ML20212Q686

Steady-State Thermal Hydraulic Analysis of Peach Bottom Units 2 & 3 Using Fibwr Computer Code

ML20212Q686
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	02/21/1985
From:	Auve S, Diamond H, Keith Young PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:
Shared Package
ML20212Q678	List: ML20212Q676 ML20212Q686 ML20212Q691
References
PECO-FMS-001, PECO-FMS-1, NUDOCS 8609050354
Download: ML20212Q686 (34)

Text

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ ___ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

i L s STEADY-STATE 'HIFR4AL IIYDRAULIC q ANALYSIS OF PEACll BOPIQ4 UNITS 2 AND 3 USING TIIE FIBWR CGPUTER CODE E

Prepared By: JL ** T TM d2 9f K. R. Young Date Engineer j Fuel Managemnt Section Prepared Dy:

• MII S. A. Auve' Date Engineer Fuel Fbnagement Section Reviewed By: /La w '

80 ((

11. J. plar:qdd 'Datd Icad Fm-1 Safety & Licensing Engineer Fuel Management Section Approved By:

L. F. Rubino Date .,

Engineer-in-Charge Fuel Management Section i

OPERATING LICENSE DPR-44 AND DPR-56 Philadelphia Electric Cmpany Electric Production Department Nuclear Generation Division r 2301 Market Street

( Philadelphia, PA 19101 8609050354 e60029 PDR ADOCK 05000277 P PDR

[

l l

I lI I DISCLI.I:E2 I

Thic J.occuent was prepared by PhilaSciphia Electric Company and in believed to be true and accurate to the best of its knowicJge and inforn.ation. This document and the informr. tion containcJ herein are authorize 3 for use only by j Philadelphia Cicctric Company and/or the appropriate

\

l subdivision within the U.S. ::uclear Re,julatory Comn.iculon l for revic.. purpocca.

l i

1:ith regard to any unauthorized use whatcoever, P'iladelphia a Cloctric Company and itc officerc, directorc, agents, and employces accume no liability nor make any warranty or representation with regard to the content: of this Jocument or itc accuracy or completeness.

E-1 I

'l I -i-I E

f I l.CI:::OdLCDCC!;2::T I

The authors wish to acknowledge the Electric Power nescc.rch Institute (CPRI) for sponsoring the FIDtJR coJo develop.T.ent and qualification work, an:1 for making such a valur.ble tool available to the utility industry.

I I .

I I

i 3

1 I

I I

I I

I

r I

'l ABSTRACT I

I Steady-state thermal hydraulic analysis of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, has been performed using the FIBWR code. The ability of the FIBWR code to predict core pressure drop and bypass flow is demonstrated through comparisons to measured plant data and procese computer calculations.

I I

I

'I I

l I

I E

g -m-B ,

I T_ _a _b_l _e_ _o_f_ _C_o _n _t_e _n_t_s Page I

Disclaimer I

................................. i Acknowledgements ................................. 11 Abstract ................................. iii Table of Contents ................................. iv I List of Tables List of Figures v

Vi 4

1.0 Introduction ............................ 1 I 1.1 1.2 Purpose ............................

Description of FIBWR ................

1 1

2.0 FIBWR Comparisons to Peach Bottom Data ... 2 2.1 Plant Specific FIBWR Model ..........

5 2.2 Comparison of the FIBWR Model ........

3 7

Predictions Against Measured Plant Data I 3.0 Summary and Conclusions .................. 9 4.0 References ............................... 26 I

I I

1

-iv-

I LIST OF TABLES Tapfg_ggmpgIs pgggIjptiggg I Page Table 1 Peach Bottom FIBWP. Model Data ............ 10 Table 2 Form-Loss Coefficients Used in ........... 11 the Peach Bottom FIBWR Model Tablo 3 Summary of Leakage Coefficients .......... 12 Flow Bypass Flow Paths I Table 4 Core Support Plate Pressure Drop .........

Comparison Peach Bottom 2 Cycle 5 13 Table 5 Core Support Plate Pressure Drop ......... 14 I Comparison Peach Bottom 2 Cycle 6 I Table 6 Core Support Plate Pressure Drop .........

