NUREG/IA-0001, 'Assessment of TRAC-PD2 Using Super Cannon ... · agreement for the exchange of...

NUREG/IA-QO0l

Intem'at~onal Agreement ReportI. ~ -

.andHDR ExperimetgDt

Office of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555

August 1986

NOTICE

This report was prepared under an international cooperativeagreement for the exchange of technical information. Neitherthe United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any oftheir employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, orassumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party'suse, or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus pro-duct or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its useby such third party Would not infringe privately owned rights.

Available from

Superintendent of DocumentsU.S. Government Printing Office

P.O. Box 37082Washington, D.C. 20013-7082

and

National Technical Information ServiceSpringfield, VA 22161

NUREG/IA-QO0l

150 "PA REC;'4.ý'0

1ý V'ýýoInternational Agreement Report_N': 0"

Assessment of TRJ C-PD2Using SUPER CANNONand HDR Experimental Data

Prepared byU. Neumann

Kraftwerk UnionHammerbacherstr. 12+ 14Postfach 32208520 Erlangen, The Federal Republic of Germany

Office of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555

August 1986

Prepared as part ofThe Agreement on Research Participation and Technical ExchangeBetween the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC)and the Federal Minister for Research end Technology of the FederalRepublic of Germany (BMFT) in USNRC Thermal Hydraulic ResearchPrograms and BMFT Thermal Hydraulic Research Programs

NOTICE

This report documents work performed under the sponsorship of the Kraftwerk

Union in the-Federal Republic of Germany. The information in this report has

been provided to the USNRC under the terms of an information exchange

agreement between the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany

(Technical Exchange and Cooperation Arrangement Between the United States

Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Bundesminister Fuer Forschung und

Technologie of the Federal Republic of Germany in the field of reactor safety

research and development, April 30, 1981). The Kraftwerk Union has consented

to the publication of this report as a USNRC document in order that it may

receive the widest possible circulation among the reactor safety community.

Neither the United States Government nor-the Kraftwerk Union or any agency

thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied,

or assumes any legal liability of responsibility for any third party's use, or

the results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product or process

disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third party would

not infringe privately owned rights.

- ABSTRACT

This report assesses the predictive capabilities of the Transient Reactor

Analysis Code (TRAC-PD2) using data from the SUPER CANON and HEISS DAMPF

REACTOR (HDR) experimental facilities. The-report is divided into three parts.

Part I is the TRAC-PD2 assessment using SUPER CANON data. Part II is the

TRAC-PD2 assessment using HDR data. Part III provides recommendations for the

user using the combined assessment results. In general, it is shown that the

TRAC-PD2 predictions were in good agreement with the actual test pressures and

and mass flow rates for both these tests. TRAC-PD2 provided considerably

better results than TRAC-PlA. This was particularly true with regard to sound

velocity predictions which play a significant role whenever the speed of

pressure relief waves must be determined.

*iii

A.11

tL

0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT

PART I: TRAC-PD2 RECALCULATION OF THE SUPER CANON EXPERIMENT

1. Introduction 2

2. Recalculation of the Results from Los Alamos 23. TRAC-PD2 Calculation with 120 Zones 4

4. Computer Time and Computer Costs 6

References 8

PART II: PARAMETRIC STUDY OF TRAC-PD2 'USING THE HDR TEST RESULTS

1. Introduction 3

2. Parameter study for the H-DR tests .32.1 HDR 1/3 initial calculation 42.2 HDR 2/3 automatic boiler connection 5

2.3 HDR 3/3 automatic boiler connection with nozzle 7

2.4 HDR 4/5 and HDR 5/4 8

3. Discussion of the Results 9

4. References 10

V

PART III: RECOMMENDATION FOR THE APPLICATION. OF TRAC-PD2 TO SHORT TERM

TRANS IENTS

Page

1. Introduction 3

2. Automatic Calculation of Pressure Loss Coefficients for

Contraction or Enlargement 4

3. Parameter Study on HDR Tests 9

3.1 HDR 1/3 Initial Test Calculation 16

3.2 H-DR 2/3 Automatic Vessel Junction 23

3.3 HDfR 3/3 Automatic Vessel Junction with Nozzle 29

3.4 HDR 4/5 Vessel Junction .35

3.5 HDR 5/4 Vessel Junction without Loss Coefficient 41

3.6 HDfR 6/5 Vessel Junction with Bypass in Blowdown Nozzle 47

3.7 Summary of the Results from HDR Computations 53

4. TRAC Components 54

4.1 Trip Data 54

4.2 BREAK 55

4.3 TEE 56

4.4 STEAM GENERATOR 57

4.5 VESSEL 60

4.6 PUMP 63

5. General TRAC Instructions 65

References 66

vi

PART I: TRAC-PD2 RECALCULATION'OF THE SUPER

CANON EXPERIMENT

Translated By: TECHTRAN CorporationP.O. Box 729Glen Burnie, MD 21061

This page intentionally left blank.

-2-

1. Introduction

Recalculations of various tests with the old TRAC-PlA version showed that the

pressure relief process proceeded 1.5 times faster than would have been

expected from experimental results.

For this reason the SUPER CANON EXPERIMENT was the first to be recalculated

with the new TRAC-PD2 version.

This involves a horizontal pipe (Fig. 1.1) which is filled with subcooled

water. The rupture opening time, which is less than 1 insec, is attained by

igniting a small explosive charge which destroys the rupture disk at the end

of the pipe.

For the recalculations carried out with the TRAC-PD2 program, the following

conditions were taken as the basis:

Initial pressure 150 bar

Initial temperature 3000 C

Initial steam content x =O

Rupture opening area, full cross-section

Outlet pressure decreases to instantaneous critical pressure

Seven computer runs are carried out, in which the effects of discretization

and time step width are determined .The calculated sound velocities are

compared with the theoretical tabular values. In addition, the computation

costs and computer time are discussed as a function of the precision of the

results.

2. Recalculation of the Results from LOS ALAMOS

During the TRAC workshop held from 2/3 to 2/7/80 at LOS ALAMOS, Mr. Hughes

carried out a simple calculation of-the SUPER CANON EXPERIMENTS with the

TRAC-PD2 version. The results were brought to the meeting in the form of

a plot figure (Fig. 2.1). With the first three calculations, an attempt was

therefore made to complete this curve after the fact. Handwritten documents

Kraftwerk Union

-3-

from Mr. Hughes provided the following geometric input data for the pipe:

Length L 4.0 m (divided up to 20 zones of 0.2 m each)

Diameter D 0.1 m

From Figure 2.1 the sound velocity with L =3.9 m (length from the open end

to the midpoint of zone 20) and the transit time which can be read off (curve

Z 20) T =0.00349 sec is calculated at w = 1117.4 in/sec. At 150 bar and 300 0C,

the homogeneous, isentropic sound velocity is wh~miet 952.37 in/sec.

The deviation from this value is approximately 17.3% and can be regarded as

quite acceptable. Table 2.1 gives the recalculations~ with their input data

and results.

TABLE 2.1 RESULTS~ OF THE RECALCULATIONS

Deviation in %l

TRAC Zones T w frmFgrwhomn, isentr. Fgr

LOS ALAMOS PD2 20 -1117. 17.3 2.1

-41st recalculation PD2 20 2 x 10- 1274. 33.7 2.2-2.4

2nd reclculatin PD2 2 1 x 1-4 18.2. .-.

2nd recalculation PD2 20 1 x 105 10481. 20.0 2.5-2.6

Since the time step for the calculation for LOS ALAMOS is not known, from the

comparisation of the results it can only be assumed that it must be less than

1 x 1074 -The results from Table 2.1 indicate that, as the maximum time step

decreases in size, the sound velocity coincides better and better with the

tabular value. This relationship is verified by the fact that the TRAC program

per se uses a completely implicit procedure which calculates the time step

width AT from the following equation:

,&T 2.1

where Ax is the zone length and v is the mixture velocity. In an explicit

procedure, however, the time step is also affected by the sound velocity so

Kral work Union

-4-

that the following equation results:

LT Ax2.2

where w is the sound velocity. A comparison of the two equations shows that

sound velocity is indirectly taken into account by an artificial reduction

in the size of the time step and thus the calculation lead to better results;

This leads to the conclusion that in the transient region the time step width

should never be allowed to exceed 1 x 104 in order to ensure that the sound

velocity will not deviate by more than 25% from the actual value.

Regarding Figures 2.2 to 2.11, it can also be stated that they contain all the

curves with which the sound velocities in Table 2.1 were calculated.

Curves 2.4I and .2.9 represent profile plots. They were plotted by Dr. Sueveges

using a subroutine in the DEGAS plot program. The pipe length is plotted on

the x-axis; here the open end of the pipe is at 14.389 m (on the right in the

figure). In the case the profile plots provide instantaneous pictures (snapshots)

which depict the pressure variation at a certain point in time (1 msec, 2 msec,

3 msec, 14 msec, etc.) over the length of the pipe.

3. TRAC-PD2 Calculation with 120 Zones

These calculations were carried out in order to consider

the effect of discretization and, on the other hand, to verify the

dependency of the computation precision on the time step width.

