCA events Vapor r n=de===mi== Rane N/A OrJy secumsisesom impecesos freein the CMTs occurs dunes moe-LOCA eveses; ne vapor condensassen mal ==re Line Pressure Drop H ANects rese of recumsleases flow which aNects rene of beson impecten inne RCS 1 Belance une losesel , H Water dressey is cold leg belance line smongly aNects she semaic head a,.;a Ma ao initiene CMT Tesaperasure Desh secsed=a== flow . j 8-_ - _i M . M N. CM @ MU D N M ple'd MM b 4 i W- Flow Race 4d0.447-7 ^
pec MGK-~ FOR ADORIONAL W5054ATION TABLE 448.447-3 STEAMLINE BREAK JUST1FICATION FOR RANKING IN TABLE I-I (FIRT CHART) OF WCAF-14397 Mficasion for Rmbag C := a Syseen Ramber i i M' FRHR syseeni conservatively a es sammuniac RCS cooldows donag StE; suinaineiacs FIGOL - i Flow Esse & Heat Tressier venctivity insertsee I i RWST initial eenspersesse conservasively anodeled so smanismiae Fgum hees arensfer A
,g SLB.
RWST Insesel Tesnpernewe' M ; meamissises RCS cooldown and reacnivity insenson : N/A ADS does not acessee dunes any non-LOCA eveses Automiesse Depressesnaseson t Syssess' [ i t H - High L; =t== ; M - Modersee - , - - - - - - _ = L
= l L - Leer L , : - t Not .', , ' **:
^
N/A - l I. This , *-: - =-- has been added to those found in WCAP-14307, to provide snore m*r-- infonnessoa , l ! 2. This entry has been sevised froen shes in WCAP-14307. to reflect the cursest SSAR safesy analyses. i I L l t i l I l [ , i
OUEST FOR ADOtTIONAL NAFORAAATION N . l TABLE 448.447-4 INADVERTENT OPERATION OF THE FRNR SYSTEM l JUST1FICAT10N FOR RANKING IN TABLE I-I (PIRT CHART) OF WCAP-I4NT l Rambeg Justification for Rambeg ; C- __ , _ ;- t & Syseemi the=oucaos l N/A Fluid flows in the pnniary and secondary side never approach cnocal flow condetsons Cis 9 N w Higidy asynesseanc cold leg outlet tesapersemes and core arciar inlet - ,
;-w anising l Vessel H Mising desensumes spagnende of power emewsion and serungly affects prederned nuannoni DNBR ,
! Flashing in Upper Head N/A' Does not occur for conservasiw safety analysis H Core reactivity feedback denennenes entire moeure of armessent; idghly negative MTC is assunned Core j i Rescuv;ty Feedback which peh a large reactivity insertson is respomoe to as RCS s - " . - - , j Reactor Trip L' Safety analysis does not predoct reactor trip; plant stabdues at new equilibnuen power level ( Decay Heat I* n-es act anect analyzed eransient; no reacsor wip is predicted; plant seabilises as new equilibewei power level , I Forced Convectson H RCPs operuse throogliout esent; fosced convection is ,--i---M- hear transfer snade [ N/A' RCPs opersee 1 J event, forced conv~*a= is ,._ ?_ -- heat transfer soode l Nasural Circolanson Flow & Heat Transfer l l l ! RCP Commedows Perfonnance N/A8 No reactor arip occurs; plant sambolises at new equilibnusa power level l Presswsmer L8 Safety analysis predras samall change is presswiaer level; initial level has liede effect on results l . ! Pressurize: mid tevel i I i 440.447-9 ^ r i t _ _ _ _ m _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
i , DGC REQUE' 'OR ADDWIONAL N#0W4ATION t t TABLE 4es.447-d INADVERTENT OPERATION OF THE FRNR SYSTEM JUST1F1 CATION FOR RAMKDeG IN TABLE t-1 (FIRT CHART) OF WCAF-143tT useinic io. Im Rasas.g R bog
- c. maSyme L Small e5ect on rases of chmage in pressuriser level and m m, small eMect on eransiem Sage Line Pressure Drey L PRHR syseeni- change is heat removal fross RCS As (aa seessa p-_.a heat e4 Seceanr Leersaar &st Transfer remeens relarively co==n-e since PRHR syseem dumps heat to IRWST L FRHR systems e==es change in heat resnavel frena RCS Aii.g event; scena p~ ,. heat nransfer g h '- 1 Condstaoes remanas relatively <-a=* since FRHR system dusays heat to IRWST .
=; stored heas 1d L Safety analysis conservasively meadels aero seosed heme in guping and _ , .
RCS Wall Stored Hess he a benefit since it would reduce she RCS cocidown and esocissed reactivity insertion CMT (all related Q_ c) WA' CMTs de act - dunas this event ! WA Acc===dmanrs de sat are ne dunng this event , A- _ - * . , i',' ch Flow Race H PRHR system conservatively needeled to manianiac RCS _ _ _":-- . ====niacs reactivity insertson FRHR and desersasmes assure of entwe transsent 19ow Race & Heat Transfer H RWST initial temperseuse sees inessel PRHR pnmary i , _ _ which determine mapasande of RWST Iniesel Tesaperasure' i.i.isd re.c.ivity - .s.d h o.g .o.e - WA ADS does not acnumee dunes any non-LOCA evenes Aasecanaue E=--__ -irasson Syseem' H - High I_p=e M - Moderate i_ , , He L - Im L,:=_=e WA - Not Applicable W Wesdngbouse 9447-10 -
---e4---.4 -4+-- .am-Je.. -. m3.JLmm a-- wmap- A--m .+ _ _ . ..-.-4 ._me.4s,-_-a.e--4 e- ,A--4-. . ,_.s d am.p-. .- %4J.me.=,* s.-ey, = .=e.----- ,--pa .m--a.--.m-'emeeaa- e.mw~m.m-a-O .
S O 9 N I h . II. lO !*!
- dIh Wp
- I j{ -
l t. u ll nsc ,l JE l 2 ! d ' t _ o i-bb l _ . _ . . . _ - _ . . - _ _. - - -- - - - ------- - - - - - - - --- - - - - -
NBC HQUEST R ADDmONAL350AMADON I i TABLE 448M7-5 LOSS OF %CONDARY SIDE LOAD EVENTS Jtoa arsCATION FOR RANKING IN TABLE 1-1 (MR1 CMART) OF WCAP-14357 C-__ . :---r a Syseem W Phenomenon f
-t u.; i.: flow c _ " =
Ruid fkms in the prunary and % side never ,, C.Wd Row N/A i L Syuumeene W wi:.h sempect to loop r==ama== deyee of saiming does not aNect sesehs vessel Mining i N/A Does not occur dursag this event substamasal RCS pressure sucsesse occus: wtuck e upper Rashing in Upper Head head n' ' ; smargsa and psevents typer head flashsag t M Analysis emphcsely comanders range of reactivity feedback; has scene eNect en lunising resuhs , i Core Reactivity Wk m,=r== Trip H Termsmanes the eranssent Does not aNect analysed portaos of transeent; ",anects _ _ -
; post-wip c._ f x1, D-y Heat L A 0_ _ J r event; forced convecisese is l 7 heat transfer snede H RCPs e .
Foeced Convecison L RCPs opersee f_ _ _J - event; forced convection is predesmanat heat transfer soode Nasieral Ch _" := How & Heat Ti -.'s e N/A' RCPs w A ;:-Qc analyzed event RCPc h N' _ . I i
i T IMEQUEST FfG ADDITIONAL Bf0RGAATION . i i TABLE 448.447-5 LOSS OF SECONDARY SIDE LOAD EVENTS JUST171 CATION FOR RANKING IN TABLE 1-1 (FIRT CHART) OF WCAF-143rT ! C-:- , :,.c : A Syseena Rambeg Josenfication for Rambag Phenomence Pressunaer L - Sean change in guesaurimer level occus because of RCS hestup; initief level has Isan3e e5ect on i Pressutaer Fheid tevel M Surge Line Pressure Drop H tarse change in RCS pressure occurs due to RCS heanup; surge line resessence so insurge flow does aNect the peak pressure Sneani Genersoor Heat Transfer H toss of sneane genersoor leest sansfer desenmenes she assure of the eseire ranseems i W Conditions L Transient is rapid
- loss of load overshadows oeher -- _
- j side conditems I
s; RCS Wall Scored Heat WA Safety smalysis conservatively models zero effect home scored heat in RCS piping and G -, ' wanseest is =M= RCS coolant heasup and RCS payeng and m- , _ u would be a benc6 saece shey would provide an addossoard heat sink to mitigsee the effects of the sanseent ; t CMT (all related phroomesomi) WA CMTs are not predacted to acessee dunag this event l l t Am_ 3 NA Ahmars are act predected to acessee dunag shis event
^
h, Flow Race PRHR WA ARHR syseese is not predicted to ar==ae dunes ahis event Flow Race & Heat Transfer IRWST Initial Temperneure' N/A PRHR systern not predsened to actusee dunne shis evest; therefore sa impact from IRWST , Ahme Depressunzassan WA ADS does not actonee denng any non-LOCA events System' , H - High la, a== v ; gg . )(oglggge
- _ _r.-
L - Low importance , ,
. 440.447-13 4 $W * '
5 J.e4.A - A .w __.m--. . . _ _ _ _ .-4 = J..e.huA_.2 .A2 A a a A maJ.W-md.ma_ mum
- 4 a "A__v.a, . .+-.mA-.-4a.a , .am.J wsma am ,a.ha eh2-4 4
O I l l l I h l e I, 1: n e 4 P q lV l j! Eh
- t. .
8
}}1 t J1.I
- Lj h, l3 ,
d :
## 4 I
EI iu . g l u
E REQUEST FOR ADOmL%u. MFORttATION . s _- TABLE 448.4474 LOSS OF me POWER AND LOSS OF NORMAL PEEDWATER JUS 11F'eCATION FOR RANKIPvC IN TABLE l-1 (PIRT CHART) OF WCAP-143Ff C____; w & Syseesa Rambag Justifhia= for Rambag Cntecal Flow N/A Huid flows in she pnsnary and sera =dary side never approach cnescal flow condshoes ! Vessel M Trennent loop condst ons are syur.sneanc until the PRHR heat enchanger ace sher that sinne Mining niining descrisumes the sesapera.use differences between the eso loops Flashsng in Upper Head L Does not occur h by the safety analyses since hos leg he.Isag is psochdad and she peessarimer nevee empoes;
- Core L Lannimag = den are senseiwely insensseive to reactivity Wk and pre-eip nuclear power is samble; Reactivity Feedback Reactor Trip H Tenneneses the n ivity arenssent H Mapor cHect on transient; analysis invesessees y of PRHR for long sensi decay heat rensoval
- ' Decay Heat , i Formd Convecuan H RCPs opersee until loss of ac power or RCP arip 2% CMT accuseson; as long as RCPs are
; foemd convecean is O - heat transfer neede; for shis event, el e enescal w
i
;- : -- r_ is long senn PRHR hest sensoval.while the RCS is in meanrel circulatiosi ch N eeeral C L _' H After RCPs tip, meanral circulasson decennenes the level of RCS flow e4mch soongly aNects she rose Flow & Heat Transfer of best reasoval fresa ihe RCS L c-adawn characeensecs anect only the pened of aranssoon frees finit flow to natural circulaeon RCP Cm% Pok ___rc i
44o.447-is ~ W wesunshause
, i I l ' feC EGK FOR ADotDONAL WWismeATICM ! i ( l I TABLE 448.4474 f ! ! LOSS OF ac POWER AND LOSS OF NORMAL FEEDWATER ( l JUS 1171CA110N FOR RANKING IN TABLE l-1 (PIRT CHART) OF WCAP-14397 I I Jessification for Rambeg l C-: , ws.; & Systems Rankang l
% I; H' Preve esom of weser relief freen she pressuriser safety velves is a Cy analysrs crieenom for this i Pressuriser event; she analysis asseunes a conservatively high iniesel pressurizer weser level Presswiser Fluid level L tarse changes in RCS weser level occur dunng this evest, but they occw scissively slowly and are Serge Line Psessene Drop not iherefore i.at see gly aneceed by typical range in surge li.e reersanace H Redmoed pnneery to secondary syseeni heet transfer dee to LONF deterummes the noeure of A ensare Seearn Generator Heat Transfer maassent i i
t- _ "- y Coadstsees M For the pensive AP600 design, eher the ismisessag secondary e, As eveses occur. w seria =_uns
" y syssess heat response is meest sesongly aKected J L FRHR systems best resnevel capocary;- .