Comparison Peach Bottom 3 Cycle 5 15 Table 7 Core Support Plate Pressure Drop ......... 16 Comparison Peach Bottom 3 Cycle 6 Table 8 Bypass Flow Comparison ................... 17 Peach Bottom 2 Cycle 5 Table 9 Bypass Flow Comparison ................... 18 Peach Bottom 2 Cycle 6 Table 10 Bypass Flow Comparison ................... 19 Peach Bottom 3 Cycle 5 Table 11 Bypass Flow Comparison ................... 20 Peach Bottom 3 Cycle 6 I

I I

I I

I --

I ._ _-

I gst oF FIcURes I E199E9_ygmpggs pgsggfptjggs

~

pagg I Figure 1 BWR Leakage Flow Paths ..................... 21 Figure 2 FIBWR vs. Process Computer (Measur ed) . . . . . . . 22 I Core Support Plate Pressure Drop Peach Bottom Unit 2 Figure 3 FIBWR vs. Process Computer (Measured) . . . . . . . 23 Core Support Plate Pressure Drop Peach Bottom Unit 3 l

Figure 4 FIBWR vs. Process Computer (Databank) . . . . . . 24 Bypass Flow Comparison Peach Bottom Unit 2 Figure 5 FIBWR vs. Process Computer (Da tabank) . . . . . . 25 l Bypass Flow Comparison l

Peach Bottom Unit 3 I

I l

I 5

l

'I l

I E

,8 I -vi-I I

l.0 I_NTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this report is to demonstrate the I

capability of the FIBWR (1) computer code in predicting core pressure drop and bypass flow for the Peach Bottom units. This report describes the Peach r

( Bottom FIBWR model used for benchmarking FIBWR against the plant specific measured data. This model will be used for operational support and for performing core reload design and licensing calculations for the Peach Bottom units.

1.2 DescripMon_of_FIBWR l

FIBWR (Flow In Boiling Water Reactors) is a computer l code developed for the steady-state thermal-hydraulic analysis of BWRs. FIBWR evaluates the flow and void L distribution within the reactor core by sol,ing the r~

I steady-state one-dimensional equations of continuity, momentum, and energy. FIBWR was developed by the l Yankee Atomic Electric Company and was made avaiJable to Philadelphia Electric Company through the Electric Power Research Institute. The FIBWR qualification and l verification report has been published as an EPRI report (2). FIBWR has been reviewed by the NRC and was approved for performing licensing calculations for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (3).

2.0 FIBWil COMPARISONS TO PEACH BOTTOM DATA A FIBWR model (Figure 1) was developed for the Peach Bottom units in order to benchmark the FIBWR code predictions against maasured plant data. Like most BWR's, Peach Bottom has core support plate pressure drop instrumentation that measures the pressure differential across the core support plate. This measured core support plate pressure drop can be obtained from the process computer P1 edit. The goal was to compare the FIBWR calculated core support plate pressure drop to the measured value using the input parameters developed for Peach Bottom as shown in Section 2.1. The process computer databank provides the total core bypass flow. This bypass flow is the vendor supplied input for the process computer and is cycle dependent.

I P1 edits from the Peach Bottom plant process computer were collected for various power / flow conditions over several operating cycles for both Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3. The plant specific FIBWR model was run using the plant operating conditions from the plant data. The F1BWR predictions of the core support plate pressure drop were then compared to the measured plant data. The FIBWR bypass flow predictions were compared to the bypass flow data found in the process computer data banks.

I i

1 I

L 2.1 Plant _ Specific,FIBWR Mode 1 _

r-The Peach Bottom FIBWR model, shown in Figure 1, consists of 100 characteristic channel types, with one common bypass region. The geometric modeling of each fuel assembly is p sufficiently detailed so that the complex flow paths in the 5

BWR core can be accurately represented. Included in the r

L model are the inlet crifice, fuel support piece, lower tie plate, heated and unheated regions, spacers, water tubes,

' upper tie plate, and the exit chimney. A total of 185 control blades and 55 flux monitoring instrument locations (4 SRMs , 8 IRMs, 43 LPRMs) are also modeled. The 100 characteristic channel types are used to implicitly model a total of 764 fuel assemblies. Of these, 672 are central I

fuel assemblies with an orifice diameter of 2.211 inches, I

l and 92 are peripheral fuel assemblies with an orifice diameter of 1.469 inches. As-built physical dimensions of

( the fuel and core components were used in the Peach Bottom FIBWR model. The geometry calculations for FIBWR are given in the FIBWR Model Calculations Document (4). The Peach Bottcm plant specific data used in the FIBWR model is given l

in Table 1.

I Calculations for determining various form-loss coefficients used in the Peach Bottom FIBWR model are documented in Reference 4. These coefficients were required in order to model changes in the channel cross-sectional area. Form-loss coefficients were calculated for the central and

I peripheral orifices, for the upper tie plate, and for the entrance and exit of the water tube. The form-loss coefficients for the lower tie plate and spacer grids were taken directly from Table 5-1 of Reference 2. The form-loss coefficients used in the Peach Bottom FIBWR model are listed in Table 2.