TABLE 3.1 RESULTS OF THE 120 ZONE CALCULATIONS

Deviation in %from

TRAC Zones *Tw whom isentr. Figure

l4th recalculation PD2 120 1 x 10O4 1583. 66.3 3.1-3.7

5th recalculation PD2 120 1 x 104 11714. -23-.3- 3.8-3.11 ---

6th recalculation. PD2 120 5 x 10-5 1106. 16.1 3.12-3.17

7th recalculation PD2 120 1 X 10-5 1016. 6.68 3.18-3.20

Kraftwork Union

-5

The results summarized in Table 3.1 clearly sub stantiate the assumption that

as the size of the time step width is decreased further, the sound speed coincides

better with the tabular value. In this process discretization plays a subordinate

role,' as is clear from comparing Table 2.1 with Table 3.1 with the same time

step width. The smaller zone division provides an improvement in the results

of only approximately 1-30/. The most important thing recognized, however,

is that, in comparison with the old PlA version, the new TRAC-PD2 version provides

almost satisfactory results in the calculation of sound velocity. A comparison

of recalculations J4 and 5 shows this quite clearly. Therefore Figures 3.1 to

3.7 each contain one PD2 and one PlA curve as a means of direct comparison.

Figures 3.8 and 3.9 are again profile plots which very clearly show the faster

pressure drop in the old TRAC-PlA version.

In addition, Figures 3.14I-3.17 contain the results from the SUPER CANON

EXPERIMENT and older LECK (leak) calculations [2], which are entered by hand.

Towards the closed end and in the center of the pipe, the deviations from the

measured curve (Fig. 3.15 and 3.16) are relatively slight; here both

calculations compute the pressure drop too early to the same extent. Only a t

the open end (Fig. 3.17) is a sharp contrast noted between the LEOK and TRAC

calculations, to the extent that the TRAC-PD2 curve reflects the measured

curve very precisely, while in the first 180 msec the LECK calculation providesa greatly deviating curve plot with an excessively high pressure level.

Figures 3.18-3.20 pertain to the 7th recalculation, which was carried out with

a time step of A~T =1 x 105 and which provides the best approximation to the

actual sound velocity.

Krafiwerk Union

-6-

4. Computer Time and Computer Costs

Table 4.1 gives the problem time, the computation time and the system seconds

for the computation costs as a function of the number of zones and time step

widths. The results from Table 2.1 and 3.1 have shown that the precision

of the calculations is mainly dependent on the selection of the time step width.

Table 4.1 shows that, with the same zone distribution, the computation costs

decrease by a factor of f T - 7 if the time step is reduced from AT = 104 seccost

toWT = 10-5 sec. On the other hand, the sound velocity is calculated with fair

precision only with a time step ofAtT =10-5. On the other hand, discretization

does not provide significantly better results. When the number of zones is

increased by a factor of six, from 20 to 120 zones, the cost factor is

approximately f cost - 2. One possible conclusion from this would be that an

attempt should be made to improve the computation results with greater

discretization. This is contradicted, however, by the fact that the storage

space of the computer system is not unlimited.

In addition, these limits are reached very quickly with a model in which the

vessel components are used, in which case the division of zones just meets

the minimum requirements. This means that a true improvement in the computation

results can be achieved only with a reduction in the size of the time step

width.

In order, however, for the costs to remain within reasonable limits, the time

step must be optimized in different periods. The 120 zone calculation which

is numbered seven is an example of this.

The THAC program offers the capability of indicating several time intervals

in which the actuating variable is redefined each time. In this case the end

of the first time interval is 0.008 sec with a minimum step width of 1 x 10-6

and a maximum step width of 5 x 10-5. This means that in the highly transient

region of the first 8 msec the propagation speed of the pressure relief wave

is calculated fairly precisely. In the second time interval, up to 0.2 sec,

the time step is set at 1 x 10-4, and the third time interval up to 0.~4 sec

the pressure relief process has decayed to such an extent that a time step

Kraftwerk Union

-- 7

of 1 x 10 is sufficient. This example shows how important it is to optimize

the individual time domains. In this way the calculation cost 10,000 system seconds;

if, however, the entire 0.41 sec had been calculated with the step width of

1 x 10-5, then the costs would probably have risen to more than 100,000

system-seconds. For larger calculations it would probably be more worthwhile

.to start a computer run with a large step width in order to determine the

highly transient time intervals for the purpose of then precisely calculating

this region in a second run.

Kraftwerk Union

-8-

Bibliography

1. 1"TRAC-PD2: An Advanced Best Estimate Computer Program

for PWR LOCA Analysis"1 , LOS ALAMOS Scientific Laboratory

NUREG/CR-2O5'4

2. Neumann, U., "Recalculation of the SUPER CANON EXPERIMENT Using the

LECK Computer Program"l, KWU Working Report R11/2036/80.

Kraftwerk Union

AG AS'P6 P5 PT4,71

A3 A2 Al* P3 P2

T3 IT 2 T

~~1G~t CF

4500

1356__ _

4502

.--.--... ~ ... !389..........

Fig.1: Super-Canon Experiment.

SUPER CANNON TESTCAN-B 0023.5

13oooo~o - CELL

140000W

20mm 0

PIPE

am aQbw Obis omTI ME (S)

COMPARISON CALCULATION FROM LOS ALAMOS

d

KWU TRAC -P02

SUPER CANON EXPERIMENT

COMPARISON WITH LOS ALAMO)S

.1.~:.L. -

a ~. .~ . K,

Alp%%0

0C?

(D PD2 CELL 1

+A PD2 CELL 10+PD2 CELL 20

Oq

I\.)

I\.)

TIME (S) * 10r2

150 BAR / 300 K / 20 CELLS DELI = 1.E-4

KWU TRAC -PD2


COMPARISON WITH LOS ALAMOS

C3

(D PD2 CELLA PD? CELL+ PD? CELLX PD? CELL'ý' PD2 CELL

15101520

0 ?

0

tXnO

F- 0 .1 . 0 0 . 0 0 4

mcT

150 BA 0 2 EL

HI\)

IME (S) * 10o2

DELT =1.E-4

Is &

KWU TRAC - PD2

SUPER CANON EXPER IMENT

PRESSURE VERSUS AXIAL POSITION

o - ___ __ ___ ___ __ ___ _ _ ___ Q TIME = 1.00 MS

C,. ~TIME = 2.00 MS

TIME = 3.00 MS

(-CTIME = 4.00 MS

= I)-------- )"

L)

LENGTH OF PIPE (M)

DELT = 2.E-4

IKWU TRAC - P02 AdmbL

AF-'9&

%wSUPER CANON EXPERIMENT


mn

co)Wl

C:4

C?,00

0C-,

0

Cr'

0:

0*

C3

30'.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0 .40 0.50 0.60 0.710 0.80 0 .90 1 .00

TIME (S) * 10-2

150 BAR / 300 K I 20 CELLS DELT = l.E-4

H

OPD2 CELL 1SPD2 CELL 10+ PD2 CELL 20

091

I-,

1.

KWU TRAC -P02


COMPARISON WITH LOS ALAI4)S

4)

Ci)

U)U)Ci)

C3C3

C3e)

C3

C.)

... ... ..

cm

'oc o )o on .0 04 .0 .0 07 .0 09

TIE (), 0

(I)

-I-

x()

PD2 CELL 1PD2 CELL 5PD2 CELL 10P02 CELL 15PD2 CELL 20

In*

150OBAR I 300 K 20 OCELLS DELT = 1.E-4

.5 -~L..

KWIJ TRAC -PD2



90

o P02 CELL 1-t PD2 CELL 10+ PD2 CELL 20

U)

Cl)

fl-S

I

0~

-I

I-.

150OBARI 300 KI 20 CELLS DELT =1.E-4

1, If.

KWU TRAC -PD2' 01



0

______ +___ ___ ___ ___ PD2 CELLI1

c-'3 X PD2 CELL 10

C'PD? CELL 20

to

-I-0

0

-0*

ce)

c:)

0 ..

150OBAR / 300 K 1 20OCELLS DELT = 1.E-5

KWU TRAC -PD2 Aff'ý



c~z

m

r:z3

C.,C,

C) -0------ ______ ______ ______

U,

C,

C.'J

C)C-,

C.,

C)C)

LI'C-.

C-'

C,

C-'C-)

-I'c.j

C,

~i-0~ 0.40 0.~3O 1.20 )AiO ~Kflfl ?Afl 3.;fl 4.flfl

T TIMEAl Tlk1+ TIMEX TIMEC0 TIME

1.002.003.004s.005.00

H0,

MSMSMSMSMS

I-,-

LENGTH OF PIPE (M)

DELT = 1.E-5

I , 19 it,

4

KWU


TRAC - P1)2 IN COMPARISON WITH TRAC - PIA

U)U)w

Cl

C)

C-, _______

C)

C,0*

C:,

01

C:,.01 02 .0 0.0 05 .6 .0 080 09 0TIE ()00

(D PD2-CELL 1-4.370 MA, MA-CELL 1-4.370 M4

*1~j~a.Oq

Lii

150OBAR / 300 K 12 I2CELLS DELT = 1.11-4

KWU


TRAC - P02 IN COMPARISON WITH TRAC - PIA

0

C3

t)PD2-CELL 14-3.895 M,44 PA-CELL 14-3.895 M

0C)-

m

~j-)

150OBAR /300 K 120 CELLS DELT = l.E-4

1*

.1 '*1

KWU

(qj .SUPER CANON EXPER IMENT


C),C3

0DZA1

PD2-CELL 38-3.017 MPI A-CELL 38-3.017 M

m

U)U)

H

I-..Oq

LjJ

C-Al

150OBAR / 300 K / 2 I2CELLS DL .-DELT = l.E-4

KWU


TRAC - PD2 IN COMPARISON WITH TRAC - PIA

m

U)

wga.