.i.: sessenes ,, ? - . but is less creeni shes in a seendard plant desege t
==: analysed L Safety analysis conserveniwir snodels aero seoved hese frans RCS pipsag and _ ,
RCS Wall Scored Heat ar-- are RCS coolant .sensups and RCS pipeng and P would be a benefit as they i would .1 an h heet sink t Acsumesos of the CMTs provides an addsesonal nacens of RCS cooling wie slee impecison of cold waeer; l CMT H j Recuculsesos lapecison for the subsect eveses, the bornesom provided by the CMTs is not crieical; cold weecr impacted froen CMTs -_ " therunel n& which comenbuses to long tenn increase in pressuriser level t Grevity Drasseng inM ' - WA Only recirculsesos aspectoe fross the CMTs occurs dunas non-LOCA events i Vapor Condensation Race WA Only vocirc=a.s.n. inj.,*an frena the CMTs occurs dunas non-LOCA events t H Anects raec of - * = flow, which anects rene of cold weeer injection isso RCS Betance Line Pressure Drop i Bel.ince tjee Initial H Waeer densety in cold leg belence line soongly anocts the static head avastebic to incessee CMT
- l, m- _ _ flow Tes.9erensre m
Desenbussoa 6
~
~
i I N f
?
C REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORASATION
- N__
TABLE 448.447-6 LOSS OF ac POWER AND LOSS OF. NORMAL PEEDWATER : JUSTIMCATION FOR RANsLING IN TABLE l 1 (PIRT CHART) OF WCAF-143tT Ramlung Justificasion for Rambeg O ,_--e & Syseesa Phenoeneman Accuaneiesors N/A AccuarAssors are not predicted to actuene dunag this event
'7::-w Row Race Analysas perforsned so venfy * ,-- .i of PRHR syseesu for long eenn heat resnovel, ri-- 2 of H
PRHR How Race & Hess Transfer syneesa desersvs neewe of the event RWST lesesel Tesapersesse' M RWST inieial tempereswe conservatively snodeled to h- PRHR heat transfer and snamisniacs RCS heneup Assesneesc C,. - izeason N/A ADS does not acousse denna may non-LOCA eveses i Syseesn' i H - High L , _-we . M - Moderase L , _ -- e
=-- e L - Lasev
- N/A - Not .^,,'
- 1. This W has been added to those foemd in WCAP-14307, so prevale snare casuplete infonnessoa.
- 2. Tids enery has been sevesed froen tea in WCAP-14307, to reflect the cuneet SSAR safety analysis.
' 440.447-17 s
$W -
l l ' feC REQUr FOR ADOmONALIP50M4ATION l B TABLE 440.447-7 . FEED LINE BREAK JUST1F1 CAT 10N FOR RANKING IN TABLE I-1 (F1RT CHART) OF'WCAF-14357 Justificahon for Rambag C _ , _ =- A Sysessa Rambag _ Fl.e e H Deserwuaes predicted blowdown raec through the break is die feed line; denennenes eu.ed RCS Chacal Flow tesaperasere and peessure eranseenes shot define the event M Highly asysmaneene en am; feed line fauk and PRHR opershoe sen=A re large ~ m , - _. vessel venenons between loops; maining can susagene she - . - ^ of the Woo loop di m cu, but she Mining _;, physical w.#igurahon of the RCS and the nasure of the event produce substanual as,;1-l L Does not occur since hot leg boiling is precluded and she pmd.ner never esipoes, would be a Flashing in Upper Head concern if PRHR syseeni heat resnovel capability were H "_ , -- M Ammiysis assusaptions niasismiae RCS heanup; posentaal scacitivity insertsoa during the carfy Core m _-
- phase of the event is boended by analysis for the secassiline break Reactivity Feedback H Terweinases the reactivity eransient Reactor Trip H Major effect on transient; analysis investigates -- , ry of PRHR for long term decay heat resnovel Decay Heat H RCPs operate until loss of offsite power occurs; wish RCPs operatieg, forced convection is '
Foeced Convechos e" - - - - heat transfer noode H Aher RCFs trip, natural c6_* -M= deessaisees the level of RCS flow which serongly affects the caec N asural C k
- w.
Flow & Heat Transfer of heat semioval fross the RCS l .M 7-18 W mis 31Weouse l ~
P REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL WWOm8ATION j M - TABLE 448.447-7 FEED LIhE BREAK
- JLSTif1 CAT 10N FOR RANKING IN TABLE 1-1 (PIRT CHART) OF WCAP-14)S7 I
Rambeg Jestification for Rankseg C- ;--m & Syssesa Phe=oenemon L C% characaenstscs anect only die pened of eensseson freen full flow so assural cwculsesos RCP Caesadows N' - = L Prevenues of weser relief frcen the pressunaer safety valves is not a safety emelysis ennenom for Psessenzw Pressurimer Fluid level shis event; pressuriner does not approach emswying dunes trnassent Surge th Pressure Drop L Large changes in RCS weser level occur dunes this event, best they occur renseively sle=Iy and ace ' act therefore not serongly aNected by the typical range in surge time resistance
! H Large wanesent variations in ynniary so w--- 1 syseeni heat ermaster due to real line bred Seemen Generaser Heat Transfer I desennsee the assure of the emure erasissent M For the passive AF600 dessge. after she initiating me f_ y sysseni events occur. long serm transient h-- " -y Condetsons response is noost sesongly anected by PRHR syseese heat removal capacity; secos.dary sysseni heat removal reseeins signi& ant, best is less entscal them is a =s===tard plant design L Safety analysis conservuively models aero effect froni RCS pepmg and E , _ = ;,; anatyaed RCS Wall Saored Heat transient is concensed with long term RCS coolant heensp and RCS pipwig and components wo=Id be a benefit since they woesid provide an additionalliest sick -
M CMT actushens provides addsoonal nicans of RCS cooling via the impecison of cold waser; since CMT Recirculasson injection water relief front pressuriser safety velves is not prochsded for feed lee break, CMT cooling is not , as LA ' as dunes loes of oc and LONF events; she boretsoa provided by the CMTs is nos entscal ! Gravity Draining leMia= - N/A Only recarculsoon i= yare === froen the CMTs occurs dunng non-LOCA events Vapor CM---aion Rane. N/A Only - - ?- -
- sagectos from die CMTs occurs duneg men-LOCA events Balance Line Pressure Drop M Affects raec of recirculetson flow, whsch a5ects race of cold waeer impection into RCS Balance Une Initial M Waser densay in cold leg belasice lene soongly anects she storic head available so initiase CMT Tw .a Desenbestson rece'-% flow O
Ad0.447-19
IncN T ADDRIONALNGOWAATION TABLE 448.447-7 FEED LINE BREAK JUSTIFICATION FOR RANKING rIN TABLE 1-1 (PIRT CHART) 0F WCAP-14387 Jussification for Ranking C_ , u - A Syseem Ranking Phenomenon A_ _- __-; WA A-- e are not W to acteene dunes this event _ y y,,, H gAmelysis perfonned to verify e_"_ , - y of PRHR system for long term heat removal; perfonnance PRHR of syseese desersnsnes amane of ste eveer Flow Raec & Heat Transfer M RWST initiei temperamare conservatively snodeled so smensnize PRHR heat transfer and snamisniars RWST lastsal T- , - r_ _ ? RCS hessup N/A ADS does not - duneg any ace-LOCA events Aueosnatsc Depressunzasson Syseesn' H - High I- , M - Modersee In , -we t L - tew importance ! N/A - _ Not A,,'
- i. ws ,.s i,ee. ~ ,o sose io d i. wcAr.im. .o de me e ._- .= i.-
t t
N N FOR ADDITIONAL BrOfuRATION U m iI TABLE 440.447-8 LOSS OF FORCED RCS FLOW & LOCKED OR BROICEN RCP SIIAFT JUSTIf1CA110N PUR RANKING IN TABLE I-I (PIRT CHART) OF WCAP-143FT i-
-: A Sysessa Rankang Junedicamenser Ranksag C- ,. -
W N/A Lid Ases in the pnamary and - _ - , side never appseach critical Row condsmens ! Cnescal Row Vessel L Casuplene nr.s of fested RCS Row: sysseene sanssent, so deyee of maining does not aNect sesehs ) j Mining . Parmel less of now, lected or tschen RCP sher eveses asynencese loop Row rases but over shen einse pened that is anatyant she cold leskese inist semipersenes change very lade Rashsng in Upper HeaJ N/A Does set occur dunes this event substammel ItCS psessene increase occurs, which encseases upper
- head subceshes meergin and psevenes upper head Amat.ing 1
I Core M Reactivity feedback needeleng decennines siegesende of power escurseen and aNects sneessmani Reeceivity W DNBR j - j Reecear Trip H Tennsasses she am t Decay Heat L Does not aNect analysed pensee of transsent;only aNeces non-haisesag post-mip R_Y: f Foeced Convecmon H Dunes lenumag tinse pened for % RCS Sow rene seanases in range where forced convecuen is i puh heat transfer smede r i i Nasural Cimsinesen L Does not aEsce analysed posesom of eransm:st; enmy aNect ase-liwJ g post-erip consheses ! Row & Heat Transfer 4
= H RCP consadown y L x is enescal; it deaernmenes RCS flow camadawn shat defines event i RCP Consedown Tob-- _ _
Peensenaer L Very rapid, short dursesen event; bebide is h in pressunaer and wahen range ceaseder-d. i Ptessuriser Huid Level inieial level has M eNect on peessuse sanssent l i Surge Line Pressure Drop for H Very rapid. short duramen event; surge line sesences insurge into psessarimer and lienies alminy of l pressuriser so ensingaee pressure eransiest; locked resor waassent susere severe shan for Inoken shaA j Imked Reser & Becken ShaA i 440.447-21
~
i
-. .. __- .___ _ . __i
~
~
TABLE d48.447-8 T MASS OF FORCED RCS FLOW & LOCKED OR BROKEN RCP SHAF JUS'nFICA110N FOR RANKING IN TABLE I I (PIRT CHART) OF WCAP-14387 Justification for Pa=&_ing Ranking Component & System Phenomenon iser and limits abilaf of i M , Very raput, short duration event; swge line resences inswge nto pressw Swge Line Pressure bmp for i pressuriser to neitigate presswe wansient; overpressure mansient for loss of flow not Less of RCS How Med rosor t Very rapid, short duration event; loop eranspost time is large relseive so k-# of wansient so Seeans Generar - Heat Transfer RC'Jcore hestup outpaces seceso a a .eg+= L Vny sayed, short duration event; loop wassport time is large reMve so lengde of wansient so hea=dary Condetsons RCS/ core heatup outpaces any effects relssed so secondary system conditions aa; transient se RCS Wall Stored Heat
~
WA Safety analysis conservatively models zero effect from RCS pepeng and since it would provide an additH' heat sink
~
N/A CMTs do not actuate denng this event CMT (All Relased Phesoniena)
- c. do not actuate during this event WA A- -
A-__----lators Injection ibw Race WA PRHR system does not actusee during this event PKHR ILw Race & Heat Transfer WA PRHR syssent not , 4EJ so actusee during this avent; aherefore no : ; ut fron: IRWST IRWST Initial Ta;rature' WA ADS does not actunee J.iieg this non-LOCA events Autornatsc Depressurinarson . Syseem' H - High Importance . M - Moderase 1..w=e l Imw Importance I L - 6 l _
O 4 9 1 1 - 1 O l a
}
I t I, 1 1 D 1 11
- g. I{
, g "o
^
pec REQL' 'FOR ADDITIONALIPfotMATION
^
TABLE 448.447-9 ) STARTUP OF AN INACTIVE REACTOR COOLANT PUMP AT INCORRECT TEMPERATURE JUS 11 FICA 110N FOR RANKING IN TABLE t 1 (PIRT CHART) OF WCAP-14397 Justification for Ranking Ranking Component & System Phenomenon N/A Huid flows in die p .cy and seced-y side never ry.wh critical flow csaditions Critical How H Asymmetnc cold leg outlet temperatwes; mising detennines magnitude of power emewsson Vessa Mising N/A Does not occur during this event Flashing in Us Head H Reactivity feedback anodeling determines magnitude of power escwseon which seongly affects Core Reactivity Feedback DNBR p,- . Trip H Ternunsees r- a escusion L Does not afSct analyzed portion of transient; only affects non-limiting post-trip conditions Decay Heat { H RCPs operate throughv.i; event; forced convecuon is r.dm.inant heat transfer we i Fm a Conweeuen
'-- heat transfer mode L RCPs opersee throughout event; f=W convecuen is r.J_
Natwal C'uculation ibw & Heat Transfer N/A RCPs operrte throughout event RCP Caa-ik,wn F#f=w.ance L Small change in presswizer level occws; initial level has little effect on resuks Presswiser __ Presswirer f%id level j L Small effect on rases of change in presswizer level and pressure; very small effect <a transient Swge tjne .'.cac Drop L Ssearn generator heat loads are asymmmetne at start of event; core yo.s escusion aM reactor trip Saemm Generseer Heat Transfer occw rapidly and in a shorter time frame than the secam generator thermal response usc.ic l L Secondary conditions are asymenmetne at start of event; core power escusion and reacsor trip occw Secondary Conditions l tapidly and in a shoitcr time frame than the stearn generator thermal response time l I
~ T R E Q UI L' T, FOR ADDITIONALINFORBAATION .