The leakage flow paths in the BWR core are shown in Figure

1. FIBWR calculates the flow through these paths by using the following equation.

W=Cl A P + C2 A P + C3 A P I where:

I W = Flow through the leakage path (lb/hr)

A P = driving pressure differential for the leakage path (PSI)

E Cl,C2,C3,C4 = analytically or empirically determined leakage coefficients The leakage coefficients were calculated using the method described in Section 5.1.4 of Reference 2. The details of the calculations are documented in the FIBWR Model Calculations Document (4). A summary of the leakage I

I

I coefficients used in the Peach Bottom FIBWR model is shown in Table 3.

A variety of models are available in FIBWR for calculating single-phase friction factors, two-phase friction factors, two-phase local loss (or form loss) multipliers, and void fractions. The following models were used in the Peach Bottom FIBWR model:

I

a. Blausius single-phase friction factors.

F = ARe I where:

I Re = Reynolds numbers A,S = user input constants (See Reference 2)

I b. The two-phase frictional multipliers using the Baroczy correlation, I The modified homogeneous model was used (as shown c.

below) to calculate the two-phase local loss multipliers.

2 4 local = 1 +B <X> (p /p -

1)

I g where:

S = an empirical constant

<X> = Flow quality 5

I

I p1,p g = saturation densities (liquid, gas), lb/ft'

(* local = two phase local loss multiplier (dimensions)

d. The EPRI void Itodel is used to determine the void fraction and the initiation of sub-cooled boiling.

I Peach Bottom FIBWR model predictions were made using various plant operating conditions. The power, flow, system pressure, and inlet subcooling were taken directly from the plant Pl edits. The core power distribution data was supplied by SIMULATE (5), a computer program developed for three-dimensional steady-state nodal analysis of light water reactor power distributions. The linkage code SIMFIB (6) was used to automate the transfer of data from the SIMULATE I code to the FIBWR code.

I I

I I

I lE I

I

-s-E

2.2 Cgmpa[jsgg_gj_ Q g_((pWR Model Predictigns Against Measured g}ag3_ gala I

Several operating states during Cycles 5 and 6 of Peach j Bottom Units 2 and 3 were selected for the FIBWR code benchmarking study. Operating states selected for Cycle 6 represented current core conditions. The reactor core had mixed 8X8R and P8X8R type fuel assemblies. All the fuel assemblies had holes drilled in the lower tie plates.

The core thermal power, core flow, steam dome pressure, and core inlet subcooling were taken directly from the process computer P1 edit output. The assembly axial and radial

power distributions were taken from SIMULATE (5).

In all cases, FIBWR was executed to calculate the core pressure drop and bypass flow for a given total core flow.

Results of data comparisons are shown in Tables 4 through

11. These comparisons are also shown graphically in Figures 2 through 5. Statistical means and standard deviations were calculated for the pressure drop comparison (Tables 4 through 7), using the ratios of FIBWR values to Process Computer values. The ideal statistical mean would be 1.0 (indicating perfect agreement) . However, the mean ranged from 0.925 for Peach Bottom 2 Cycle 5 to 1.013 for Peach Bottom 3 Cycle 5.

I B

I

jI It can be seen that FIBWR predictions of the core support plate pressure drop agree very well with the :aeasured values. The total bypass flow calculated by FIBWR for these i cases agrees reasonably well with the values from the process computer data bank.

il I ,

1

I l

.5 i

I I

I I

I I

I I

I 3.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS A Peach Bottom FIBWR model was developed to perform steady-state thermal hydraulic analyses of the Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 reactor cores. A number of comparisons to measured plant data were made in order to determine the adequacy of using FIBWR for predicting core pressure drop and total bypass flow.

I The excellent agreement between the FIBWR predictions and the plant specific data show that FIBWR can be used to accurately determine core pressure drop and flow distributions for use in core reload design and licensing calculations.

5 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I TABLE 1 I

Peach Bottom FIBUR Iodel Data a

I Rated Core Thermal Power (!:::) 3293 Rated Core Flo.. (: LO/Un) 102.5 4

1 Total I;un Lar of Fuel Asser.iblies 7G4 Total !! umber of Central Assemblies 672 j Total !! umber of Peripheral Accemblies 92 i

4 I

Activo " Fuel Lor.gth (in) 150.0 l

t; umber of Dypass Flo.. Paths C Diameter of Central Orifice (in) 2.211 l Diameter of Periphercl Crifice (in) 1.469 i

!I l  ::ur.ber of Control Rods 185 l !; umber of Incore Instrumentation Locations 55 i

!! umber of Spacers in Each Assembly 7

I

'l . 1c .