C,

C)

C)

C)

c-I

c')

C)

C3)

0, o -0 02 .0 0 4 .0 .0 0.' 10 09 0

TIE ()) 0

oq

150OBAR / 300 K / 2 I2CELLS DELT = I.E-4

KWU


TRAC, - P1)2 IN COMPARISON WITH TRAC - PIA

C)C?

oD PD2-CELL 74-1.700 MA PlA-CELL 74-1.700 M

C,)

IJ3

TIME (S) * 10o 2

120 CELLS DELT = 1.E-4150OBAR /300 K/

KWUAdm%ý



C,C-,.

C)P02-CELL 107-0.493 MAL PlA-CELL 107-0.493 M

-I.

U)U)

(iJ

C'

TIME (S) * 10o2

150OBAR / 300 K / 2 I2CELLS DL .-DELT = l.E-4

KWU


TRAC - P1)2 IN COMPARISON WITH TRAC - PIA

C,C

PD2-CELL 117-0.128 MMIA-CELL 1174Q.128 M

C,)U)wz

f~.

'-A,

150OBAR /300 K 12 I2CELLS DL .-DELT = 1.E-4

KW1J TRAC - PIA

SUPER CANON EXPERIM'ENT


A#-%

Cl)

C)C?

C3,

C-)

C.3

C3,

2i nn nn 4~ 00A~l 4.50 5.00

x

TIME=TIME =TIME=TIME=TIME=

1.002.003.004.005.00

0~~

MSMSMSMSMS

-oli u *1j i uu I -Du

LENGTH OF PIPE WMwA

120 CELLS 120 ELLSDELT = 1.E-4

* ....* 16.

KWU TRAC,- PD2



C3ci

x

TIME =

TIME=TIME =

TIME=TIME =

1.002.003.004.005.00

MSMSMSMSMS

C,)L-)

C:)

r\)

'*1

120 CELLSLENGTH OF PIPE (M)

DELT =1.E-4

KWU TRAC - P02


(-'39

C3,C?

C3,

c;'

x

PD2 CELL 1PD2 CELL 14PD2 CELL 38PD2 CELL 46PD2 CELL 74

m

I,

c/)-V)

co

C)

C,?

C,

I-..

(~A)

0

0.00o 0.10I

0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

TIME (S) *1020.70

I0 .80 0.90 1 .00

INITIAL CONDITIONS

120 CELLS

150OBAR /300 K)ELT = 1.E-4

p

a.

KWU TRAC -PD2


Agalb,

mnW

C.)C)

0*

C)

C3C3

0

0-

C3

00'.00o 0.10 0.2'0 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

x

P02P02P02P02P02

CELLCELLCELLCELLCELL

13846107120

I-..

Lii

INITIAL CONDITIONS

120 CELLS

TIME CS) * 1-

150OBAR /300 K)ELT = 1.E-4

KWU TRAC - PI2


m

U)U)

~1~

C)

C)

C.3

C2.

C3

C)

0*-C'J

()

C)

C)

.i* I -- - --

C) o .0 0 l- .0 0 4 .5 .0 0 7 .0 0-3 0

(D PD-CELLPD 2-CELLPD 2-CELLPD -CELLPD2-CELL

wC0

1-4.37D M14-3.895 M38-3.017 M46-2.724 M74-1.700 M

In.

INITIAL CONDITIONS120 CELLS COII

TIME CS) * 1-

150OBAR /300 KPUTATION UNTIL 0.080 SEC

I

KWIU TRAC - P02

SUPER CANON EXPERIMENT0

oPD2-CELL 1-4.370 M

m

Cr)

Cl)Cl)Cx)

'2)

(A

(A

INITIAL CONDITIONSTIME (S) * 1-

150OBAR /300 K120 CELLS 120CELSDELT = 5.E-5 COMPUTATION UNTIL 0.080 SEC

KWU TR AC L P02

IENT~SUPER CANON EXPERI!AM&

x

PD 2-CELLPD02-CELLPD2-CELLPD 2-CELLPD 2-CELL

1-4.370 M14-3.895 M38-3.017 M46-2.724 M74-1.700 M

(42

C14

r'c

F-,.

oq

LA)

.g~.

INITIAL CONOITION

120 CELLS1150BAR / 300 K

COMPUTAITION UNTIL 0.4 SEC

f

KWU TRAC - P132

SUPER CANON EXPERIMENT____ ___

cl.

cli

C3

0

0.00o 0.05 0.11 0.16 0.21 0.27 -0.32 0.37. 0.43 0.48 0.53TIME (S)

O W-CELL 14-3.895 MLECK-COMPUTATION

- -- EASU REMENT

C/)Cl)Cil

"7I-..Oq

(A)

U,

INITIAL CONDITIONS120 CELLS

150OBAR /300 KCOMPUJTATION UNTIL 0.4 SEC

KWU TRAC - P02


OPD2-CELL 46-2.724 M

- LECK-COMPUTATION

--MEASUREMEN

c:4ro

w

U2,w

I

I-i

INITIAL CONDITIONSTIME (S)

150OBAR /300 K

COMPUTATION UNTIL 0.4 SEC120 CELLS

4 s

I.

I, *<~.;p.

KWIJ TRA(

SUPER CAON EXPEIRI MDT

:- P02

-I 4 + I.---

c,)

CV'

C)

oD PD2-CELL 117-0.128 M

-LECK-COMPUTATION

- -MEASUREMENT

'I%_n

0.01

INITIAL CONDITIONS

120 CELLS

0.16 0 .2i1 0.2i7 0.:TIME CS)

150OBAR /300 KCOMPUTATION UNTIL 0.4 SEC

i2 0 .37I

0.43 0.48 0.53

KWU TRAC - P02

SUPER CANON EXPERIMENT 0

0C?

x

P02PD2P02PD2P02


1

384674

c/)

t~A)0~

091

INITIAL CONDITIONSTIME (S) * 10-2

150OBAR /300 K

120 CELLS DELT = 1.E-5

11

KWU TRAC- P02

SUPER CANON EXPERIMENTJAnkh,

C'3C?

0

+x

P02P02PD2P02P02


13846107120

W

c/)

I-..

(-5.,

INITIAL CONDITIONSTIME CS) * 10-2

150OBAR /300 K120 CELLS 120 ELLSDELT = 1.E-5

KWU TRAC -P2



LlC?

(13 TIME 1.00 MSA~ TIME 2.00 MS

+ TIME 3.00 MSX TIME 4.00 MSC' TIME 5.00 MS

IwcoI

m~- C)

cii C.

Cl) -

Cl)cii C.'

C,0~..~~

*1IOq

r\)0

LENGTH OF PIPE (M)

DELT = 1.E-5120 CELLS

'I.

KWU TRAC -PD2

SUPER CANON EXPERIM~ENT

OPD2-CELL 14-3.895 M- MEASUREMENT

110

Cl)Cl)C:)

0..

I-..

1\)

TIME (S) * 1i- 2

150OBAR /300 KINITIAL CONDITIONS

120 CELLS )ELT = l.E-5 )ELT =1.E-5COMPUTATION UNTIL 0.080 SEC

- ~4o -

EXTENDEDCOMPUTATION NUMBEROF CELLS

TIME STEP(S)

PROBLEM TIMEINTERVAL (S)

CPA SYSTEM SECONDSCPU

COREMEMORY CM CORE MEMORY EC

1. LOS ALAMOS2. LOS ALAMOS

WCOMP A RISON

3. LOS ALAMOS

4. PIA-CALCULATION

5. PD2-CALCULATIONAT-COMPARISON

6. P02-CALCULATION

7. P02-CALCULATION

20

20

120

120

120

120120

120

2.E-4

I.E-4 s

1 101. E-5

1.EFI4 s

I.E-4 s

1.E-4Is

1 101.E-5 a

5. E-5

1. E-4

0,010 s

0,010 5

I I0,010

0,&10

0,010

0,008

1 10,008

0,008

0,2

5,317

8,947

6,20455,512

36,1403

38,786

31,028

17,0828219,76

145,07

26,62

1859,1

533,2

571,8

457,44

17,14843423,4

3224,14 5188,02

5818,07 8809,08

17,507 16,68243679,3 58600,8

12056,2 16710.7

12930,3 17940,0

10344,2 14352.0

17,578 17,29778395,7 104826.9

1.E-3 0,4 583b,59 9310,0 213670,2 284001,T

20 1.E-5 0,0103 55,512. 1859,1 43679,3 58600,8-3. LOS ALAMOS

jTHE EFFECT OF THE 6 I10,8 I 4.95 2,3017 I2,243 2,234INODALIZATION I I I I I 1I

5. LOS ALAMOS 120 1.E- 5 0,008 s 219,76'( 3427,4 78395,7 104726,9

2. LOS ALAMOS 20 (0 I.E-4 a0,010 a 8,947 256,62 5818,07 W809,08

HE EFFECTIOF THE 6 1 4,315 I2,228 2,222 2,036

3. P02-CALCULATION 120 1.E-4l 0,010 3 38,486 571,8 12930,3 17940,0

able 4.1 COMPARISON OF TIMESTEP, PROBLEM TIME INTERVAL AND COMPUTATION TIME

PART II: PARAMETRIC STUDY OF TRAC-PD2 USING

THE HDR TEST RESULTS

Translated By: SCITRAN1482 East Valley RoadSanta Barbara, CA 93108

3

- 1-

This Page intentionally left blank.