~
c TABLE 448.447-9 . STARTUP OF AN INACTIVE REACTOR COOLANT PUMP AT INCORRECT 1EMPERATURE JUSTIMCATION FOR RANKING IN TABLE I-I (PIRT CHART) OF WCAP-14.W1 c-: - , -= & syneen Re.u.g weir- se, RasAmg . Phenomenon RCS Wall Sected Heat L - Safety analyses conservasively neodels aero sensed heat he RCS papeng and coniponents; the presence of scored heat would be a bemere since it would redace slee RCS cocidown and assocsaned reactiviry insertson CMT(All Reisend W) NA CbfTs do not aceusse during shis event l
- Accuenulasors WA W do not - dunng this event j Ingection Flow Race l PRHR WA PRHR system does not aconsee dunag this event
- Flow Race & Heat Transfer l
1RWST' N/A PRHR system not peh so actonee dunng this event sleerefore no impact fresa IRWST ADS' N/A ADS does not actinate dunng this non-LOCA evenes 1 H - Higin Importance l M . Modermee I- _ -r=+ l L - inw lamportance i N/A - Not A,l _ _i -
- 1. This phemosnesosa has been added so those found in WCAP-14M7. to provide snore - _ - / - safernistson l
i 440.447-25 ,
\ I Mac aEQUE 'OR ADOmONALINFOIB4AllON i l l TABLE 448.447-14 RCCA BANK WITHDRAWAL AT POWER JUS 11F1 CATION FOR RANKING IN TABLE l-1 (PIRT CHART) OF WCAP-14387 Justificauon for Rambeg ! Rambag Component & System Phenamenon =2. Fluid flows in die primary and secondary side never .,., wh entical flow a- f 1 Critical Flow N/A L Symmetric transeest wish sespect to lony condmons; degree of mining does not aNect results , l Vessel Mining Flasheng in Upper Head N/A Does not accer danes this event i l' M Analysis esplicitly % range of reactivity feedback; rese of core ,,__ change is affA;M hus Core over range of feedback --n ".-d. effect on minineem DNBR is small Reactivity Feedback H Tenninsees the reactivity transeest , Reactor Trip L Daes not affect analyzed postion of transeemt; only affects non-limiting post.arip s Jitions l Decay Heat
" fluid heme transfer mode !
H RCPs operase Ac-j r event; forced convection is r i?- . l Tmc4 Convection : l L RCPs operase throughout event; forced convectice is r.heast fluid hest transfer mode Natural Circolation Flow A Heat Transfer , f ! I RCP C- "-- a Performance N/A RCPs w& three W event L small eNect on RCS pressere whichi r .J,.ces a small efkt on r.Ated DNBR Presserizer Pressurizer Fleid Level ; i i l i
.40-26 -
4 REQUEST FOR ADDETIONAL BWORIAATION r-TABLE d40.d47-IG
' RCCA BANK WITHDRAWAL AT POWER JUSTIFICATION FOR RANKING IN TABLE t-1 (PIRT CHART) OF WCAF-14387 '
Jessification for Ranhag Rambag C- -- , = - A Syseen Phenosnemon : L Has smsH c5ect on roses of change in r.M.ss level and presswe; sawll effect on r:" Swge Line Pkessere Drop DNBR ! M Saease generneor heat wansfer not a : g effect on reactivisy desenbutson anosnely: for cenain , Seeman Generseer Heat Transfer reactivity insertson races, the sacaen generseer safety valve seapoest defines she upper liaist h t 7-u .- e=e r and thus the lower limit on secam & eat mons er
,9 ; ,
L Affects pnanary to % heat we, over typical range of posseble analyses r A " y Condetsons shemid not be large effect
, -a hear transfer N/A Safety analysis conservasively snodels aero effect froen RCS papeng and -_ i RCS Wall Sected Heat frene walls won.ld be a benefit since it would provide an additional heat sielt so menigsee the effects of the transsent i N/A CMTs do not actusse d.s.g this event CMT (All Relased Phemwnesa) ' ' N/A A___-- " -; do not actease during ehis event Acc- :s injection Flow Race N/A PRHR systeen does not acessee dunng this event PRHR Flow Race & Heat Transfer N/A PRHR system does not actosee and heat trasisfer so IRWST does not occw during this event I IRWST Initial Temperstwe' i
N/A ADS does not actonne during any non-LOCA events l Auscenatic Depressurizatson System'
- mar. ~
}
H - High importance M - Moderate Isnportance : L - Low Importance N/A - Not Applicable , 440.447-27 EN !
a --1a. -.m,-,.z,_a --ze--- 'm,a-
, -4 ,a,-, na~ .s e ,
ns__ A a _.. e,. 1 .a .- _-_, , _ a _a. e,,_e _as;,,a _w_a. O 4 I < . k j . 1 I ft @ 'l 3
*l
! t B G 1 - 8,
.5 .
1 9 I i 1
- i l
M c:. E! &
P' 7 REQUEST FOR ADOtTIONAL INFORMATION ,, sM u;; gj s o c. r o TABLE 440.447-11 INADVERTENT CMT OR CVS JUSTillCATION FOR RANKING IN TABLE l-1 (PIRT CH ART) OF WCAP-14397 Ranking Justification for Ranksag Component & System Phei-:=-:non N/A Fluid flows in the pnmary and secondary side never approach enocal now condaions. Critical Flow M Tra.asient loop condetsons are synwnetric until the PRHR heat enchanger actuates; aher that tiene Vessel Mining . mining deserenines the temperature differences between the two loops Flashing in Upper Head L is not predicted to occur by the safety analysis since hot leg boiling is precluded and the pressenzer never emptses; would be a concern if PRHR syseese heat rernovel capabddy were W " , - Core L Limiting resuks are relatively insensitive to reactivity feedback and pe-erip nuclear power is stable Reactivity Feedback Reactor Trip H Termoneses the reactivity transient . Decay Heat H Major effect on transient; analysis investigases adequacy of PRHR for long aerm decay heas removal Ibreed Convectson M RCPs opersee until RCP trip following CMT actuation; forced convection is pedominant heat transfer mode only when RCPs are operstag; for this cient, the critical phenomena is long term PRHR heat removal while the RCS is in natural cuculation condsoons Natural Circulation H After RCPs trip, natural circulauen determines the level of RCS flow which soongly affects she saae Flow & Heat Transfer of heat rosnovel from the RCS L Consadown characteristics affect only the pened of transition from full flow to natural circulation RCP Consadown Performance 440.447-29
NRC IEEQUEST M ADDITIONAL Nf00MATION IN TABLE 440.447-18 INADVERTENT CMT OR CVS JUSTIFICATION FOR RANKING IN TABLE 1-1 (F1RT CHART) OF WCAF-14307 Justification for Ranking Ranking Component & System Phenomenon H8 ' Preventson of water relief from the pressurizer safety valves is a safety analysis criterion for this Pressurizer event; the analysis assumes a conservatively high initial pressarimer water level at the time of CMT Pressurimer Pleid Level actuation L Large changes in RCS weser level occur during this evetr but they occw relatively slowly and ase Surge Line Pressure Drop not therefore not stroegly affected by typical range in surge line resistance L For the passive AP600 design, after the initiating My system events occw. long serm transient Secam Genersear Heat Transfer response is most strongly affected by PRHR system heat removal capacity; secondary syssem heat removal remains significant, but is less critical than in a standard plant design L For the passive AP600 design. aher the initiating 4y system events occw long term transient w-y Conditions response is most strongly affected by PRHR sysaem heat removal capacity; secondary sysicm removal remains significant, but is less critical than in a standard plant design L Safety analysis conservatively enodels high saui(J heat in RCS piping and cc,, gats; analyzed RCS Wall Stored Heat transients undergo period of RCS cooldown when CMTs actuane, followed by subsequent heat up and thermal espansion of cold waeer injected from CMrs; heat stored in RCS piping and
--q-- m (-.s-h to thermal expansion. but not significantly H Actumoon of the CMTs provides an addiGor : means of RCS cooling via the injection of cold esser; CMT for the subsect events, the boration provided by the CMrs is not critical; cold water injected from Recirculation Injection CMTs undergoes Lod expansion whsch contributes to long term increase in pressurizer level N/A Only recirculation injdam from the CMTs occurs during non-LOCA events Gravity Draining Injecdon N/A Only recirculation injectson from the CMTs occws during non-LOCA events Vapor C-W-:nsatson Race H Affects rose of recirculation flow, which affects rose of cold water injection into RCS Balance Iine Pressure Drop
P' REQUEST FOR ADOmONAL INFORLIATION U i s TABLE 448.447-11 INADVERT1NT CMT OR CVS JUS 11F1 CATION FOR RANKING IN TABRE l-3 (PIRT CHART) OF WCAP-I43tf i Camponent a Syme. Ranhag J. stir.casion for Ranking ! Phemoseenon B=I=ce Une Initial H Water denssey is ceid leg balance line semagly affects she seatic head availabic so inetmaac CMT Tennpernewe Desenhetson secirc=I= man flow j Accwnesianors N/A Accusnutssors are not predacted to actunee dunng ehis event l In,Miam Flow Race PRHR H Analysis perfonned to venfy -l , y of PRHR syseems for long senn heat resnoval; perfonnance of l l Flow Race & Heat Transfer syseese desenenes naeure of she event IRWST Initial Tesaperseure' M IRWST initial sesaperseuse conservatively snodeled to snesusniae PRHR heat transfer and snamisniae i RCS hessup Ausosnetsc Depressurizasson N/A ADS does not actuate dunng any non-LOCA events Syssem' ' ! H - High Isaponance M - Modersee l_ , r=+ L - Law Importance ' N/A - Not Applicable
- i. This phenomenom has been N to those found in WCAP-14307, to provide unore coenplese informaison.