I 1

I I

Table _2 Porm-Loss Coefficients Used in the Peach Bottom FIBWR Model I

7x7 3xp 8xBR/P8x8R Orifice, Central 31.92 31.84 33.12 Orifice, Peripheral 179.33 178.89 186.09 Lower Tie Plate 9.30 9.28 9.65 i

Spacers 1.21 1.38 1.24 Upper Tie Plate 1.35 1.41 1.46 Water Rod Entrance N/A 75.14 63.4 I Water Rod Exit N/A 0.533 1.3 I

Note 1: K's for the orifice, lower tie plate, spacer, and upper tie plate are based upon the flow area of the fuel type they are listed under.

I I Note 2: K's for the entrance of the water rods are based upon the flow area of the water rod of the fuel type they are listed under.

5 lI Table 3 I

l Summary of Leakage Coefficients For Bypass Flow Paths

• 1

!I

_F_lo_w P_a_t h_ _D_e_s _c_r_i p_t_i_o_n _C_l _C_2 _C_3

_C4 Control Rod Paths (la ,1b , 2,5 ) 3839.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i

Instrument Tube (Path 3) 114.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ,

Core Shroud (Path 4) 5008.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fuel Support - LTP (Path 6) 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5

, Channel - LTP (Path 8) 0.0 702.0 0.0 0.7106 15 LTP Holes (Path 9) 1783.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I

• The coefficients Cl, C2, C3, C4 are constants in the equation:

I C4 2 W = Cl A P \ + C2 A P + C3 A P

.I where:

'I W = Flow through the leakage path (lbm/hr)

P = driving pressure for the leakage path (psi)

I I

TABLE 4 CORE SUPPORT PLATE PROSSURE DROP COMPARISON PEACH BOTTO,'i 2 CYCLE 5 I PC MEASURED FIBWR CORE CORE SUPPORT POWER FLOW SUPPORT PRESS DROP FIBWR I % OF RATED

% OF PRESS DROP (DPC-M) - PC

%DIFF RATED (PSID) (PSID) (PSID) FIBWR/PC*

. 99.88 99.95 19.89 20.87 -0.98 -4.7 0.9530 99.36 95.51 18.25 17.09 1.16 6.8 1.0679 97.24 90.21 16.37 17.21 -0.84 -4.9 0.9512 96.66 89.08 15.90 16.89 -0.99 -5.9 0.9414 I 89.77 88.75 15.51 16.25 -0.74 -4.6 0.9545 S'.97 78.87 12.28 12.96 -0.68 -5.2 G.9475

-g e'.24 76.31 11.49 12.19 -0.70 -5,7 0.9426 g 78.92 75.18 10.83 11.81 -0.98 -8.3 0.9170 67.54 72.61 9.79 10.52 -0.73 -6.9 0.9306 82.87 72.40 10.29 11.04 -0.75 -6.8 0.9321 I 81.84 78.77 83.84 69.69 67.85 66.05 9.51 8.91 8.60 10.22 9.67 9.66

-0.71

-0.76

-1.06

-6.9

-7.9

-11.0 0.9305 0.9214 0.8903 57.85 64.57 7.44 8.23 -0.79 -9.6 0.9040 5 70.27 62.77 7.31 8.30 -0.99 -11.9 0.8807 44.76 60.06 6.12 6.59 -0.47 -7.1 0.9287 50.41 57.53 5.66 6.12 -0.46 -7.5 0.9248 5 68.81 21.80 56.62 54.34 5.83 4.70 6.66 4.84

-0.83

-0.14

-12.5

-2.9 0.8754 0.9711 66.57 50.63 4.52 5.39 -0.87 -16.1 0.8386 I 48.56 53.08 18.92 45.66 45.64 43.99 3.33 3.36 2.39 3.93 4.02 3.25

-0.65

-0.66

-0.86

-16.3

-16.4

-25.5 0.8367 0.8358 0.7354 29.91 43.63 2.84 2.35 0.49 20.9 1.2085 I 31.98 39.17 2.18 2.39 -0.21 -8.8 0.9121

• MEAN = 0.925 I STANDARD DEVIATION = 0.085 I

I I

'll 5 I

i TABLE 5 i

CORE SUPPORT PLATE PRESSURE DROP COMPARISON I I PEACH BOTTOM 2 CYCLE 6 PC MEASURED FIBWR CORE CORE SUPPORT POWER FLOW SUPPORT PRESS DROP FIBWR I % OF  % OF PRESS DROP (DPC-M) - PC RATED RATED (PSID) (PSID) (PSID) %DIFF FIBWR/PC*