LO3

1. Introduction

Since the computer program TRAC-PlA was first put into operationin March 1979 [1] and the installation in the meantime of theimproved version TRAC-PD2 in September 1980.,several test follow-upcalculations have been conducted for the verification of theprogram. The information thus gained for the optimization of thecomputer models will be explained in more detail in the followingchapter.

2. Parameter study-of the HDR tests /2

Test follow-up calculations are an unavoidable step in the verifi-cation of a computer program. For this resnh IDRAV 31.1 test [33was subjected to a follow-up calculation with the program version

TRAC-PD2 [2] in order to be able to compare the TRAC calculations,with the test re *sults.. Here~the calculations mentioned in thisreport were conducted within the framework of a preliminary studyin order to investigate the effect of different discretionarysteps in the RDB connection (3D - 1D transition resp. coupling)and in the fracture location area (outflow conditions). Theindividual computer cases are listed in table 2.1. Here, the resultsof the model modifications explained in the following chapterswere referenced to an initial calculation (HDR 1/3) in order to beable to determine the effect of the individual measures clearly.Figure 2.1 presents a schematic total view of the test stand.However, only the RDB and the break nozzle (nozzle Al) are simulatedin a model. Figure 2.2 shows the RDB and contains the most importa-geometrical dimensions. In the model RDB is calculated in a gre-simplified form since the processes within the boiler are notinterest for this study. _______

In figure 2.3 ,the models used for the break nozzlesorifices are recorded. Additionally,the zone sub'most important geometrical data are plotted.

Kr WI werk Union

the measurement locations which will be used for co mparing the

results in figures 2.4 and 2.5.

The subdivision is somewhat finer only in the connection area of

the break nozzle in order to still be able to compare the calculated

results in this area with the test results.

The information gained from these calculations was utilized in the

follow-up calculation of Mr. J. Herterich within the framework

of a thesis project [4]. The model used, in this work is considerably

more detailed in RDB and produced very good results compared to the

test results.

2.1 HflR 1/3 initial calculation /3

The results of this calculation are used as a basis for theassessment of the effectiveness of the measures carried out in the

continuation of this effort. Figure 2.1.1 shows the model used

for this computer case. The RDB (VESSEL) is subdivided into 4 levels,which each consist of 2 radial rings and 4 azimuth segments so thateach level includes 8 zones. The break nozzle is connected to zone 5in level 4. In the model it consists of two pipes (PIPE 1 andPIPE 2). The exact differentiation can be seen in figure 2.3.

The surroundings are simulated by a break component (break-

boundary condition). The pressure drop is specified and proceeds

linearly within 2 ms to 1 bar.

In figures 2.4 and 2.5 the calculation results from the 5calculations are plotted in comparison with the data curves.

In the comparison of the calculated mass flux (figure 2.1.5) PIPE 2CELL 5 (measurement location RM 3003/3004) with the data curve(figure 2.5)',it can be seen immediately that in this case for

0.1 seconds the outflow rate is calculated more than twice as

Kraftwerk Union

-5-

high. The reason for this can be found in the boiler connection.

The actually occurring outflow losses from the RDB because of the

restriction in the nozzles are not taken into account by this

models so that an outflow velocity which is too high and correspond-

ingly too high an outflow rate results

From this also results the too rapid pressure loss in the RDB

(see figure 2.4) which has almost reached the pressurei level

of the pipe after 0.1 second.

In figures 2.1.13 to 2.l.18,the pressure profiles are plotted

against the pipe axis at different points in time for better

visualization. The first point at the left in the picture is

the zone 5 in which VESSEL-compononts are connected to the blowdownpipe. The last point in the right of the picture gives the pressure

in the break. All graphs show a relatively linear pressure /4

drop. In particular~the area of the connection to the RDB shows

no special effects of the pressure loss resulting from the

restriction. The profile plots for the mass flux can be taken- fromfigures 2.1.16 to 2.1.18. All profile plots, even in the following

chapters, are always referenced to the same point in time so that

a direct comparison is possible.

2.2 HIDR 2/3 automatic boiler connection

In the following sections~we shall discuss in comparison to theprevious chapter ,different possibilities for the boiler connection

and their effects on the outflow rate as well as the pressure

curves. In this model (see figure 2.2.1l)the calculation of the

pressure loss resulting from the restriction and eddy formation

in the exit opening is shifted to the pipe. This results from

the fact that the boiler connection area within the first two

zones is reduced to the cross-sectional area of the blowdown pipe.

The TRAC program then det~rmines for an appropriate input (minussign in front of the NFF value in the TRAC input) the associated

Kraflwork Union

Ar-6-

'-value,whereby the flow direction determines whether we are

dealing with a restriction or an expansion.

In the enlargement of the first two areas in the blowdown pipe

the volume in these zones must also increase. However, this is

not necessarily required because the TRAC input for determining

the geometry is redundant. For each zone length and the inlet-

resp. outlet area as well as the volume are specified.

From this it can be seen that the TRAC program does not automatically

determine the volume from the area and the zone length, but thatit uses the specified volume in the calculation.

The cross-sectional areas are used mainly for the calculation of 15the already mentioned I -values. It is thus possible to input thevolumes corresponding to the specified geometry whereby, in the

interest of an incontestable calculation, one should dispense with

too great a change in the successive zone data so that a minor

enlargement is possible-*which, however, could hardly affect the

calculations.- The f igures 2. 2..2 to 2.2. 11 show the results f rom

this calculation. From figure 2Th',one can recognize a relatively

good agreement between the measured and the calculated curve shapesfor the pressure.

In the blowdown nozzle (RP 3001/RP 3002) the pressure in the

stable region lies- ca. 10 bar below the data curve. This is an

indication of the fact that the pressure loss in this model was

calculated somewhat too high. The agreement in the curve of the

mass flux in figure 2.5 is equally good.

Figures 2.2.12 to 2.2.17 again contain the profile plots for the

pressure and the mass flux. One can readily recognize the kink in

the curves where the pressure loss is determined based on the

restriction. This produces a curve shape which is not linear in

contrast to the calculation without this RDB connection.

Kraft work Union

-7-

Therefore, for better comparison, these curves from the two calcula-

tions are plotted together in figures 2.2.18 to 2.2.23.

In addition to the already mentioned differences one can see that

the pressure drop in the first milliseconds between the first zone

in RDB and the third zone in the pipe is not as great (dashed line)

as in the calculation without the expanded connection (solid line).

In contrast thereto.,figure 2.2.20 shows that in the stationary

region the pressure losses for the expanded connection to the RDB

are considerably greater. These figures clearly show that without

special measures no resistance coefficient is being used for the

boiler connection.

2.3 HDR 3/3-automatic boiler connection with nozzle /

With this model (figure 2.3.1) we shall examine more closely the

effect of the boundary condition on the computer results. While

in all other calculations a pressure discontinuity function whichdrops oi'f linearly in 2 ms from the system pressure to'l bar, is

being used, the constant transition from system condition to

surroundings (BREAK) takes place here. For this reason~a nozzlewith an opening angle of 300 is inserted between BREAK-boundary

condition and blowdown pipe. In order to avoid that~a water plugdevelops in the nozzle acts as a lay, element; it is filled withsteam. However, this leads to the need that for program-technicalreasons1 an instant pressure drop curve to 1 bar must be used inthe calculation. Therefore,the time pressure curve in the firstmilliseconds exhibits a faster decrease to saturation pressure thanin the measurement,which can be clearly seen from figure 2.14.Viewed as a whlh calculated results agree best with the testresults. For one, the outflow rate resulting from the increasedoutflow velocity (despite higher steam formation) deviates stillless from the measured value (see figure 2.5) than is the case

for HflR 2/3; and for another ,the pressure level in the blowdown

nozzle is increased somewhat so that the pressure steadily better

Kraft werk Union

approaches the data curve.

In figures 2.3.2 to 2.3.11 all results for the blowdown pipe areplotted. Furthemore~the figures 2.3.12 to 2.3.14 present someinformation concerning the pressure, the temperature, and the

discharge for the nozzle (PIPE 999).

Additionally, the results of this calculation for the pressure and

the mass flux are contained in figures 2.3.15 to 2.3.20 in theform of profile plots. For this 'figure.s 2.3-21 to0 2.3.26 showthe comparison with the first calculation.

The differences are to be found more in the highly transient

region of the first five milliseconds ,which points to a strongoscillation in pressure and a somewhat greater outflow rate.