- 2. This entry has been revised froen that in WCAP-14307. to seflect the cruent SSAR safety analysis.
l l l 1 440.447-31 EN
PRC REQtEST t ADDIDONALNWOEMATION TABLE 448.447-12
~ INADVER'IT.NT RCS DEPRESSURIZAT10N JUST1FICAT10N FOR RANKING IN TABLE I.1 (PIRT CHART) OF WCAP-14387 Jestificauon for Raelung CP & System Ranking Phenomenon H' Critical flow deterswees pressurizer safety or ADS valve flow races; defines raec of RCS Critical Flow
' y.mitatsoa L Synunctnc transeest with respect to loop conditions; degree of mining does not affect us Its Vessel Mising i L Does not occw during the portson of transsent analyzed with LOFTRAN-AP i
Flashing in Upycr Head
- f. Small RCS average semperature change prior to scactor trip; core power maintained approaimanely se Core PeWvity Feedback initial fu3 ro-a value prior to trip H Termina:es core ro-a generatson Reactor Trip L Does not affect analyzed portson of transient; only affects non-limiting post-trip conditions Decay Heat H RCPs wm throughout event; forced convecteos is r.1.: cent heat irs;fer -cac TwW Convecuon -
L RCPs opersec throughout event; forced convectsonris s " -- ' M heat transfer rnode Natural Circulation Flow & Heat Transfer L RCPs opernee throughout partson of event analyzed with LOFTRAN-AP RCP Cossadown Performance L Affects predacted RCS pressure, but impact is small Presswizer Presswizer Fluid Iet-1 L Small effecs on races of change in presswirer level and pressure; very small effect on transiens Swge IJne Pressure Drop L Core power and seesen genersoor loads maintained approximately at initial full power value pa so Steam Generator Heat Transfer scactor trip; primary system pressure transsent does not affxt heat transfer so steam generseer L Secondary conditions remaen approximately at nominal values ps to trip; until reacsor trip. Secondary Condeuces sec:--* =y system thermal-hydraulics curbed by primary system transient l
pC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFOMEATION - O TABLE 440.447-12 INADVERTENT RCS DEPRESSURIZATION JUSTIF1 CAT 10N FOR RANKING IN TABLE I-) (PIRT CHART) OF WCAP-14387 Rambag Justificauen for Rambag Component & Syssee , l ,
- Phenomenon !
RCS Wall Stored Heat L Safety analysis conservatively models rero stored heat in RCS piping and components; the presence of scored heat would would have no inipact on mensmum DNBR and reactor trip would occur at I t same RCS pressure N/A CMTs do not actuate during the portion of this event anlyzed with LOFTRAN-AP l CMT (All Related Phenomena) N/A Accanulasors do not a:tunee during the portion of this event anlyzed with LOFTRAN-AP Accumulators Injection Flow Race PRHR N/A PRHR system does not actuate during the portion of this event aniyacd with LOFTRAN-AP Flow knee & Heat Transfer (RWST Transicat Response' N/A Safety analysis with LOFTRAN-AP considers conservatively rapid RCS blowdown through ADS valve; does not explicitly neodel blowdown inseractson with IRWST Automauc Depressenrauon H One of the r==n considered is defined by a conservative RCS blowdown through a limsting ADS , System' valve , H - High importance M - Moderase importance L - Low Iz;:- r x N/A - Not Applicable i I. This phenomenom has been added so those found in WCAP-14307, to provide more complete informahon 440.447-33 ; g_ m _ _ _.a_ . , , . . _ _ _ _
IMC MQUEST FOR ADUlllONAL INKJetMMauN i TABLE 448.447-13 i STEAM CENERATOR TUSE RUFs'UNE JUS 11F1 CAT 10N FOR RANKING IN TABLE l-3 (PIRT CHART) OF WCAP-14397 Justification 1%r Rametrag Component & System Ranking Phenomenon H Critical flow determenes the tweak flow out the ruptured tube and defw' es mesme of entire event i Critical Flow M Asynemeene transeest wide sespect to loop conditions, since both the tube rupture ami PRNR s, A Vessel . Mi= ~a== heat resmoval take M in caly one loop i L Can occur hec ==e of RCS depsessunastoom; apper head voeding sends en reserain rase of RCS Flasheng in Upper Head 4_ - ^ x. best is a smealf eff : L Affects core power prior to reactor erip; reactivity noodeling wiH influence time of trip but has only ' Core Reactivity F thark aman effect ce lisnetang panameters Reactor Trip H Terunesees core power generation H Decay heat slows RCS depressurizatsee whech sends to maentaen tweak flow; heat removal imm RCS Decay Heat ; (snainly via PRHR) snerst exceed decay heat level to anow pressure espeelizatson of prinnary ased secondary syseesns and eernennation of tweak flow L Forced convection is - " '- heat transfer s% while RCPs opersee; RCPs sip early in event f'erced Convecison I M Oure RCPs trip, natural ek * 'x descemines RCS flow race , Natural Cu' culation Flow & Heat Transfer ,
.447-34 EN e
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL B4 FORMATION ipii lyh- s
- i y Aonno TABLE 440.447-13 STEAM GENERATOR TUBE RUFTURE JUST1FICATION FOR RANKING IN TABLE I 1 (PIRT CHART) OF WCAP-14387 Ranking Justification for Ranking Component & Syseesa Pher- --- -w RCP Coasadown Perfonnance L ' Coastdown charactensases affect only the short period of transition from full now to netwal circulation Presswizer M Affects depressenzation rose of the RCS
"% Mzer Fluid Level Surge Une Presswe Drop L Small effect on rates of change in presswizer level and pressure; small effect on transient Seearn Generator Heat Transfer M Core power and sacarn generseor loads maintained approximately at initial full power level prior to reactor trip; post-trip. steam generseers previde some heat removal from RCS. but *RHR is primary encans for residual heat resnovel in AP600 Secondary Conditions H Secondary conditions. anainly transient steam pressure, are a major factor in determining the prienary to secondary pressi.re difference which defines the magmtude of the break How RCS Wall Sected Heat M Safety analysis models stored heat in RCS piping and components and components; the presence of stored heat sends so keep RCS presswe higher which delays pressure equalizauon with fauhed generator and terminetson of break flow CMT L CMTs provide cooling so RCS. a sowce of borated water to enswe long term core shuidown, and Recirculation Inj~t ian moistional makeup inventory, but do not sarongly affect lisniting transient results Grarity Draining injectson N/A Only recirculation injection from the CMTs occws during non-LOCA events Vapor Condensation Rate N/A Only rwirculation injectson from the CMTs occus during non-LOCA events L Afhets race of stcirculation flow, which affects net raec of cold, borated water injection into RCS Belarce Line Pressure Dror Balance Line Initial L Water density in cold leg balance line affects the static head available to initiene CMT recirculation Temperstwe Distribution flow Accumufstors N/A Accumulators do not actusse during this event injection Flow Rate - .
440.447-35 - W-wesunghouse
NRC REQUEf M AD0mONALWWORMAllON R l TABLE 448.447-13 STEAM GENERATOR TUBE RtFTURE JUSTIFICATION FOR RANKING IN TABLE I-1 (PIRT CHART) OF WCAF-14387 Jes6fication for Rambag Rambag Cynt & System Phenonienon H RCS cooldown and cepressenzauou are secogly agadent ce she adequacy of PRHR sysaem f PRHR heat rernoval; sernmensuon of break flow is ALrM' by abiliry to cool sad depressurize die RCS flow Race & Heat Ti_xh H IRWST initial lengerature conservatively modeled to minimize PRHR liest transfer and animimize IRWST Transient Response' RCS As and a, ssarissues N/A ADS does not actusse dunng shis event Amomauc Depressantatson Syssem' H - High importance M . - Moderase leportance : L - te I.wm N/A - Not Applicable t I. This phenomenosa has been edded so those found in WCAP-14307, to provide store complete infbnnation. t r SSAR Revistort NOi4E ! t S I I
I O i Am ,-- - l Tame 448.447-14 PliE240MENA IDENTIFICATION RANKING TABLE FOR Artes NON-L(tCA AND l STEAM CENERATOR TUBE RtFIURE DESIGN BASE ANALYSES (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) -(II) (12) (13) -(14) r Componess & Syseem (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) i FLB toss LR SUIL RWAP land- RCS SGTR FW ELI SLB land- IDL Loss Phemamesom Dep. MaK venent ac of & versene PRHR & RCS BS CMT LDtf Floor or CVS N/A WA WA NA WA H H Critecal Flow WA WA H N/A NA WA H H L M M L L H L M L M Vessel H L H l Mixing L L WA WA N/A WA L L L + Finsheng in Upper Head WA WA M WA WA L M M M H M L L L H M H H M Care Reeceivity Faadhark H H H H H H H H H Feare- Trly H L H L H f H H L -L L L H L H L L L L L r'-- sy Heat H H H H H H M H L Forced Convecean H H H H H N/A L H H L L L L H L M .. ! Naeural Cisanden Flow and N/A L M Heat Transfer L H. H WA WA L L L L WA L N/A WA L RCP Caesadows Perfonnance H L L L L L H L M L L M L L Pressuriser . Pressanser Flaid Level l H L L M H L L L' L L Serge Line Ptessase Deep L L L L i l l 440.447-37 ___ _ _ _ _ _ - - - -- -m__ _ - _ _ _ __ wi' _ l -'- - - _ _ _ _ _m. -
l NRC REQUE3T FOR AD0mONAL INFOR00ATION Tame 448.447-14 t PHENOMENA IDENTIFICATION BANKING TABLE FOR AP600 NON.LOCA AND STEAM GENERATOR TURE RUFIURE DESIGN BASIS ANALYSES (2) 0) (4) (5) (6) .(7) (8) (9) (10) (II) (12) (11) (14) i Camposes & Sysaem (D LR SUIL RWAP lead- RCS 3GTR l FW ELI SLB Isad- LOL teas FLB 1ms Phenomenom Matt . wesent ac of a vertent Dep. PRHR & RCS 95 , CMT IANF Flow or . CVS L L L M L L M H H L H H H Seeman Generasar (SG) Heat H Transfer H L M M L L L L L L
%_r 'y t'nmann,== M L H L L N/A N/A L N/A L L M i L L L L N/A L RCS Wall Stored Heat L H M N/A N/A N/A N/A H N/A N/A N/A N/A CMT l N/A Recirculatsom "$--4= N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Grav6ty Dranneng lajection N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A i N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Vapor Camdemus== Rate H M N/A N/A N/A N/A H N/A L {
Balance Line Pressee Deep N/A N/A H N/A N/A H M N/A N/A N/A N/A H N/A L N/A N/A H N/A N/A ; Balaam Line insoal Temperanne Dist. i N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ! N/A N/A M N/A N/A N/A Accusassasers i
!$_ -- :- Flow Rane !
i 440.447-38 m t
A,FOft ADDITIONALINFOftIRAT1006 i Tame 440.447-14 PIEENOMENA IDENTIFICATION RANKING TABLE FOR APG00 NON-LOCA AND . STEAM GENERATOR TURE RUFIllRE DESIGN BASIS ANALYSES (11) 02) (13) - G4s (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (2) (3) (4) (5) RCS SGTR Cassponent & Syseest (1) LOL taes FLB Laas LM SUIL RWAP Imed-FW ELI SLB land- Dep. W MaK versest ac of & versent CMT
& RCS BS PRHR or LOtf Fknr !