~

99.70 97.07 18.47 18.12 0.35 1.9 1.0193 I 99.51 99.74 19.22 18.57 0.65 3.5 1.0350 90.37 90.83 16.07 17.09 -1.02 -6.0 0.9403 93.05 85.66 14.46 15.50 -1.04 -6.7 0.9329 I 86.97 84.68 13.90 14.7i -0.87 -5.9 0.9411 84.18 81.37 12.61 13.08 -0.47 -3.6 0.9641 75.40 75.02 10.64 11.17 -0.53 -4.7 0.9526 83.91 70.63 9.70 10.41 -0.71 -6.8 0.9318 80.17 68.59 8.91 9.44 -0.53 -5.6 0.9438 78.20 65.17 7.95 8.45 -0.50 -5.9 0.9408 I 76.28 72.55 51.75 61.66 57.46 53.91 7.05 6.00 4.82 7.59 6.58 5.24

-0.54

-0.58

-0.42

-7.1

-8.8

-8.0 0.9289 0.9119 0.9198 I 64.83 37.38 52.49 47.18 4.82 3.38 5.23 3.81

-0.41

-0.43

-7.8

-11.3 0.9216 0.8871

• MEAN 0.945 I STANDRD DEVIATION = 0.0382 I

I I

I I

I I

I - _ _- -

s TABLE 6 CORE SUPPORT PLATE PRESSURE DROP COMPARISON PEACH BOTTOM 3 CYCLE 5 PC MEASURED FIBWR CORE CORE SUPPORT

{ POWER FLOW SUPPORT PRESS DROP FIBWR

% OF  % OF PRESS DROP (DPC-M) - PC e RATED RATED (PSID) (PSID) (PSID) %DIFF FIBWR/PC*

L ----- ----- ---------- ------------ ------- ----- --------

99.94 96.48 18.47 18.16 0.31 1.7 1.0171 99.73 95.81 18.23 17.97 0.26 1.4 1.0145

( 99.79 93.40 17.35 17.38 -0.03 -0.2 0.9983 98.39 88.58 15.64 15.89 -0.25 -1.6 0.9843 95.81 85.28 14.41 14.77 -0.36 -2.4 0.9756 83.36 84.29 13.53 12.58 0.95 7.6 1.0755

{- 82.51 82.63 12.96 12.35 0.61 4.9 1.0494 93.90 82.50 13.46 13.85 -0.39 -2.8 0.9718 84.54 82.44 12.99 12.29 0.70 5.7 1.0570 90.37 82.17 13.16 13.19 -0.03 -0.2 0.9977 81.96 79.32 11.98 11.37 0.61 5.4 1.0537 88.55 79.09 12.29 12.26 0.03 0.2 1.0024 81.08 78.83 11.79 11.77 0.02 0.2 1.0017 87.55 77.52 11.80 11.77 0.03 0.3 1.0025 81.35 77.37 11.38 10.79 0.59 5.5 1.0547 81.20 77.27 11.35 10.80 0.55 5.1 1.0509 79.41 77.07 11.23 11.04 0.19 1.7 1.0172 86.09 76.78 11.46 11.93 -0.47 -3.9 0.9606 81.20 76.59 11.15 10.62 0.53 5.0 1.0499

( 80.96 82.45 73.85 72.39 10.37 10.04 10.55 9.87 0.50

-0.48 5.1

-4.8 1.0507 0.9517 82.02 71.78 9.96 10.00 -0.04 -0.4 0.9960 72.64 70.83 9.34 8.87 0.47 5.3 1.0530 76.86 67.22 8.47 8.17 0.30 3.7 1.0367 76.80 66.58 8.40 8.44 -0.04 -0.5 0.9953 78.17 66.32 8.39 8.45 -0.06 -0.7 0.9929 77.22 65.56 8.09 8.62 -0.53 -6.1 0.9385 75.31 64.78 7.81 7.66 0.15 2.0 1.0196 72.94 64.59 7.71 7.51 0.20 2.7 1.0266 74.31 63.51 7.47 7.31 0.16 2.2 1.0219 73.52 62.44 7.20 7.03 0.17 2.4 1.0242

'72.46 62.44 7.18 6.98 0.20 2.9 1.0287 72.46 62.44 7.17

{ 72.58 60.98 6.90 7.01 7.02 0.16

-0.12 2.3

-1.7 1.0228 0.9829 67.23 53.14 4.98 5.09 -0.11 -2.2 0.9784 40.97 50.73 4.05 3.97 0.08 2.0 1.0202 63.89 49.59 4.20 4.28 -0.08 -1.9 0.9813 l