2.4 IIDR 4/5i and HDR 5/4 /7Boiler connection = pipe cross-sectional area with andwithout -value

For the sake of completeness two calculations shall still bementioned'which are intended to teat an additional potentialfor the boiler connection.

H~ere in both cases the RDB is differentiated in such a way thatthe area of the connection zone corresponds exactly to the cross-

sectional area of the pipe. Additionally in the calculationHDR 4/5 the annular space is divided into two annuli in order to

obtain a better local resolution in the computer results and inorder to additionally input a 5 -value for the outflow loss

=0.5 in the first zone of the blowdown pipe (see section 2.4.1).

The calculation HDR 5/4 (see figure 2.5.1), in contrast thereto,is carried out without these two changes.

Kraftwerk Union

-9-

A comparison of the calculated results in figure 2.4 shows that

the shape of the curve for the pressure in the RDB is considerably

worse than in the preceding calculation. The same is true for the

mass flux whereby in particular the curve for the calculation

RDR 5/4 deviates very greatly from the data curve. In figures 2.3.2

to 2.4.11 and 2.5.2 to 2.5.11 we have again plotted the result

of the calculation.

The equal-area transition, whether with or without T -value bringsabout no noticeable improvement in the results, neither in thepressure curve nor in the mas's flux.

3. Discussion of the result /

If one compares the results of the calculation for pressure and

mass, flux plotted in figures 2.4 and 2.5 with the data curve,

:jone can see that the calculation HDR 3/3 gives the best fit withthe data curve.

The deciding measure for improvement of the computer results is

obtained by the enlarged connection of the pipes to the RDB.

Similarly,certain improvements of the results are obtained withthe nozzle, but not to the same degree.

Without taking into account a resistance coefficient through the

reduction of the flow surfaces.,the TRAC program can calculate nopressure loss for the loss-affected flow out of the RDB.

Kraftwerk Union

- 10 -

4. References

Ell G. Hughes

TRAC-PlA Operational Start on the CYBER 176KWU-Work Report R 11/2113/79

E2] TRAC-PD2An Advanced Best Estimate Computer Program for PWR LOCAAnalysis

Los Alamnos Scientific LaboratoryNIJREG/CR- 20 54

E31 HDR-Safety Program4. Status Report Dec. 10, 1980Nuclear Research Center KarlsruhePHDR-Work Report 3/5/80

E4] J. HerterichVerification calculation for the program system TRAC-PD2with the aid of some tests, either through measurements oranalyses

Thesis

Bochum-Erlangen, April 81

Kraftwork Union

}IDR-Test Series

Chapter 2.1 HDR 1/3 1. calculation/boiler variation 3 (see figure 2.1.-1-boiler connection area-

area ratio F'KR pipe area

0-03142m 21.0

pressure- boundary condition in 2 ms to 1 bar

Chapter 2.2 HDR 2/3 2. calculation/boiler variation 3 (s. figure 2.2.1)area ratio FR= 1 through enlargement of the pipearea within two zones to boiler connection areapressure-boundary condition in 2 ms to 1 bar

Chapter 2.3 HDR 3/3 3. calculation/b oiler variation 3 (s. fig. 2.3.1.)area ratio FR= 1 same as 1{DR 2/3with nozzle at the break opening

pressure-boundary condition instantaneous pressure

drop to 1 bar

Chapter 2.4 IHDR 4/5 4. calculation/boiler variation 5 (S. fig. 2.4.1)area ratio FR= 1 through proper choice of the boiler

subdivision (no enlargement of the pipe)2 radial zones in annular space

input of a resistance coefficient-for the outflow fromthe boiler ~=0.5pressure-boundary condition in 2 ms to 1 bar

HDR 5/4 5. calculation,/boiler variation 4 (s. fig. 2.5.1)area ratio FR= 1 as in HDR 4/5 but only 1 radialzone in annular spacepressure-boundary condition in 2 ms to 1 bar

Table 2.1

Kraffmork Union

A90h,- 12-

Schematic Isometry of Lines and LoopsParticipating During Blowdown

Fig. 2. 1

- 13 -

-oberes Plenum(upper plenunroberer Einspannflansch(upper flange)

1100~ý,Stutzen A2 (nozzle A2)

-Innenraumn (iriner region)

-ilernmantel 23± t1 mm(core barrel)

-Ringraumn (downcomer)

-ROB(PY, pressure vessel)

(mass -ring)-Masse - Ring

-untere$ sPtnum(lower plenumi

- Kattwiss erstu tzen -

(cold water inlet)

RPV AND SHROUDGEO1METRY FOR THE BLOWDOWN EXPER IMENT

Fig. 2.2

- 114 -

Fz 0.03102

/PMing0

M2 RD 3001RD 3OQ2-

RM300O3RM43004R P3001ftP 002

RP3006

PE 1PIPE 2 PI 57aq1 2.3 1 2 3

02 0,2 0,2 210,2 0,1 0.L0.1 A~Rua~1081 m

ItUVi 0, 9 77m -

IE ~ 1,30 Sim1,5045 m -I

BREAK NOZZLE FOR THE MODELS HOR 1/3 4/5 5/4

F: 0.65696'

/lOPS103

F:= 0.1601 m 2

F= 0.0314 12 m?1 PIPE 2

E2 3: 4

S01016 0.006253m02 0,2

0,1

0, 835 m0,9 77m

in 3001NO03002

I m3003U M300 &RP3001WF300J

PIPEIl 6789

02 81 2, ,1 C

vUU

1,2' -,01.m

- 1,3091m I

BREAK NOZZLE FOiR THE MODELS

-1,504sm

HOR 2/3 3/3

BREAK ORIFICE FOR THE MODEL HOR 3/3

Fig. 2.3

KWU - TRAC - PD2 1

THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT PARAMETERS

RECALCULATION OF THE HDR-TESTS WITH THE VESSEL COMPONENT

HOR 1/3

-- H DR 3/3....... ta curve

Id

C-,

Id

PRESSURE

KWU TRAC - PD2



'I

-NOR S/5HOR 514

......data curv

Qd

-CC

TIME (S) * 10

PRESSURE

Fig. 2.'4

-16 -

KWU TRAC - PD2



HDR 1/3--- HDR2/3

HDR 3/3data curve

*

=-JI-

C-,

MASS FLUX

KWU TRAC - PD2


RECALCULATTON OF THE HDR-TESTS WITH THE VESSEL COMPONENT

MD-HR 415Hf8R 5/4

.......dat curve

TIME (S) * 10'

MASS FLUX

Fig. 2.5

-17 -

17 37 55

Level 2 2IP533

Level 1 2,8533

VESSEL 3

HDR 1/3

Fig. 2.1.1

KWtJ TRAC- P02

THE EFFECT OF D IFFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE


Cl

ý !PF 21 'ýL '5

-~Vr5jL' CP!L

V- vp( -- z

L30

L") I

0.0 0.o 020 0.30 0.40 fulJ

TIME (PIPE 2 /VESSEL TYPE 3PRESSURE

a

'.

KWU TRAC -PD2

THE EFFECT'O DIFFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

RECALCULAT ION OF THE HOR-TESTS WITH THE VESSEL COMPONENT

C.,C,

(D PIPE I CL'LLIA~ "1FF I C W.L I+ PIPE I Ii'. U

X P!PF I Cri.L 9

I.H

a4

09

PIPE 2PRESSURE

TIME (S) * 10- 1

/VESSEL TYPE 3

KWU TRAC -PD2

THE EFFECT OF DI FFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE.

RECALCULAT ION OF THE HDR-TESTS WITH THE VESSEL COMPONENT

10

C,

0cl

(D BREAK4 OUTLET2

m

L

L

C.

L

c-

.4' _____ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

~11r -I I

*1~ ______ _____ _____ ______

~=;= ~=.

f~rj 0.60 A AI I

'Jo * rr.

r\)Q

crl rr I0.2 30J 0.40

TIME (S) * 10O1

TY PE 3

Q .70 1; cI - -ku - -i or,

PIPE 2PRESSURE

/ VESSEL

10

~%. .~.

KWU TRAC -FP2

THE EFFECT OF D IFFERENT PARAMVETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE


c'J0

*

C')

C,

-:1Lx..

C3,

C)i.0 j 0.r

C.,71 jo0 r

r ~'rr 2 'ýP Lp ~rr 2 L *;.'

I-

* 10-1

PIPE 2MvASS FLUX

/ VESSELTIME (S)

TYPE 3

KWU TRAC -PD2

THE EFFECT OF .D IFFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE


+ PPE I CP LP F~F I If !L

P!P I UI

C.,

Xc'l

E20004 .3 .0 0~0 .0 07 .'0 0~0 10V~

PIPE 2 / VESSEL TfEý3MASS Fl Ily

IV

S

lddmmhýAr"lqft

%0KWU TRAC -P02


RECALCULATION OF.THE HDR-.TESTS WITH-l THE VESSEL COMPONENT

P.orpF 2 'PL'L

+ VF%.'L'. Ci!Lmn

0

I'.,

171

PIPE 2

VOID FRACTION

TIME (s) * loO

/VESSEL TYPE 3

KWU TRAC -P02

THE EFFECT OF DI FFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

RECALCULAT ION OF THE HDR-TESTS W ITH THE VESSEL COMPONENT

Ci

o 'rF I 12 L

PIPEP I ,i*L 3-- P! PF I i IL'L

X r!PF I ri' .1

-sn.

ro1

PIPE 2VOID FRAClTInN

TIME (S * 10~/VESSEL TYPE 3

KWU TRAC -P02 %


RECALCULAT ION OF THE HDR -TESTS WITH THE VESSEL COMPONENT

o M~V P!PF) 2 L

X MiV rrFF1i '

I',

TINE (S)

/VESSEL TYPE 3PIPE 2VELOCITY

KWU TRAC- P02


RECALCULAT ION OF THE HDR -TESTS WI TH THE VESSEL COMPONENT

-* T IV r S 5i Li L

L')

0~

E-.