CVS i WA H WA H H MA H H WA NA NA WA WA M PRHR i Flow Rase and Heat Transfer NA NA M WA H l H WA M M WA NA IRWST leieial Temperasase WA NA M H WA WA NA NA W A- WA l WA WA NA WA WA WA WA l Assamasac 44- -- > Syseems Feedwee 'h ihmi Ressam in a Dewease se Pend =eser Tempesumes er an Emesense in F,ed=ene Row , ( U) FW Mar C) BJ - Enemesive lesesse in W Seessa me l - u treak
- 0) SLR - leadvereses Opusessos of saw FRHR '
(4) ImadvanessFRHR - taas of hy Sede Land Evesas -
- 0) IBt.
- 16) Larsoc& LONP
- Lams d se Fomer and Lams of Nasisal Feedesser :
- Food lies Bseek (7) R3 !
- tems of Poseed RCS Flow I (8) Lane ed RC5 Plow
' - Lached RCP Rasse and Rsonee RCP Shah (9) LR & BS .
- Sassesy of as Innsarve Ramesse Caetmas pq m as Inces s Teenyssense
- 00) SUE. - RCCA Wsendseoul as hwar (II) RWAP lemoveness Oyammen of she CMT er h and Vetmane Csemed Syseres :
H2) Inse,anees CMT er CVS -- leadveesus RC3 Dessemassesmes Oli kC3 Dup Seaman Genessner Tidie Rupe==
- 64) SGTR r L - Low " , - -- -
)WA- Nas_",," -n H . High ' , _-
M- N " __
. i i
i i 1
~ 440.447-39 T ms*e===
t
NRC REQUEST FOR AD0mONAL INFORMATION Question 440.448 Re: 440 448 pal on WCAP.I4307 On page 3 3. it is stated that the AP600 plant system design i. Nown in Figure 11. This figure is missing from the document. .
Response
Attached please rind a copy of Figure 440.4481 SSAR Revision: NONE O a 440,448 1
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION O M v W w 4> O v inwsT--* V w aar r5 O V ($ R MX O [\1 pt XlH* M o s' ;
- s# e#
/ /
^
'kaCp-v ,
.- / r%
v \ G
/~y /
~
apoooc FF.1 l Figure 440.4481 AP600 Passive Safety Systems Connguration W85tingh0038
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION Question 440.449 Re: AP600 LOFTRAN AP and LOFTTR2 AP Final Venfication and Validation report On page 3 3, it is stated that " Moderate void generation can occur for some transients when the RCS pressure d,7ps very low, leading to a decrease in the water subcooling at the top of the CMT (e.g., steam line break. steam generator tube rupture). The LOFTRAN homogeneous equilibrium slug flow model is capable of handling such situations." Please define numerically what " Moderate void generation" is. What controls does LOFTRAN have to limit itself when not in the " moderate void" region? Does the code alert the user when it occurs? Normally, homogeneous-equilibrium means a code can handle subcooled liquid, two-phase mixture and superheated steam transitions in a control volume. Is this the case with LOFTRAN7
Response
With respect to the reduction of subcooline f.t the top of the CMT and LOFTRAN's ability to model the subsequent two phase behavior, see tne responses to RAI 440.284 and RAI 440.315 which desenbe the model implemented to account for possible losses of subcooling at the top of the CMT. t SSAR Rewston: NONE O M O. M 9-1 g
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION lilli Question 440.450 Re: WCAP 14307 How much void was presset aner 3000 seconds in SPES-2 Test 107 Why was thFIRAN compared with data aner this times, when Figures 5.5.2 7 and 5.5.2 9 ciently indxeas LOFTRAN is experiencing I instabilities? Was Test 10 a. valid test? LOFTAAN exhibited problems with the voided conditions presset la the SPES4 test. Response: The amount of void presset was not calculated at 3000 seconds. Around 1500 seconds, Test to reached conditions which are out of the range whom LOFTRAN AP is employed in safety analyses and eseds to be validated. LOFIRAN Apis no(used la safsey analysis .;;'M-- where signincaat voiding is presset. Acaci data free Test 10 showed that at 1500 secoods significent voiding was present as there was boiling is sessel head and upper pLausa. Test 10 results and the asanciated predictions are discussed la Section 5.5.2 of WCAP 14307. Although, at 1500 secoeds Test to reached conditions out of the reage for which 14FTRAN AP use is inesaded, the code ei t h were condausd to a point beyond whom aosas instabdity was desecaed (appromismately 3000 sesonde for Tsa 10 Rua 1). If the simulations weso restricted to the actuel range of applicabdity for 14FIRAN AP, the ploes could have been termiansed as early as 1500
---a The suuntados reemim provided for thens beyond 1500 seconde an usenal oedy because they h-mese that even for test conditions that are beyond the leaseded capability of the code, LOFTRAN AP predicts treeds that are relatively ~-imme with tbs actual test. In fact. LOFTRAN- .
AP -ni- to provide good agreement for some parameters of insenet, such as CMT flow, out to
- approxhnssely 3500 seconds (see WCAP 14307 Figure 5.5.212.)
l SSAR Revision: NONE t s
- 440.454-1
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDmONAL INFORMATION si!=supan Queston 440.451 Re: WCAP 14307 It appears that LOFTRAN uses a friction factor based on pressure drop measurements in the SPES 2 facility as input for the code. How is the friction factor determined for AP600 calculations? Is it possible to calculate the friction factor as a functior. of Reynolds number and quality? Will the fnetion factor for SPES 2 scale up to AP6007 Response: For the AP600 LOFTRAN model the loop friction factors are based on more detailed code and Guid mechanics calculations which take into account an relevant design parameter, such as pipe lengths, diameter, etc. Each loop (including the reactos and steam generator) is specified with nine full flow pressure drops. For the active fuel region the pressure drop is based on fuel specific test data. The LOFRAN cede has options which account for the increase in friction factors for the core and steam generator tubes as RCS flow decreases, based on a correlation developed to fit data presented in " Flow of Fluids Through Valves, Fittings, and Pipe," Crane Co. Techucal Paper 410. The frictional pressure drops at the SPES 2 facility for the pressuriser surge line and passive safety system lines are equal to the AP600, in piping where the prevailing flow is honzontal (hot leg, cold leg) fnetson factor: have not been maintained. However, the Froude number (ratio cf inertial to gravitation forces) is maintained to preserve the flow pattem transition. Adeitional scaling related to fluid flow phenomena are reponed in Secnon 2.2 of WCAP 14073, Rev. O, "SPES-2 Facility Description." Additional related information is presented in the tesponse to question 440.457. SSAR Revision: NONE M0.451 1 YD
l I i NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION N Queston 440.452 Re: WCAP 14307 . Has Westinghouse compared the heat transfer coefficients calculated by LOFTRAN for the metal slabs to published beat transfer correlations? If so, please provide such for review. Response: No, the heat transfer coefficients were developed using the SPES-2 hot pre operation test (H-01) data to match to the catent possible the SPES 2 data. Additional details are provided in Section 5.3.4.1 of WCAP 14307,"AP600 LOFTRAN AP and LOFTTR2 AP Final Verification and Validation Report." It should be noted dat the RCS component heat loss makl was added to LOFTRAN specifically for the test simulations and is not used in the AP600 SSAR calculatior.s. The addition of the RCS component heat loss modes was required for the SPES-2 LOFTRAN simulations to address the much larges surface to volume ratio of the SPES-2 facility. The SPES 2 facility has approximately 20 times more surface area per unit vdume than the AP600 design. l SSAR Revision: NONE s e e 440.452 1 NO
l NRC REQUEST FOR ADDmONAL INFORMATION g o Question 440.453 Re: WCAP 14307 - How many cycles of refill did the CMT tests encompass? Are there longer term data and compansons? If so please provide such for review. Response: No cycles of refill we considered for the validation of the LOFTRAN AP CMT module; only the recirculation phase of the CMT tests was simulated. This is appropriate since CMT draindown (and refill) does not occur during the design-basis non LOCA and steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) events simulated with the LOfTRAN code. With regard to the SPE%2 tests used for LOFIRAN-AP code vahdanon, the CMTs were activated during the SGB and steam line break tests (referred to as tests 9,10,11. and 12 in WCAP 14307.) As expected, CMT tusponse during the SPES 2 SGR and steam line break tesu was limited to the recirculation mode. In response to the second part of the question. "Are there longer term data and compensons?" A not availab'e. for the LOFIRAN AP code, longer term CMT simulations encompassing draindown and refill cycles wm performed with the NOTRUMP code (Refence 1.) Refmace: e 1. MT01-GSR Ol1. "AP600 N(yTRUMP Core Makeup Tank Preliminary Validation Report for 500-Senes Natural Circulation Tests," April 1995. SSAR Revision: NONE uo.4ss-1h
- - ~ . . _ . _ -
1 p NRC REQUEST FOR ADDfT10NAL INFORMAT10N 3E 1:3: cv.- Question 440.454 Re: WCAP.14307 . . Page 5 2. Steamline Break Section: It is stated that the break now is saturated steam. Won't the steam become superheated when the steam generator tubes uncover? Does the break Dow model incorporate the form loss from the flow liminng venturi and sudden expansion when the break flow unchokes? Responsa: This question concerns two separate issues:(1) the possibility of superheated steam after the tubes uncover, and (2) details of the LOFTRAN break flow model. (1) The SPES 2 steam line besak test was conducted in part to demonstrate that tiw CMTs would not drain and initiate actunuon of ee automatic depressurisation system. Therefore, cooldown of the primary :ystem was maximized by inittaung the event from aero power with the fecility at hot standby conditions. Additionally, no era decay heat was simulated, no heat loss compensation was used, and the maumum PRHR capab31ity was used. Although sorne superheating of the steam may have occumut, given the test condit3ons the amount of sisam superheating was not significeu and does not have a significant affect on the primary system response. It should be ru$ed that the LOFTRAN code does have the capability to rnodel superheated steam generation and its effects. This model is used in steam line break mass and energy release analyses
\ when calculating adverse environmental conditions for o;uipment qualification. The superheated steam model was not used in the SPES4 steam line break simulanons; had this model been used, the I
predicted transant results would be assentially the same. (2) The LOFTRAN break flow model does not consider form or expansion losses. Break flow is calculated using the Moody critical flow correlation withft/d = 0. 'the LOFTRAN betak flow model . was developed to produce the maximum awe of blowdown for use in design basis s:Jety analyses.' In analyses where it is not clear that the emtimum break flow is conservative, the blowdown rate is altered by modelling a %.-n of break s, ass. Additional details are provided in section 5.3.2.3 of WCAP 14307. SSAR Revision: NONE l l uo.w
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDmONAL INFORMATION ET )
- E A ala.sben Question 440.455 Re: WCAP 14307 A blowdown quality profile is used for the break flow. Is it Page 5 2, Steamline Break Secticn:
possible for LOFTRAN tc, +1culate the quality from first principles? Does presenbing the quality over constrain the < acon? Can LOFTRAN model the separation effecu in a steam gene for steam line breaks? I l Response: LOF*RAN does not calculate the quality of the break flow from first principles. The break flow ( qua'. ; is a user specified input parameter, For design-basis calculadons, the staam gen ' inpu; is selected to provide a landing response with respect to the applicable regulatory design basis steam line break cases analyzed for core response, a constant steam qualit since this tesults in the maximum RCS cooldown (largest return to power and ultimately minimum DNBR). Steam quality profile 6 which include waaer entrainment are used in some steam line bre analyses performed for mass and eriergy release. These profiles are based on more detaile generator models; typically, steart generator modei (i.e Westinghouse Model St. Model F, specific NO1 RUMP code calculations, , NOTRUMP ls a general Halimion ' cede typcally used to model primary and secondary side pip! break transients. NO11 UMP has exten'.tve two-phase flow capabilities and sufficient detail to represent different physical regions or compor.ents, as well as significant physical processes including steam I generator s:parators and separator effects, etc. Additional details of the NO1 RUMP code in WCAP 10079-P A. LOFTRAN AP does not specifically model steam ger.crator separation effects. However, as discuss
' above, the 1.0FTRAN AP steam generator input is bad on more detailed steam generator codes an models, so as NOTRUMP, which include separation effects. ,
SSAR Revision: NONE' 4 440.455 1 l
P p NRC RE@JEET FOR ADDfflONAl. INFORMATION M Question 440.456 Re: WCAP 14307 . Were any "true" double ended steam line break tests performed at the SPES 2 facility? Was LOFTRAN compared to such tests if they were performed? Were tests run with sufficient break stre that liquid was entrained out the break? Response: Matrix Test 501512 was the only steam line break test conducted at the SPES 2 test facility and simulated with LOf"TRAN AP. Although the test conducted would definitely be classified as a large steamline break, the break differed from a "true" double-ended ruptwe in that, initially the total break area was approximately one half the area of a design basis double ended rupture. With respect to water entrainment, the break area was large enough for water entrainme.it to occur. The break was simulated by opening the steam generator A PORV line. The PORV line had an orifice installed with a diameter of [0.833]* inches which corresponds to a single-ended stearn line break area of 1.388 square feet in the AP600 plant. To be consistent with a design-basis double 4aded ruptwo, the check valves were removed in the main, steam lines to allow steam flow from SG B until the steam line isolation valves were closed. The SG Q V isolation valves were closed at 10 and 11 mconds. Prior to SG isolation the test differs from a true design basis double ended ruptwo in that inventory from two steam generators are blowing down through a scaled break area of 1.388 square feet. After SG isolanon the test is identical to a double-ended rupture in terms of break flow area (SG A break area scaled to 1.388 square feet and SG-B isolated.) System response would not have differed significandy for a "true" double ended break simulation. Secondary side conditions were sufficient to produce a safety system actuation signal at one second after the break opening and primary side cooldown was consistent with a design basis steam line break. Schemauc piping diagrams of the SPES 2 steam lines and header are available in WCAP 14073 ' Revision 0, "SPES-2 Facility Description" (Figures C 10 C 11, and C 12.) A detail of the onfice is provided in WCAP-14309 Revision 1. "SPES 2 Tests Final Data Report" (Figure 2.6.11 1.) SSAR Revisiori: NONE OV ' 440.456 1 YN
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 4 Ovestoot* 440.457 Re: AP600 LOFTRAN AP and LOFTTR2 AP Final Venfication and Validadon Report . On page M: "Theorescal pressure drops were calculated and compared to expenmental values.* these compensons and (b) the methods for normalizing the pressure drops to match pump heads.