-31.31 43.48 2.76 2.70 0.06 2.2 1.0222 l

[

• MEAN = 1.013 STANDARD DEVIATION = 0.032 r -- - - - - -

TABLE 7 CORE SUPPORT PLATE PRESSURE DROP COMPARISON I PEACH BOTTOM 3 CYCLE 6 PC MEASURED FIBWR CORE CORE SUPPORT POWER FLOW SUPPORT PRESS DP.OP FIBWR I % OF RATED

% OF RATED PRESS DROP (PSID)

(DPC-M)

(PSID)

- PC (PSID)

%DIFF FIBWR/PC*

I 85.06 100.58 85.36 94.76 84.42 91.42 19.06 17.08 15.91 18.33 16.45 15.37 0.73 0.63 0.54 4.0 3.8 3.5 1.0398 1.0383 1.0351 I 82.66 85.57 92.17 99.61 90.28 76.53 13.95 12.59 11.56 13.58 12.53 11.59 0.37 0.06

-0.03 2.7 0.5

-0.3 1.0272 1.0048 0.9974 88.34 73.86 10.72 10.80 -0.7 I

-0.08 0.9926 85.67 71.15 9.85 9.98 -0.13 -1.3 0.9870 83.12 68.15 8.96 9.20 -0.24 -2.6 0.9739 80.14 65.66 8.21 8.45 -0.24 -2.8 0.9716 I 74.07 61.75 69.66 56.11 66.20 52.22 7.07 5.67 4.78 7.38 6.02 5.09

-0.31

-0.35

-0.31

-4.2

-5.8

-6.1 0.9580 0.9419 0.9391

'g 54.93 45.35 3.28 3.66 -0.38 -10.4 0.8962 3

0 MEAN = 0.986 STANDARD DEVIATION = 0.043 I

I iI I

1 I

I lI - ---

ll '^82"_8 I BYPASS FLOW COMPARISON PEACH BOTTOM 2 CYCLE 5 I FIBWR BYPASS POWER FLOW + WATER TUBE PC CALC FIBNR

% OF  % OF FLOWS BYPASS FLOW - PC RATED RATED MLB/HR MLB/HR MLB/HR FIBWR/PC*

I 99.88 99.36 97.24 99.95 95.51 90.21 11.15 10.67 10.07 10.44 9.83 9.11 0.71 0.84 0.96 1.0680 1.0854 1.1054 I 96.66 89.77 46.97 89.08 88.75 78.87 9.90 9.67 8.53 8.96 8.92 7.64 0.94 0.75 0.89 1.1049 1.0841 1.1165

.24 76.31 8.23 7.32 0.91 1.1243 I .s.54 82.87 92 75.18 72.61 72.40 7.84 7.27 7.73 7.18 6.86 6.84 0.66 0.41 0.89 1.0919 1.0598 1.1301 I 81.84 78.77 83.84 69.69 67.85 66.05 7.39 7.07 7.00 6.51 6.29 6.08 0.88 0.78 0.92 1.1352 1.1240 1.1513 57.85 64.57 6.10 5.91 0.19 1.0321 5 70.27 62.77 6.19 5.70 0.49 1.0860 44.76 60.06 5.30 5.39 -0.09 0.9833 50.41 57.53 5.11 5.11 0.00 1.0000 I 68.81 21.80 66.57 56.62 54.34 50.63 5.37 4.35 4.57 5.01 4.76 4.36 0.36

-0.41 0.21 1.0719 0.9139 1.0482 I 48.56 53.08 18.92 45.66 45.64 43.99 3.55 3.55 3.19 3.83 3.84 3.66

-0.28

-0.29

-0.47 0.9269 0.9245 0.8716 29.91 43.63 -0.59 0.8375 I

3.04 3.63 31.98 39.17 2.40 3.18 -0.78 0.7547 I

• MEAN= 1.033 STANDARD DEVIATION = 0.105 I

I I

I 1

=

I - -

TABLE 9 I BYPASS FLOW COMPARISON PEACH BOTTOM 2 CYCLE 6 I FIBWR BYPASS I POWER

% OF RATED FLOW

% OF RATED

+ WATER TUBE FLOWS MLB/HR PC CALC BYPASS FLOW MLB/HR FI3WR

- PC MLB/HR FIBWR/PC*

99.70 97.07 10.85 10.57 0.28 1.0265 I 99.51 99.74 11.00 10.91 0.09 1.0082 90.37 90.83 9.99 9.77 0.22 1.0225 I 93.05 86.97 84.18 85.66 84.68 81.37 9.51 9.22 8.67 9.10 8.97 8.54 0.41 0.25 0.13 1.0451 1.0279 1.0152 75.40 75.02 I