N)

0

TIME (S) * 10'

IVESSEL TYPE 3PIPE 2TEMPERATURE

KWU TRAC -PD2


RECALCULAT ION OF THE HDR-TESTS WITH-THE VESSEL COMPONENT

AM&Am--IqL

EY

%F

0:

o F5 rP F 21 lT1.\' P!rF2 'ri! L'.

+ TV P!rF2 'Ak.L'

I

PIPE 2TEMPERATURE

TME (S)/VESSEL TYPE 3

KWU ITRAC-P

THE EFFECT OF DFFERENT PAR AMETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE


YaI

c')C.

(D TG r'p~lE LA, Tri. r r F -i LO3+ VI P'rFi .L

I2

LNI

E-u

I',

TIME (S) * 10-1

IVESSEL TYPE 3PIPE 2TEMPERATURE

I 16

Adolikk

KWU PROFILE PLOT TRAC - P02 PARAM'ETER STUDY

THE EFFECT O F D IFFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE PRESSURE

AND THE MASS FLUX

C-,

C-,

C.,'

RPV WALLEND OF P E

L-,

C-)

C.

Go .4'0 0.60, 0.$0 ~ .O 1 .210 1.-40 -136 1 9r 0.0

(D TIME= 1.00 MSzt TIME= 2.00 M4S+ TIME= 3.00 MSX( TIME= 4.00 MS

T' IME= 5.00 MS

LAJRECALCULAT ION OF 'THE HDR-TESTS PIPE LENGTH (M)

PRESSURE WITHOUT ORIFICE AND WITHOUT EXPANSION AT TWP PP1I

'Idoi

KWU PROFILE PLOT TRAC - P02 PARAMETER STUDY

THE EFFECT OF DI FFERENT PARAMVETERS ON THE PRESSURE

AND TfE MASS FLUX

C..,

C0A

xTIME=TIME=TIME=TIME=TIME=

6.007.008.009.00

10.00

MsMSMSMsils

LI.

C-,~.- C,

Cii

"n2

PIPE LENGTH (M)

RECALCULAT ION OF THE HOR-TESTS

PRESSURE PRESSUREWITHOUT ORIFICE AND WITHOUT EXPANSION AT THE RPV

TRAC - P02 PARAMETER STUDYKWU PROFILE PLOT

THE EFFECT OF DI FFERENT PARAM~ETERS ON THE PRESSURE

AND THE MASS FLUX

C)C,

x1z

TIME= 20.00 MSTIME= 40.00 MSTIME= 60.00 MSTIME= 80.00 MSTIME=100.00 MS

H

Cr)

U)

N)G.0 0.0 0.AO 0.0 0 .AG 0o 1.00 12 1.40 .1.00

PIPE LENGTH (M)

RECALCULAT ION OF THE;HOR-TESTSPRESSURE WITHOUT ORIFICE AND WITHOUT EXPANSION AT THE RPV


THE EFFECT OF DI FFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE PRESSURE

AND THE MASS FLUX

c')L?

OTIME= 1.00 MSATIME= 2.00 MS

+ TIME= 3.00 MSX TIME= 4.00 MS1,TIME= 5.00 MS

0

*

cl-i

C,:4

-I[I~

IA

C' PIPE LENGM .(M)

RECALCULAT ION OF THE HDR-TESTSMASSAFUX WITHOUT ORIFICE AND WITHOUT EXPANSION AT THE RPV

It .


THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE PRESSUREAND THE MASS FLUX

t-.)0

(D TIME= 6.00 MSA TIME= 7.00 MS+ TIME= 8.00 MSX TIME= 9.00 MS'C TIME= 10.00 MS

PIPE LENGTH (M)

RECALCULATION OF THE HCR-TESTSMASS FLUX MASSFLUXWITHOUT ORIFICE AND WITHOUT EXPANSION AT THE RPV

KWU PROFILE PLOT TRAC - PD2 PARAMETER STUDY

THE EFFECT OF D IFFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE PRESSURE

AND THE MASS FLUX

ci:

C)

RP) WALL END O PIP~

P ML IP LEGH M

RECA -CUL-4-O- OF -4- -D- -ESi

0OTIME= 20.00A TIME= 40.00+ TIME= 60.00X TIME= 80.00C 'TIME=100.00

MSMSMSMSMs

U)

123

co

MASS FLUX WITHOUT ORIFICE AND WITHOUT EXPANSInN AT THF PPV

- 35 - 41%

UW-'

Level 4. 1,44

Level 3 2,8533

Level 2 2,8533

Level 1 2,8533

VESSEL 3

WALL

pPIPE2

-PROFILE PLOT

END OF THE PID

PIPE 1

BREAK

X= 1.6775

HDR 2/3

Fig. 2.2. 1.

KWU TRAC -PD2

THE EFFECT OF DI FFERENT PAR AMETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

. 0

RECALCULATION OF ITHE HOR-TESTS WITH THE VESSEL COMPONENT

C)C)

0A+x

PIPE '2 CELL IF'IFE '2 C~L 3PIPE 2r Et.L 5VESSEt CEL.L S

L

.C3

~C303

I~)0~~

*1-

TME (s) *101

r\) PIPE 2PRESSURE

/ VESSEL TYPE 3 / AUTOMATIC BOILER CONNECTION

KwIJ TRAC -PD2


RECALCULATION OF THlE HDR-TESTS WITH THE VESSEL COMPONENT

VCi

C) -

C3

0.-00 0.10 0.2-0 0 .30 0.40 0.50) 0 .60 0.70 0.8'0 0 -90 1 .00

(D PIPE I CELL IAý PIPE I CELL *3+ PIPE I CEIL 6X PIPE I CELL 9

I.

~J.

N)

N)

LA)

TIME (s) * o1

IVESSEL TYPE 3 I AUTOMATIC BOILER CONNECTIONPIPE 2PRESSURE

0KWU .TRAC - P2



0

C-i

0

En.

C-3

0~

U.n

ci

0.00 0.10 0 -20l 0-.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.130 0.90 1 .00

PI0 PE 2 CELL IP IPE 2 CELL 6

I2

Ini

TIME (S) * 1o I~

PIPE 2MASS FLUX

IVESSEL TYPE 3 / AUTOMATIC BOILER CONNECTION

,41 r

'I'

KWU 'IRAC -'PI2


RECALCULAT ION OF THE HDR-TESTS WI TH-THE VESSEL COMPONENT

0.

0

(D PIPE&! PIPE+ PIPEX PIPE

I CE( L II CELL 3

1CE, L 61 CEL.L 9

0

*

C,,

0

U)C/)

t~Aj

C')

C')

1,-n

TIME (S) * 10-

IVESSEL TYPE 3 / AUTOMATIC BOILER CONNECTIONPIPE 2

MASS FLUX

KWU TRAC -P02


RECALCULAT ION OF THE HEIR-TESTS WITH THE VESSEL COMPONENT

0

cc

0r

0C-

0

C3

C)

0

0

0

0.00 0.10f n f.7n 0.3 040 .5 0lf 6nif 0f l7n n nn nf an i nn

(D !IPE CE~ILL IAý! ?I E 2CEI L 3+ PIPE 2 CEL.L 6X VE55Et CEUSN5'

C0

121

TIME (S) *

VESSEL TYPE 3 / AUTOMATIC10

PIPE 2VOID FRACTION

I BOILER CONNECTION

KWU TRAC -P02

THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE


Co PIPE I CEl L IA PIPE I CELL 3+ PIPE I CELL 5X PIPE I CEIL 9

H

z0I-1

C-,

f±.

0

TIME CS) * 10-1

/VESSEL TYPE 3 / AUTOMATIC BOILER CONNECTIONPIPE 2VO ID FRACT ION

IQ#A TRAC, -PD2


RECALCULAT ION OF THE HDR-TESTS W ITH THE VESSEL COMPONENT

C,

CO

o9 14 V PIPE2 CEI LlA m~v F'PE2 CEI LS

+ mv PIP'E, rEt L

3X fMv PIPEl CELL I

9~~ lIv PirEi C-ElL9

0.0 .0 02 .0 04 .0 06 .0 08 .0 10

TIME () * 10

PIPE2 /VESEL TPE 1 UTOMJICBOIER CNNETIOVELO c) T

KWU TRAC - P02



Avmbk

~1

.0

CLn

(D

cn

C)

cr.CL,.

0'

LI

C.)

* Cun

c).