Response
(al The etpentnental data used for comparison was estracted from the results of the cold pre oper perd :med at SPES 2. The " theoretical" njues were calculated using the best available fnetion f data along with the nominal design flow rates and temperature condiuons for the SPES 2 test f a direct compenson betwven the theoredeal and esperimental pressure drops, the capenmental da reflect the same nominal flow rates and fluid condisons as were used to predict the theoretical values. Ta 440 437 1 separates the preuurv drop around the test loop into components that are consistent with th requirements of the LOFIRAN AP and LOFTTR2.AP computer codes. In most cassa, the anal 440.437 1, the SPES 2 instrumentadon did not reflect the expenmental results. However, as indicased in Table provide a da breakdown that completely satisfied the input requirements of LOf"!RAN AP and Specifically, the calculated theoretical values were used in the analysis for the steam generato pressure drops. (b) To provide a complete response to the question of how the presme dmps are normalized to mat head. it is nect 7 to esplain the RCS flow computanon pmcess within the LOFTRAN AP and LOFTTR2 A computer codes. 'nroe user specified methods of flow computmon are available: a hyperbolic flow tabuhr flow input as a function of time, and the solution of the momentum / pump kineocs equations. E analyus that model a fixed volumeine RCS flow.the last option is generally employed in performin safety analyses. That opcon will therefore serve as the basis (or the discussion that follows. The basic equadon of motion is solved fu flow, including the effoets of friction pressure losses, elevadon fde' *ity) head. pump head, and momentum. Reactor coolant pump homologous curves are used to (omput pump head and torque, and the momentum equanon is solved for pump speed. This method o may be used for nmetor coolant pump considown, locked rotor, and natural circulation flow calculadons Seist6ee of Fland Meenentums Equatiess The basic equados of neoca, f = m (dv/dt), is solved with the following assumpoons:
- 1. The average flow between times t and t+At equals he flow at time t+at/2.
- 2. There is no change in density during the timestep and the change in flow is uniform around the loop.
- 3. There is no change in elevation head during the time step, 440.457 1 g
l
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION For one dimensional flow, the basic equauon of motion can be rewnrten in ten.a of fluid propernes for a control volume of fluid: , P* 1440 457 1) Where: m = mais in the control volume, Ibm A = area of the control volume, ft 8 V = volume of the control volume, ft' w = mass flow rue. Ibm /sec v = fluid velocity, ft/we 8 g, = proporuonality constant,32.174 [(Ibm ftV(Ibf sec )) 8 p = net pretsure applied to control volume. Ibf/ft Also, for a closed loop (such as a reactor coolant loop), the sum of the pressure drops around the loop must equal tero: (44045721 f!H*fDH-frit-lMH=0 l Where: PH = pump head , BH = buoyancy (elevadon) head FH = fnetional pressure drop MH = head due to fluid acceleradon The frictional pressure drop for each LOFIRAN.AP or LOF1TR2 AP section j, is: Af . #W j 1 (440.457 3) PJ Where: K, = friction loss coefficient for Jih section W, = mass now for jth section, Ibm /wc 8 p, = fluxi density in jth section. Ibm /ft ( 440.467 2 IN
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDmONAL. INFORMATION fw }. 8 AP, e incuonal pressure drop in jth section. Ib0ft When the pump kinenes model is used, the input inciuonal pressure drop terms, referred to in part (b) o ' Quesuon 44.437. are rescaled dunng the run initialitation to match the pump head computed from the This means that the initialitauon process homologous curves for the RCS volumetne flow specified as input. adjusts the absolute pressure drops associased with specific components, while maintaining the of those pressure drops around the entare RCS loop. Consideration of the bouyancy, or elevation head, is via the following basic equation: Bouyancy = p dZ (440.457 4] [8# = Afopes
- AP,,, + AP, + Arm (440.457 5)
Afe,,, = Zea,, (p, - pg O (440 457 6] A P,,, = Z,,, (p ,,, - p,,,) p,,,) (440.457 7] AP,,, = Z, (p,,, (440.457 3) Arser
- Im (Ps
- P,)
8 Where: APeo., = ,: ors pressure drop. Ib0ft 8 APs y, a pressure dsop through upper core plenum. Ib0ft 8 AP,o, a pesssure drop through SO inlet plenum. Ib0ft 8 APa = pressure drop through SO tubes, lbuft
= core active length, ft Zeons Z,,, = height from top of core to hot les centerline, ft 2.c, = height from hot leg centerline to bottom of SO tube sheet, ft
= height of average 50 tube from bottom of tube sheet ft Zm 8 pen = density of fluid at reactor vessel inlet. Ibm /ft ,
peo., = average density of fluid in core. Ibm /ft' 440.457 3 l
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDRIONAl.lNFORMATION 7 wo.n pa, a density of fluid at reactor vessel outlet. Ibm /ft' pico e density of fluid at pnmary outlet of the 50. Ibm /ft' pio, a density of fluid at pnmary inlet of 50. Ibm /fi' . p, = sverage density in first half of 50 tube ucuons. Ibm /ft' 8 p = average density in second half of 50 tube secnons. Ibm /ft , Substituting terms from equations (l) and (3) into equation (2):
-[( * )=0 (440 457 9)
F#+[8#-E,K 9, 4 Aj Based on assumption 2. above, in the discussion regarding the basic equadon of mouon, equadon 440.457 be rearranged to give: 1 [440.457 10)
- b. = (PK + SM - []/(( K, (a )]
o The summadons in the equeuons above are made over all nodes *j* in a loop. Equnuon 10 is solved for the ra of change of flow in sa:h loop, with contribuuons to elevanon head and inctional loues in the reacw: ve
'. apphed to all loops.
. Puesp Kleetka ,
Transient operating conditions for the reactor coolant pumps are derived fan homologous curves for h hydraulic torque, and from the pump moeor speed torque charmacterisites. The pump head is inte the homologous curves based on pump speed and flow, shown in Figure 440.4571. and donormalized b l the hornologous curve refersace paramesses. The hydraulic iorque on the pump is interpointed from the homologous curves as shown la Figwe 440.457 2, and denonnalized based on tsference parameters, l The torque supplied by the pump enosor is interpola;sd fan a normalized speed. torque curve shown i 440 457 5. The enuve is demonnallaed to manch the hydraulic tontue and windage terms at time zero, promiing l initial steady.staae operados at the input lainal pump speed. Voltage to the maior is assumed constant , initial value until the time of purnp constdown. Following the time of pump considown, the voltage to the moeo l is assumed to be aero. For modeling a pun $ startup, the voltage to the moeor is sero before the pump starts, and nominal after the time of pump start. The equados of mouon is solved for the pump to give transient pump l speed: j l l 4d0.457 4 1
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDmONALINFORMATION q A E*e.iEis S * (T, - T, - R7ND*S' - FRICT*S*') / (PUht!!I g,) di
= torque supplied by pump motor, ft Ibf Where. T.
= hydraulu torque on impeller, ft Ibf T.
WIND = pump windage term, ft Ibf FRJCT = pump inction term, ft Ibf sec'8 8 PUMPI= pump rotaung inertia. Ibm ft 8 g, = proportsonality constant. 32.174 (Ibm ft) / (Ibf sec ) S = pump speed, radians /sec 8
= transient pump speed, radians /sec
- dS/dt Calculottenal Features For (4w Flow Competadees The LOFTRAN.AP and LOFTTIL2.AP computer codes include calculational opuons that e of flow predictions under natural circuladon flow and during flow coastdowns. Spec the ability to account for the effects of reactor coolant pump thrust bearing friction a .
increase in the relative fricson factors for the core and the st.m generator tobes as pr significantly reduced. At low reactor coolant pumo speed (bet w 10%), thrust bearing friction is the dominant fo and reducing RCS flow. Bearing frictional torque drops with the square root of pump s < speed the bearing oil film cannot be maintained and the beenngs approach con increased fricson brings the pump to rest, effectively producing the equivalent of locked Without explicitly accounung for this low flow effect, the nature of the ' standard" full reactor coolant pumps to ' windmill" with natural circuladon flow driving the pump as a tu model, the final pump speed depends on the inidal input value of the beanns incuon constant. accurately model the behavior of the reactor coolant pumps under low flow condidons LOFTTR2.AP have the capability tr' assume a constant bearing torque for pump speeds l initial value. This opuoos effectively simuleses the complete stopping of the reactor coolant pumps For many of the non-LOCA analyses, the models used assume no change in fricuon changes in the RCS. la reality, there is a significant variation in the fnedon factors for generator tubes for large changes in flow, Therefore. LOFTRAN.AP and LOFTTR account for incmanes is the relasive friction factors for these flow regions as the RCS flow d correladon is used that models this effect by fitting data presented in Reference 440.4571. Refe veces
- Flow of Fluids Through Valves, Fittings, and Pipe," C.sne Co. Technical Paper No.