7.86 7.71 0.15 1.0195 83.91 70.63 7.58 7.13 0.45 1.0631 80.17 68.59 7.12 6.86 0.26 1.0379 78.20 65.17 6.64 6.41 'O.23 1.0359 76.28 61.66 6.16 5.94 0.22 1.0370 I 72.55 57.46 5.51 5.38 0.13 1.0242 51.75 53.91 4.56 4.91 -0.35 0.9287 I 64.83 37.38 52.49 47.18 4.77 3.45 4.72 4.00 0.05

-0.55 1.0106 0.8625 0 MEAN = 1.011 STANDARD DEVIATION = 0.050 I

I I

I l

l lI l

l

'I ll  !

l lI

TABLE 10 I BYPASS FLOW COMPARISON PEACH BOTTOM 3 CYCLE 5 I FIBWR BYPASS POWER FLOW + WATER TUBE PC CALC FIBWR

% OF  % OF FLOWS DYPASS FLOW - PC RATED RATED MLB/HR MLB/HR MLB/HR FIBWR/PC*

I 99.94 99.73 99.79 96.48 95.81 93.40 10.90 10.83 10.56 10.39 10.30 9.95 0.51 0.53 0.61 1.0491 1.0515 1.0613 I 98.39 95.81 21.36 88.58 85.28 84.29 9.99 9.54 8.98 9.27 8.82 8.68 0.72 0.72 0.30 1.0777 1.0816 1.0346 d2.51 82.63 8.78 8.46 0.32 1.0378 I 93.90 82.50 9.17 8.44 0.73 1.0865 84.54 82.44 8.82 8.43 0.39 1.0463 90.37 82.17 8.91 8.40 0.51 1.0607 79.32 8.41 8.02 0.39 1.0486 I81.96 88.55 79.09 8.69 7.99 0.70 1.0876 81.08 78.83 8.33 7.95 0.38 1.0478 77.52 8.49 7.78 0.71 1.0913 I87.55 81.35 81.20 77.37 77.27 8.17 8.16 7.76 7.75 0.41 0.41 1.0528 1.0529 79.41 77.07 8.09 7.72 0.37 1.0479 I86.09 76.78 8.31 7.69 0.62 1.0806 81.20 76.59 8.08 7.66 0.42 1.0548 80.96 73.85 7.76 7.31 0.45 1.0616 82.45 72.39 7.69 7.12 0.57 1.0801 I82.02 71.78 7.67 7.04 0.63 1.0895 72.64 70.83 7.22 6.92 0.30 1.0434 76.86 67.22 6.87 6.47 0.40 1.0618 I76.80 78.17 66.58 66.32 6.89 6.90 6.39 6.36 0.50 0.54 1.0782 1.0849 77.22 65.56 6.72 6.27 0.45 1.0718 75.31 64.78 6.53 6.17 0.35 1.0583 72.94 64.59 6.45 6.15 0.30 1.0488 74.31 63.51 6.35 6.02 0.33 1.0548 73.52 62.44 6.19 5.89 0.30 1.0509 I72.46 62.44 6.17 5.89 0.28 1.0475 l 72.46 62.44 6.16 5.89 0.27 1.0458

'3

! 72.58 60.98 6.07 5.72 0.35 1.0612 g 67.23 53.14 4.84 4.81 0.03 1.0062 40.97 50.73 3.93 4.54 -0.61 0.8656

! 63.89 49.59 4.27 4.41 -0.14 0.9683 31.31 43.48 2.83 3.75 -0.92 0.7547 l

• MEAN= 1.044

! STANDARD DEVIATION = 0.062 ll {

TABLE 11 I BYPASS FLOW COMPARISON PEACH BOTTOM 3 CYCLE 6 i

I FIBWR BYPASS '

,g POWER FLOW + WATER TUBE PC CALC FIBWR E  % OF  % OF FLOWS BYPASS FLOW - PC RATED RATED MLB/HR MLB/HR MLB/HR FIBWR/PC*

I 85.06 100.58 85.36 94.76 84.42 91.42 10.80 10.21 9.82 10.99 10.15 9.67

-0.19 0.06 0.15 0.9827 1.0059 1.0135 I 82.66 85.57 92.17 79.61

'9.28 76.53 9.15 8.83 8.42 8.86 8.06 7.65 0.29 0.77 0.77 1.0327 1.0955 1.1007

.34 73.86 8.06 7.31 0.75 1.1026 I . 67 71.15 7.65 6.96 0.69 1.0991 83.12 68.15 7.23 6.59 0.64 1.0971 80.14 65.66 6.83 6.28 0.55 1.0876

'I 74.07 69.66 61.75 56.11 6.18 5.32 5.81 5.15 0.37 0.17 1.0637 1.0330 66.20 52.22 4.73 4.71 0.02 1.0042 54.93 45.35 3.53 3.95 -0.42 0.8937 o MEAN = 1.044 STANDARD DEVIATION = 0.061 I

I I

I I

I I

r, 7 I Il lll1111lllIB

1. Control Rod Guide Tube - Fuel Support

2. Control Rod Guide Tube - Core Support Place I

3. Core Support Place - Incore Guide e Tube

/t 4. Core Su'pport Place - Shroud I

V 5. Control Rod Guide Tube - Drive Housing

6. Fuel Support - Lover Tie Place

7. Control Rod Drive Cooling t.'ater I 8.

9.