U)%

0.0 .1 .1 .0 0 4 .5 .0 0 7 .0 0 9 0

(D TS VESSEt CELLSA 71. VESSEI CELLS+ TV VESJEL CELLS

I~

TIME (S) * 10O-

TYPE 3 / AUTOMATIC BOILER CONNECTIONPIPE 2TEMPERATURE

/ VESSEL

KWIJ TRAC -P132


RECALCULAT ION OF THE HDR-TESTS WITH1 THE VESSEL COMPONENT

Apr

C,0

(D TS PIPF2 CEL.LI

+ TV P!PE,2 CELLI

I-tr

~1j

I'.,

0

20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70

A TIM (S) * 10O

IVESSEL TYPE 3 / AUTOMATIC BOILER CONNECTIONPIPE 2TEMPERATURE

.1 J

. I -U

KWU IRAC -P02 .


RECALCULATION OF THE HOR-TESTS WI TH THE VESSEL COMPONENT

C5

0-

c3.

CC

LAi

LA

Cl

tn

1~I~ T

--

I I I I I (75P1I'EI CE.,LL9A Ti PIPE'I CEIL9

+ TV PIPEI CEIL9

U,

C,C

01C,

LA

C3cn

To.oo 0.,

PIPE 2

-t-'-~-~-~- 4 ~ A

~IJ~1 4 ~ - 4 -.---.--- S-

0 0.210 0.30 0.40 0.50 060.ý 0.7 0.13 0 1~g týo

N) TIME (S) * 10-i

IVESSEL TYPE 3 / AUTOMATIC BOILER CONNECTION

TEMPERATURE

KWU PROFILE PLOT TRAC - P132 PARAMETER STUDY (DTHE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE PRESSURE

AND THE MASS FLUX

C-,c"3

(DTIME="' TIME=

+ TIME=X TIME="-TIME=

1.00 Ms2.00 MS3.00 MS4.00 ms5.00 MS

0~~

C/)

I'.,

RECALCULATION OF THE HDR-TESTS PIPE LENGTH (M)

PRESSURE WITHOUT ORIFICE AND WITH EXPANSION AT THE RPV

i .. ~ 4.


THE EFFECT OF D IFFERENT PARAM'ETERS ON THE PRESSURE

AND THE MASS FLUX

C~)

x

TIME= 6.00TIME= 7.00TIME= 8.00TIME= 9.00TIME= 10.00

MSMSMSMSMS

m

w

PIPE LENG~h (M)

RECALCULATION OF THE HDR-TESTS

PRESSURE PRESSUREWITHOUT ORIFICE AND WITH EXPANSION AT TI=1 PPV

KWU PROFILE PLOT TRAC - PD2 PARAM'ETER STUDY doft

THE EFFECT OF D IFFERENT PAR AMETERS ON THE PRESSURE

AND THE MASS FLUX

C-,C)

oTIME= 20.00 MSŽ~TIME= 40.00 MS+ TIME= 60.00 MS

X TIME= 80.00 MSCZl TIME=100.00 MS

co

C-)

I', PIPE LENGTH (M)


PRESSURE PRESSUREWITHOUT ORIFICE AND WITH EXPANSION AT THE RPV

-0 - "1

KWU

THE

AND

*PROFILE PLOT TRAC - P02 PARAM'ETER STUDY

EFFECT OF DIFFERENT PARAM~ETERS ON THE PRESSURE

THE MAISS FLUX

hft&

V3,I?

(D TIME= 1.00 MSA!ý TIME= 2.00 14S+ TIME= 3.00 MSX TIME= 4.00 MS!'TIME= 5.00 MS

ti.

I~

U,PIPE LENGTH (M)


MASS FLUX WITHOUT DRJF~r.F ANDl WITW PYPAktqltAM AT TLIC DDII

KWU PROFILE PLOT TRAC - PD2 PARAMETER STUDY0


AND THE MASS FLUX

V)

(D TIME= 6.00 MS-' TIME= 7.00 MS+ TIME= 8.00 MSX TIME= 9.00 MS

"TIME= 10.00 MS0

*

C')

C,

C'.

CDI

C'.,

C',

0~'

PIPE LENGTH (M)

RECALCULATION OF THE HDR-TESTSMASS FLUX WITHOUT ORIFICE AND WITH EXPANSION AT THE RPV

. i

a - .4.

KWU

THE

AND

PROF ILE PLOT TRAC - P02 PARAMWETER STUDY

EFFECT OF D IFFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE PRESSURE

THE MASS FLUX

Alak

%0

0

,ec

C,)

C.,

hr..

C,C-,

o -I

RPV WALL E~D OF P PEC,C-,

o - ________ _________ (.O~/OOWN PIPE _________

4~ ____________A

-4- -4- -4- -4--- -4---- 4-4-

C-,

C,-C,

C..,C-,

C-.,.LA-

C..)C-,

C, - ____________ ______

C,

C,C,

L)

C,.

C,

C,-r' pp

ODTIME= 20.00 MS,:TIME= 40.00 MS+±TIME= 60.00 MSX TIME= 80.00 MS0 'TIME=100.00 MS

'iiH

.J-J 0 -210 0.40 0.50 0.90 1 .00

PIPE LENGTH

I .20 1.40i I1.6 0, 1 .!JC 2.100

-J(m)

RECALCULATION OF THE HDR-TESTSMASS FLUX WITHOUT ORIFICE AND WITH EXPANSION AT THF~ PPV

KWU PROFILE PLOT TRAC - PD2 PARAMETER STUDY 'pmtk

THE EFFECT OF DI FFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE PRESSURE

AND THE MASSIFLUXT2/HDR1-3/WIT HOUT ORIFICE/WITHOUT EXPANSION

C3C,

C+

x

TIME=TIME=TIME=TIME=TIME=

1.00 MS2.00 MS3.00 MS4.00 MS5.00 MS

C,

r:t~ nn~ u'

g~ C,

'-TI

097

0.0 0 .70 0.40 0.50 0.r -1 .0T3/HDR2-3/wITHOUI ORIFICE/WITHOUT EXPANSION PIPE LENGTH (M)

1 IM 100 MSSIN&L 2.00 MS.'TIME= 300 MS RCLUAINO DTIME= It .0 MS RCLUAINO H O

TIME= 5.00 MS tPDC~Z~l lQC

-TESTSI I~L~.hJUI~L

KWU PROFILE PLOT TRAC - P02 PARAMETER STUDY0THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE PRESSURE

AND THE MASS FLUX

T2/HDR1-3/WITHOUT ORIFICE/WITHOUT EXPANSIONc:9

Q)

x

TIME= 6.00 MSTIME= 7.00 MSTIME= 8.00 MSTIME= 9.00 MSTIME= 10.00 M4S

U,

r~.) C) -00 0.,20 OJ~O 0.60 0.8*0 1.00T3/THDR2-3/WITHOUT ORIFIC E/,WITH EXPANSION PIPE LENGTH (m)

TIME= 6.00 MSTIME= 7.00 ms

ZTIME= 5.00 MSTIME= 9.00 MS RECALCULATION OF THE HODRTIME= 10.00 MS fCID

-TESTSr,[%~ I'

KWU PROFILE PLOT TRAC - P02 PARAM~ETER STUDY0


AND THE MASS FLUX

T2/HDR1-3/WITHOUT ORIFICE/WITHOUT EXPANSION00

o) TIME= 20.00 MS,& TIME= 40.00 MS+ TIME= 60.00 msXTIME= 80.00 MS'~*TIME=100.oo MS

U,

f'J

0

0'. 00 '0 .2'0 0.-4'0 0.5 '0T3/HDR2-3/WITHOUT ORIFICE/WITH EXPANSION"" IIF:-E: &9:88 91EALUZ TIME= 60.00 1MS EACY TIME= 80.00 MS PESR)t TIME--160.O0 Ms PESR

PIPE LENGTH (M)

AT ION OF THE HDR-TESTS

I

KWU PROF ILE PLOT TRAC - P02 PARAM~ETER STUDY


AND HE ASS LUXT2/HDRl-3/4ITHOUT ORIFICE/WITHOUT EXPANSION

C",

R V WALLEND OF PfP

C3 TIME=1.00 MScý DMIOWD L TIME= 2.00 MS

+ TIME= 3.00 MSX TIME= 4.00 MSCTIME= 5.00 MS

00

CDl

?I ----- ---- --- -------

0A1

-0.00 .0 0.40 0.60 0 .50 1 1.00 1.20 1 .40 1.60 1.80 2.00*13/HOR2-3/WITHOUT ORIFICE/WIrK EXPANSION PIPE LENGTH (M)* 4' TIME= 1.00 MSN) ~~; TIME= 2s00 Mrý itAi' A u Y1 rT

'7 TTPMC nunn 7T.* i CT

x TIME= 5.00 MS MASS FLUX



AND THE MASS FLUXT2/HDR1-3/WITHoUT ORIFICE/WITHOUT EXPANSION

1T-

- 0 TIME= 6.00 msit TIME= 7.00 MS+ TIME= 8.00 MSX TIME= 9.00 MS'! TIME= 10.00 MS

0

*

Cl)