440.457 1 SSAR Revision: NONE 440.457-
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMAflON TABLE 440.4571 COMPARISON OF THEORETICAL TO EXPERIMENTAL PRESSURE DROPS FOR SPES 2 VALUES NEEDED AS INPUT FOR THE LOFTRAN AP & LOFTFR2 AP COMPUTER CODES INPUT DESCRFTION' THEORETICAL EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS VALUE VALUE (PSD VALUE (PSD (PSU AP, SO to RV intet &DCL) 1.20 + 1.38 1.38
- 7. 1, 4 15.22 15.22 AP. RV inlet to core inlet &DRVD .a..~<
01 8.91 8.91 AP, active fuel only &DC) (without speers) (includes spacers) AP. core outlet pine . includes inactive 1.30 1.20 1.20 cort &DCO) 1.37 1.90 1.90 AP. upper core plenum &DRVO) 2.66 3.38 3.38 AP. from RV outlet to 50 inlet &DHL) 2.32 No direct data 2.32 AP. 50 tube inlet &DSOD l AP,50 tubes (PDSOT) 63.0 39.6 39.6 AP,50 tube sait A outlet noule loss 2.92 No direct data 2.92
&DSGO) l l
l O L .4. ~ w. U_-_-____ . _ _ _ . _ _, _ _ _ _ . _ _
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMAT)ON
~
y
~..;~,
FIGURE 440.4571 TYPICAL PUMP HOMOLOGOUS CURVE: HEAD . SPEED . FLOW h h REFERENCE POINT AND DEFINITIONS
} }
g PLOW - og HEAD - Hg a = O/Qq h a M/Hg
+4 - - ptEO - Ng a e N/Ng Torous - T R ,. TM DEN 817Y - Wg TgMg NORMAL C# FRAT 10N MAN - h/e2 yggggg ,f, ,
+3- ~ HVN - We2 VER$US s/e HAD '
ENEROY Dit$lPATION HVD HAO - h/s2 yggggg ,j,
,q q HVO - We2 VERSUS sta HAN
+1 - -
1.8 1 2 3 4 1 5 1 I I I I I I _ ' og a 3 8 6 I i I i i ~ s a 1 2 3 4 8 + 1.0 MVN 1- - 2= = 440.487 7 h
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION .
~
f a ......, FIGURE 440.457 2 TYPICAL PUMP HOMOLOGOUS CURVE: TORQUE . SPEED . FLOW 1
- 1. Oe .*-
2 ,2 o REPERENCE POINT AND DEFINITIONS PLOW ,0g a = O/Qg NEAD - Ng h = N/Hg SPEED - Ng a = N/Ng TOMQUE - in ,, TM
,3 , _ 086 - Wg TgMg NORMAL OPERATION BAN - Ale3VERSUSals BVO . BVN - $/,2 yggggg gj, +4+N ENERGY OlNIPATION
*~~
SAO SAD - Alez VERSUB pla BVD - $/,2 VERSUBa/e 4+N SAN _
+1
. t .8 1 2 3 4 5 I I i i i i P 8 I I I I 1 I M I I I a p 1 2 3 4 5 +1 A
. SYN 1- =
W W
' 440.467 4
_ _ . _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ * - + _ _ _
m4 -2a a-_.4__-.sa.-us- .*mup-.a.-.a_ae-,ee-, emm.a.=--+d 44 =.%er_e ..w-we. A i ..J__-.4a 42.a _ A_A#4 ma_ a..e. Webe- . - + _ - * =h.---ho*+e- A--- m- m a u-m C-*- - ++ - .w-FIGURE 440.457 3 . TYFICAL PUMP MOTOR SPEED TORQUE CURVE l 1 2.0 - 1.8 - l l 1.0 - 1.4 -
> $ 1J = <
sa j3 i gI. y . 0.4 - t O.$ " i I I I e e u u u u u u PuedP SPEED l (PAACTION OF SYNCHRONOUR Nt50) l
- w. . ., .
1 NRC REOUES,7 FOR ADDmONAL INFORMATION rr E-A EDA.init Oveston 440,456 i i Re: AP600 LOFTRAN AP and LOFTTR2 AP Final Venfication and Validation Report , l Section 5.3.4.l: Please address scaling of the heat transfer coefficients determined from test H41. Will these heat transfer coefficienu be used for AP600 calculanons?
Response
The various system heat losses (RCS component. SO. and pressuritet) are not important to the AP600 plant analyws presented in the SSAR. To address but losses at the SPES.2 facility LOFTRAN was modified or used in a manner inconsistent with design basis analysis. This was done to model these phenomena to the extent possible for the SPES 2 facility. With the various system heat loss approximauons it was possible to demonstrate that LOFTRAN adequately predieu the behavior of the pasive systems dunns transier conditions. With respect to the design basis calculations in which LOF1RAN is used. RCS system heat, losses are not mcdeled since they are either insignificant or would result in a slightly less conservative analysis. The contnbution of the RCS metal masses energy are considered in some safety analyus employing LOFTRAN, such i as steam line break mass and energy releases, where there inclusion results in more limiting results with respect , to the applicable safety limits. f' SSAR Reeskm: NONE l e 9 u .. ., g_
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL,INFORMATION O E Ouestion 440.459 l Re: WCAP 14307 . It appears that ihm is a lot of tualog of the code to data from the esperiments, such a break flow qualley, metal heat treasier, etc., and comparisons made herween the code and the name facility data. Since so much of this hu hees does for b SPES 2 facility,is Wutin6 oues b planalog to compen the code to any other data? Response: The respones to this questlos provided la two paru: (1) a dieeumsion on the reanos runies of some i Laput parameters was required for b LOF"!RAN simulations of the SPES 2 SOTR and $1J teou and (2) a brief description of the other test data thFTRAN hu been compared to as part of the validation effort. Part I will also esplans why the tuales does not laterfere with the code salldesion. 2Rii.1
.Tae tualag was performed primarily on !aput to LOPTRAN models created to address ;i:rr--
uniquely important to the SPES 2 facility (e.g., component heet losese) or for lisses which are generally applied is a conearvativ, manner and historically have act heem calculaaed by 14PTRAN (e.g., break flow quality.) ne a m' metal heat loss models we created for the SPES 2 test simulations and are not u AP600 SSAR calculations'. De SPES 2 facility is a 1/395 volume scale of tim AP600 plant. laboress with the volume scaling is a .u;: ' lag distoried surfeos anos to unit volusse rotationship, which
- resulted la a pensret 20 fold lacrease la the surfeos ares to unit volume ratio and 2.6 times higher ovell smaal heat espacity for the SPES 2 facility as compend'io she AP600 plant.
- With 20 times the surfees area to unit volume, heat losses ano much am signincent for the SPES-2 facility than the AP600 plant end had to be modelled to simulane the SPES 2 experissants. (this is particularly true for the SGTR event given the statively long running time.) To addreas times saaggersand mysessa hees losses a simplified RCS metal heet lose model wm added for the primary side componesas. A simple paneuriner heat lose soodel was also added to LDFTRAN to address '*
significant pressuriser heat losess which wm preventing as accursse preneus evolution la the SGTR simulations (see WCAP 14307, Secties 5.3.4.2). Dess models em very simplistic and wm dwigned to be adjuened to smash SPES-2 heat loss data. Dey won not derigend with the level of detail which would allow heat lose modelling froen first principles. However, they allowed the massysts to demonsumas the modelling capability of the LOF' IRAN oods for AP600 deelga basis applications.
' De saception is the CMT heat loss seodel. The CMT heat loss model was validased with CMT c m' test data. See Sections 4 and 5.3.4.4 of WCAP 14307 Rev. O. _
444.456 r m.__m_ _ -mm. ____:_.__..m__.-i.--.- - _ . _ _ _ - - - _ . - - _ _ - - ___---a_ _ _ - - - + -vw
NRC REQUEST 150R A00ffl0NAL INFORIAATION Since Lbeas asodels were added to belp simulate the $ PES 2 behavior, which is not signincaat for the AP600 plant, and validation of these models is not tbs goal of this program. Tuning of these models to match uperimental data is consistent with the goals of the validation effort. De tuning was , verined by reviewing code results to ensure the predicted beat losses approzianated the SPES 2 beat loss data. %s heat loss model fo the preneuriser was creased eines it was observed that signincast beat loss occurred la the preneuriaer and these losses were impacting the pressure transient, and thus.
$GTIL break flow, he pressuriser best loss seodel ooetalmed loput to match the observed but low and not to match the SGTR pressure transiest or break flow. Additional details on the but lou models ar* Provided la $setion 5.3.4 of WCAP.14307.
As explaimed la the respoess to questice 440.455, IAFTRAN does not calculme a break flow quality and, typically, a quality proAle is choses to maximias the RCS cooldows. OAss, a blowdowe of pure saaman is assumed la steam line break analysis models la cases where water entrainment is modelled, a detailed NOTRUMP model is used to provide the quality pronie. For the SPES 2 $12 iset it was known from the break mass soewounction data that water set was occurring. Sinos LOFTRAN does not calculane break quality and it is known that the system repoess is highly sensitive to break flow quality, a case was run where the break flow quality loput modined. De input profile was primarily chosen to match the blowdown mass accumulation observes ) i La the SPES 2 test and was influenced by NCYTRUMP daea (for a geesval idea of settsiassent I behavior). he laput tuning wat does to maach the uperimental break mass accumulation data and not the RCS cooldows. EM1.1 14FTRAN has beex oompared to other test desa. He LOF'lltAN CMT module was validased with additional data from the Westinghouse CMT test facility. he Westinghouse CMT component test facility comprises a scaled CMT tank, steam / water reservoir, instrumentation, and pipias. The CMT validation is costalmed la $senion 4.0 of WCAP 14307. De LOFTRAN PR:R modele was validated with desa f% the Westingbouse PRHR test facility.. De PRHR test facility is a Adi height simulation of three PRHR tubes la na UtWST. Tests from e feellity were used to validate the best transfer mechanisms used la the LOfTLAN PRHR model. Details of able comparises are provided la Appendia 153 of the SSAR. De LormtAN enamel ciroidation onpability was validated by comparisons to simulations of tesis
%._ d at the SPES 1 incility. Details of & eosperisse are provided la Appendia 155 of the
$5AA.
Por additionellaformados as the role of these other lesse and the SPES 2 test to the LofmtAN co va!idation effort, see Seceben 3.0 of WCAP 14307. SSAR Revision: NONE 444.459 1 ' E6
NRC REOUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION O ilRi Question 440.460 Re: AP600 LOFTRAN AP and LOFTTR2 AP Final Venfication and Validauon Report (a) CMT Flow, page 5 29. States "There wete no significant differences in the flow rates in the CMTs? Esaminauon of Figure 5.5 212 shows very small flow rates, around 0.1 lbm/sec for the CMT's. There is a difference in the now rates out about 3000 seconds into the transient. How does this difference scale to th The difference is about 0 015 lbm/sec for the average, or about 1213%. Please show that the difference will not increase for the AP600 to justify modeling the two CMTs as one. (b) Page 518(r CMT Flow: It is stated that the CMT Cow is shown in Figure 514 50. Please provide this Ogu (c) There is CMT Dow shown in Figurc 5 5 4-42. Asymmetric behavior is shown for Test 11. Run 2. Please explain this apparent contradicuon to the argument that two CMTs can be modeled u one. Also, please provide larger scale plots of the compansons to the expenmental data.