10.

Channel - Lower Tie Place Lower Tie Place Holes Spring Plug - Core Support Illllillllill M LOWER -

I TIE PLATE

'9 6 la 3 I .

c-,

FUEL SUPPORT / SHROUD CORE

~

[ SUPPORT I

I "

% CONTROL R0D 5

7

+- DRIVE HOUSING ,

l FIGURE 1 - BWR LEAKAGE FLOW PATH (From Reference 2)

I

Figure 2 FIBWR vs Process Computer (measured)

Core Support Plate Pressure Drop (Peach Bottom Unit 2) 20 19 18 4 8 O 17 E W 16 4

' mY

. 15 4 E U 14 4 o O_

Q 8 13-)5 12 8

E I

o_

11 ]i 10 p'

7 y o_ 91 cg W 84 o U

of 7k D' 6Eg ,5 3

ca 51 _egenc Li_ 44 34 m a Peach Bottom 2 Cycle 5 2 O Peach Bottom 2 Cycle 6 1 ....,....,....,.... ....,....,....,.... ....,....,... ,....,....,....,....,....,....i....,....

, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 P C CSP P-Drop in PSID mm man am ime um um aus em um um aus em aus mas num um um um um

l Figure 3 FIBWR vs Process Computer (measured) '

Core Support Plate Pressure Drop (Peach Bottom Unit 3) 1 20 :

0 l 19 j 18 i 0

O 17 4 W 16 4 o 1 15 d E 14 I 'o Q- 13 4 8 12 4 l C 11 4 10 d u O_ 9E W 84 O

7 =E O'

6E 3 _egenc ca 54 L- 44 3J m Peach Bottom 3 Cycle 5 2 o Peach Bottom 3 Cycle 6 )

1 ....,.... .............. .... ....,.... ....,.... ... ,....,.... ....,....,....,....,....,....

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 P C CSP P-Drop in PSID mm um um nas em um amm aus em um um uma sus mas aus em um um uma

Figure 4 FIBWR vs Process Computer (Databank)

Bypass Flow Comparison (Peach Bottom Unit 2) m 12 m -

y 11j , "o

.E 10 j g 3:  : o o 9:

L 8

i m' m ,

m  :

O 74 mm mE o_ _

X -

m sq o  :

P 5i

.9 0 42

e n

8 i e _egenc 3; 3 f2 C

i m Peach Bottom 2 Cycle 5 o Peach Bottom 2 Cycle 6 1 ....,....,....,....,....,... ,....,....,....,.........

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P C Calculated Bypass Flow in MLBS l i

mas use uma um nas num um um um mum ums num um um um um num aus == _

Figure 5 FIBWR vs Process Computer (Databank)

Bypass Flow Comparison (Peach Bottom Unit 3) w 12 ca i "i a m

.E 10 i

a

o 9i u_

o 8i 74 0'

s[lE l O- .

l x -

CD Si l

o  :

9 52

.M i O 42 m b i O c' 3: ,

egenc Oc u Peach Bottom 3 Cycle 5 3 2j CD  :- O Peach Bottom 3 Cycle 6 U- 1 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P C Calculated Bypass Flow in MLBS l mm aus em um um uma mas sus em man uns uma sus em nas uma sin sus ==

I

4.0 REFERENCES

1. FIBWR: A Steady-State Core Flow Distribution Code for Bo_iling Water Reactors, Computer Code Users' Manual, EPRI NP-1924-CCM, July 1981.

2. FIBWR: A Steady-State Core Flow Distribution Code for Boiling Water Reactors, Code Verification and Qualification Repor t, EPRI NP-1923, July 1981.

I 3.

~

Letter from Domenick B. Vassallo, Chief of Operating Reactors Branch No. 2, to J. B. Sinclair, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, September 15, 1982.

I

4. FIBim Model Calculations Document, PECo MCD-0006.

I s. SIMULATE 1: Computer Code Manual, EPRI Research

"' '" ' " ~ ' '

I l

I '-

V&V-022.

I I

-I l

lI