Response
Response to (a): See resr,nse to RAI 440.283 which discusses the justificadon for employing the LOFTRAN model with one CMT to analyze the two CMTs in the AP600. Rete are no design basis esents analyted witis LOFTRAN which use the CMT for midgadon whm asymrnetne conditions occur in the cold legs affecting CMT pericrma.xe. In the response to that RAl. it is acknowledged that the CMT injection flow rates may differ due to differences in piping layouts, nitial condition vanauons, and hardware uncertannues, in order to perform conservative, bounding analyses, limiting o aracteristics are selected on an event by event basis. In the AP600, the CMT discharge lines contain onfices which are used to equalire the overall line resistances of both CMTs such that they both are within a design tolerance. Included in the ITAACS are CMT tests to demonstrate that the line resistances are within a certain tolerance other, in the SPES 2 test facility the resistance of the injection line of the two CMTs differs by (20]"' percent (Reference 440.460 1). It is therefore espected that the two CMTs in the SPES 2 facility will produce different injecuon now rates, and that the LOFTRAN model, using maximum line resistances for all calculadons (except for Run 4 of Test 10) would not exactly match the test results. In the test both CMTs behave similarly Although the now rates differ due to the different line resistances, the trends are consistent. This demonstrates that the RCS conditions will not result in different trends in the injection Oow from the CMTs. Th; LOFTTR2 AP calculations of the lumped CMT compare well with the total expenmental injecuon now rate. Run 4 was presented in the V & V repon to show the sensitivity to the CMT line resistance. The (17]'" percent reduction in the LOFTRAN input CMT line resistances induced an increase of now injected by the CMTs of about [B)"' percent. Based on this sensitivity the [20]"' percent difference in the SPES 2 injection line resistances could readily account for about [9]"' percent of the difference in injection now rates. Figure 440.4601 was generated using the expenmental results for the two CMT injecdon Dows (from Figure 51212 in the V & V report) with the
^1ow in the CMT in Loop B increased by [9)"' percent to show how the Cows would be expected to compare had 11ine resistances been closer. This confirms that had the line resistances been closer, as they will for the AP600, 8
i
l NRC REQ 9EST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION O the difference in injection 00* between the two CMTs would be less than (5P" percent. A difference of this magmtude is accommodated in AP600 analyses by using bounding input assumptions. Response to (b): The reference to Figure 5.5.4 50 (on page 5180 of the V & V report) for the CMT Dow from Test 11 Run 2 is inconect. The data is plotted in Figure 5.5.4 42 (page 5 228 of the V & V reporth Response to (c): Figures 440.4fo 2 and 440.460 3 present the CMT flow data shown in Figure 5.5.4-42 of the V & V repon with the scale modified to allow for more detailed observation. Figure 440.460 2 compares the experimental results for the two CMTs. The difference in the injection flow from the two CMTs is not significant and can be attnbuted to the differences in the line resistances and the accuracy of the measurements. Figure 440.460 3 compares the total expenmental injection flow from the CMTs to the LOFTTR2 AP calculated total injection flow. For approximately the first 20 seconds of CMT injection. the experimental results show a significantly larfter O injection flow rate then is predicted by LOFTTR2 AP. This difference is caused by the modellaput used to simulate the contnbution of the pnmary sytem flow to the total static head difference across the CMTs. Dunns this penod of time the reactor coolant pumps (RCPs) continue to provide forced primary system flow. The LOFTRAN AP and LOFTTR2 AP codes include terms to simulate the net pressure changes from the outlets of the RCPs to DVI noale locations. This allows for proper boundary conditions to be calculated for the CMT, even though the code actually models CMT injection into the cold legs. The experimental results demonstrate that in the SPES 2 test facility. forced flow conditions (in contrast to natural circulation) produce an increased pressure drop between the RCPs and the injection point, leading to the observed increase in CMT injection flow. The LOFTIR2 AP input that models this pressure drop was not tuned to match the SPES 2 downcomer configuration, since the RCPs are tnpped on a CMT actuation signal (plus delay time). The brief period when CMTs are actuated and RCPs are still running is not significant .o the safety analysis. The pressure differential is a function of the square of the flow, so that once the RCPs trip. the pressure drop is substantially reduced and the predicted and experimental flows converge.
References:
440.460-1 WCAP 14309 AP600 Design Certification Program SPES 2 Tests Final Data Report. March 1995. SSAR Revision: NOTI 440.460 2 YO _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ~ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _
NMC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HW i SPES-2 SGTR TESTincreo. 10 Run 1 Loop B Injection Flow sed By 9% l
! 2 1
m M . i N I E .15 6
.o ,
C . Loop 8 injection U .
.1 - --
O M . Q1 W 5 Loop A Injection L . m .5E-01 m ~ O 2 . 0 O 1000 2000 3000 4000 Time (S) Figure 440.4601 Test 50illo . CMT Flow Experimental Results Loop A -
- Experimental Results Loop B Increased By 9%
440.460 3
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMAtlON
/'"3 V
SPES-2 SGTR TEST 11 Run 2 4
! .18
' l
- i '
8 1' i 1
^ , 1; ,
M l % b e 16 i
.c Loop A Injection
~
o .14
\
l O U Ct: N
\ I l
I 1 W #4 f i C K \ r vv ') 7 if_( g , i
,Litr j ,
a *12 ' / - m / jj e . Loop B injection , , 2 o f
. . . . . i e i iii e i i
,9 400 500 $b0 600 600 Iim0 (S)
Figure 440.460 2 Test 501211 CMT Flow Experimental Results Loop A
- - - - - Expenmental Results loop B / \
l V 440.460 4 YN
- NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION N ! SPES-2 SGTR TEST 11 Run 2 i,
i .4 l
~
l
- .35
# , i i l m .
I l l' : I E - I , o . . I J 1 hkl +
*-= t!
,3 i Experimento l
+
v , ll .1 l
- - l
* % LOFTTR2-AP g l
- f. g '
o ~ 's 4
- !- d \
' '2 i[ ,' l f m -
I) g \ I I \ m - I g I o - i i 2E .15 'l
. I lls
~
t l
\
\
~
,3 i . t !d i i il. , , ,,, ,,,i 400 500 500 600 650 IIme (S)
Figure 440.460-3 Test 501211 CMT Flow Experimental Results Loop A + toop B LOFTTR2 AP Calculation Total 440.460 5
t 3 NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION I J i ' ) a nuw : Question dd0.461 ; Re: WCAP.1007 . Planes emplaim the diffweases between the eniculated and empenmental pronounaar and bot leg conditions at 1000 eseoeds for the steam generator tube rupeun eenpationes of Test 10. Response: De asia reasons for these discrepnacles am related te (1) RCS system best losses which an
- exaggernied by the sealing effese related to the large surfees enn te volume ratio of the !?ES 2 facility and (2) upper plenum to ensular downeomer best transfer.
I ne primary reasse for abs diffenese betweee the calculated and emperinneetal pronsudant pressure , is the r '7 la the amount of best transfer between the RCS Auld and metal masses, which is accentuated by the soares and 'r T : x p' beat less modelling available in LOF1RAN. he effect is illustenaed by sensitivity Run 9. Sensitiviry Run 9 daerensed the water to metal best transfer coef5cient by [50J'*5. Deemasing the best transfer soof5cleets results la lower initial RCS metal tempernews, dessessed siend energy, and La a reduced RCS preenwu during the too to 1500 essend time frame. A similar improvement escurved for the bot leg temperneum evoluties. Although there le me rigorous justifnceties for decreasing the best transfer esofilcients, it abound be aseed that a , signinoemt amount of the SPES 2 boility RCS meet sans (305) is eostained la the flanges or other l pleone which would not be as het as the meaal la direct sessant wit the RCS fluid. De owwestlanties of het les tempereswo was mies the soeult of signincent beat teenster between the upper plenum and esaular dowesomer at the SPBS 2 boility. Dese two volumes are esperosed by e thia ((5 meM sehe. As g;n+-- evaluation showed power eschenge beswess, these regions i le in the reage of (30 to 40P kW. ; he various eyesen best lessee (RCS eosponent,30, and preneuriser) are not hmportant to the Ap600 plant analyses pensated la the SSAR. To address bent losess at the SPES 2 facility, thP1RAN wee snodined or used la a manner ibat is set enesiseest with design basis analysis. his was does to usadel thans ;"- . to abe estemt possibis, for the SPES 2 facility. With the various system best less . j approtimations it was possible to dessestrate that LDFl%AN adequately predicts the bebevior of the passive sysses dunas transiset aseditions. With mapses to the design beels Ath is which LOFTRAN is need, RCS sysessa beat losses am met modeled slaae they are either insipifteens or would reauk is a slightly less senservative analysis, he oestributies of the RCS meant masses emergy are seasidered in some safety manlysse employing LOP 1RAN, eue as steam line boek eense and energy relemens, where their inclusion predness imore limiting resula wth compost to the applisable safety limits. SSAR Revision: NONE t 440.461 1 g sw-m-m --w - enww mnn,em m- ~~ e ,---n-.-m,- . . . evoc .--- n , -- . - - , - - - , --
NR.C REQUEST FOR ADDmONAL INFORMATION _7 : ; m .uu , Question 440.462 Re: WCAP.14307 , For the SPES 2 SLB Test 12 Run 1: Figures $ 64 and 5.610 show large differences between the calculated and experimental flows and pressures. Figure 5.613 shows significant difference m the calculated temperature compared to espenmental data. Pleau explain these discrepancies and their impact on the AP600 calculations. Response: The primary reason for the disenpancies in predicted and actual condihs is that th line break model was developed for use in. design. basis safety analyses and is intended to conservatively over. predict the 50 blowdown and RCS cooldotyn. The break flow model uses Moody endcal flow cornladon with fVd=0. No consideradon is given to losas due to ste fricdon, form, or the sudden esponsions. Steam quality mut be input as a funedon of dme a general is assumed to be pure steam. For additional For additional details on the break flow model we the response to Question 440.454 Also discussed in the details concerning blowdown quality see the response to Question 440.455. responses to Queedons 440.454 and 440.455 is the general effect of these modelling tech design basis safety analysis. A secondary reason for the discrepancies is the increased importance of thennal inertia of facility due to the vanous c;:-- : metal mass heat capacities. The approximais metal mass h capacity of SPES 2 facility is 2.6 times higher than the scaled AP600 heat capacity. The key side metal masses were modelled in LOlmtAN. However, for the SPES 2 SLB test, the energy s in the steam generster metal masses also held the pnmary side temperatures up and contnbute less severe pnmary side cooldown. With the excepdon of the 50 subes. LOFTRAN does not the metal mass heat capacity' for the sisam generators. To illusarese the importance of these pr- - .. sensitivities were run by (l) varying the blo'wdown The 50 metal mass was increased by quality and (2) modelling SG mesal mass heat capacity. increasing ihe tuk metal mass by an amount equivalent to the annular downcomer. Both cases we ccqxd to a base cans which assumed a perfect steam quality (no water entrainment). the sensitivides was so show that LOlmtAN provides a conservasive system response suitable for desiga-besis analysis of the AP600 plant, and given a better essmase besak flow model, an accureas blowdown quality profile and by modelling the thermal inertia of the primary and secondar systems LOFTRAN will provide an accurate simulation of the SPES 2 SLB. M0.M2
NRC REQUtli FOR ADDiflONAL INFORMATION n as. , u , The difference in CMT flow is primanly due to the differences in RCS temperature between the As the RCS temperature comes into better LOFTRAN simulauons and,the SPES 2 SLB test data. ' l agreement with test data. the CMT flow also shows better agreement. This point is illus ' the SGTR test simulations also presented in WCAP LOO 7. which are slower with respect to R The SGTR test temperature changes, and generally exhibited escellent agreement for CMT flow. simulations use the sarne CMT model and input as the SLB test simulations. For the CMT model, the steam line break test showed two imponant things. First, in both and the SPES.2 SLB test the CMTs did not drain and remained in the recirculadon phase. even for an asymmetric main steam line break event, both CMTs behave similarly, providing justificadon for using the single CMT LOFTRAN model in conservauve design bas applicadon With respect to design basis ca4ulations, the CMT is a source of peasive borated inj under predicting CMT flow is conservadve', 'Ihe under prediction is related to the conserve line break blowdown model whkh results in an over predienon of the *N cooldown. For de SLB calculadons both of thsee trends are conservauve. SSAR Reviskm: NONE
' For design basis steam line break analyses additional assumpoons are made to ens is underpredicted. For example, maximum line friction factors and no CMT heat lo Addiuonal discussions on CMT modelling in design basis analysee is also contained 440.283.
\. 440.442 2 YN
-- - - - . - -}}