C,

0\

f

f

C'.,

C',C',

0.0 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.60 1.00 1 .20T13,HDR2-3/WITOUT ORIFICE/WITH EXPANSION PIELGTC)'i1 TIME= 6.00 MSPIELNT(MX TIME= 7.00 MSZ TIME= 8.00 MS RCLUAINO H D-ETY TIME= 9.00 MS RCLUAINO H D-ETX TIME= 10.00 MS MASS FLUX


THE EFFECT OF DI1FFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE PRESSURE

AND THE MASS FLUX

A10th,

T2/HDR1-3/WITHDuT ORIFICE4IWITHOUT EXPANSION

Q3

0C0

0-0(D

WALL END Of P1 E

0 BLQWDQW-P] R-E

Li)

0n

03

0l

C3

C00:)

0 *_ _ _ __ _ _

D

O! TIME= 20.00 MSAL TIME= 40.00 MS

+ TIME= 60.00 MSX TIME= 80.00 MSC0 IIME=100.00 MS

kfl

fi'

U*UU a.~ -20 .40 0.60U 0.80

T3/HDR2-3/WITHOUT ORIFICEJWITH EXPANSION PIPTIME=2.Q

STIME= uMZ TIME= 0.00 M EACLTOY TIME= 80.00 MSRCAULTO CX( TIME=100.00 MS MASS FLUX

I .0U 1 .20 1 .40 1 .6I I .80 2 .00

E LENGTH (M)

IF THE HDR-TESTS

- 58 -

WALL

Level 4. 1,4/4

X~o.Level 3 2533

Level 2 2,8533

Level 1 2,8533

VESSEL 3

'**, PIPE 2

1 2 3 4 3111131END OF PIPE P IPE. 9

PIPE 1

- !PROFILE PLOTX= 1.6775

x =2 .17 75

a

HDR 313

Fig. 2.3.1

-4

KWU TRAC -P02


RECALCULATION OF THE HDR-TESTS WITH THE VESSEL COMPON~ENT

C3,

L)

C-,

TIVE (s)E * 10L

ro ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PIPE 2 VESE TYE3/ATMTI OLRCNETINWT RFCPRESSURE tE

lddnl!kk

KWU TRAC - P2

THE EFFECT OF D IFFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATERECALCULATION OF THE HDR-TESTS WI TH THE VESSEL COMPONENT

0' r

+ P'PF I ,'LX r TF I C~L

L.L),

L)~j

o .

Llc')

_________ i 4 I + t 0\0

IA r,1. 44 --,1 i i I I Ifif '

2-I' I I I t 1 1

L),

ti___ t T ----1

ofI I I I I I _ -_____ L

In,

-, I

C G.Z

/ VESSELTIME (s) * 10O

TYPE 3 / AUTOMATIC BOILER CONNECTION WITH ORIFICE

,uuI

PIPE 2

PRESSURE

*. ~

KWU TRAC -PD2



I

C.)C)

o ~ 2 '~2L*-~ !PF2 rL1

0

*

C.,

I~Hl

TIME (S) * 10-1

I',

PIPE 2M~ASS FLUX

/ VESSEL TYPE 3 / AUTOMATIC BOILER CONNECTION WITH ORIFICE

KWIJ' TRAC - P02

THE tEFFECT OF DIFFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE


0

C.,)Ll

(D: !rF I '.i :L~ !rF I !LL

+ P!PF I '~LX rl pF I Cri!L C

I'

171

PiPEmMASS FLUX

TIME (s) * 1oO

/VESSEL TYPE 3 / AUTOMATIC BOILER CONNECTION WITH ORIFICE

.5, ;,.

KWU TRAC -P02


RECALCULATION OF THE HOR-TESTS WITH THE VESSEL COMPONENT

It ,rr 2 .L

+ p , F Lc0

*

z0HC-,

rr~tx..0H0

0~

r'J

(A)

0\

PIPE 2VOID FRACTION


KWU TRAC -F'02



0

C-)

Ct.

0

0.

C)

C.,

C)

C'i

C,~i __ __ . A

(D ' !PF I [A'rFI CL

+ rr I 'L LX/ r'f'F I ~IU:L

0\.fz.

I'.,u .UU 0. I0 0.d U * .iu u .4 U .ZJU

TIME (S) *o 1o~U

PIPE 2VOID FRACTION


4

Kwu IRAC - P2


RECALCULAT ION OF THE HDR-TESTS WITH-THE VESSEL COMPONENT

lgaqftý

C.,Ll :

0'Ell

!,v r'rF.2ýý '.~trv rPF2 2LSmv r!rrz L,4V r'PF1 ri* '!.V FIPFI CL

I

a*%

0.

L!)

If

'11

c-.C.o C30 lo.A0 0C, C 7 0 li .rj

TME (S) *10 1

/VESSEL TYPE 3 / AUTOMATIC BOILER CONNECTION WITH ORIFICEPIPE 2VELOC ITY

KWU TRAC -PD2


RECALCULAT ION OF THE HDR -TESTS WI TH THE VESSEL COMPONENT

C?

0-,

CD,

'oc o -0 011 .0 04 -O,.0 07 ro 09 10

_________________TIME_ (S)_____________ ________________

PIPE 2TEMPERATURE

3 / AUTOMATIC BOILER CONNECTION WITH ORIFICE

TRAC - P02KWU


RECALCI JLAT ION OF THE HDR-TESTS WITH THE VESSEL COMPONENT

C)0

Cz4

LI)

c')

C?

Lfl

C-)

Zn

rel)lr

AD 'I. P'F2 .ZLL.

+ V/ rTpF2 '~L"

07%

w

0

.j - U Q - f- .9 ,j - )u v Iiu Lo -'Ju 0 - flu p13 .70

PIPE 2TEMPERATURE

/ VESSEL TYPE 3 /TIME (S) * 10~

AUTOMATIC BOILER CONNECTION WITH ORIFICE

I

KWtJ TRAC -P02


RECALCULAT ION OF THE HDR-TESTS WI TH THE VESSEL COMPONENT

C-,

r .', rI Fl rLO

+ T-/v r ,rF i VL)

I'

0'-9

TIME CS) *101

IVESSEL TYPE 3 / AUTOMATIC BOILER CONNECTION WITH ORIFICEPIPE 2TEMPERATURE

'MRAC - PD2

FECT OF DIFFERENT pARAtETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

ULAT ION OF THE HDR-TESTS WITH THE VESSEL COMP~ONENT

r r r 3 L

CA

C-'

C-.'

I\3

uJ 0. .40 0.,Ja O0 0.70o -a l 0.

TIME (S) * 10--1

IVESSEL TYPE 3 1 AUTOMATIC BOILER CONNECTION WITH ORIFICEPIPE 2PRESSURE

Q.KWU TRAC - P2

THE EFFECT OF D IFFERENT PARAM'ETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

RECALCULAT ION OF THE HDR-TESTS WITHi THE VESSEL COMPONENT

V.

!PE-r JJJ

CI)

Ez

0

Li)TIME (S) * 10-'

/VESSEL TYPE 3 / AUTOMATIC BOILER CONNECTION WITH ORIFICEPIPE 2

4V

AddgjhL

KWU TRAC -PD2


RECALCULAT ION OF THE HDR-TESTS WI TH THE VESSEL COMPM*ET

C.,

,L 'i. Prrjjj -.:+ TV r!rFij.3 ý:

H

td

H

I'-) TIME (S) * 10Q

/VESSEL TYPE 3 / AUTOMATIC BOILER CONNECTION WITH ORIFICEPIPE 2 iTEMPERATURE

TRAC - P02 PARAM'ETER STUDYKWU PROFILE PLOT


AND THE MASS FLUX

1~)

RPV WALLEND OF PIPFORIFICE

3LOWDOWN PIPF _ _ _ 0DTIME=TIME=TIME=TIME=TIME=

1.00 MS2.00 MS3.00 MS4.00 ms5.00 MS

N,

mC!,

N,

LAJ

U.,

* ~~~--- t ---- r-----*--- r - I r + , -,-.-.--- I. - - - I. --

f' . r f /;r.0 r.; £- *j.j..D i.00i 1 -20 .,-. I,,,.' 2

RECALCULAT ION OF THE HDR-TESTS PIPE LENGTH (M)

PRESSURE WITH ORIFICE AND WITH EXPANSION'AT THE RPV

KWlJ PROFILE PLOT IRAC - P02 PARAMETER STUDY

TIE EFFECT OF D IFFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE PRESSURE

AND THE MASS FLUX

IP AL END. of PIPE_______ BL4D04U IPEORIFICr

B LOD-1 .P

OJj r cr ! r 40l*q

0L

*.f.

TIME= 6.00 MSTIME= 7.00 MSTIME= 8.00 MSTIME= 9.00 MSTIME= 10.00 MS

LU

tA)

PIPE LENGTH (M)RECALCULATION OF THE HDR-TESTSPRESSURE PRESSURE WITH ARIimF AImif WIT -I YDAm~izAkl AT TurI nrj,

KWU PROFILE PLOT TRAC - PD2 PARAM'ETER STUDY199MIL

THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE PRESSURE

AND THE MASS FLUX

(D TIME= 20.00 MSTIME= 40.00 MS

TIME= 60.00 msX TIME= 80.00 MSý'TIME=100.00 MS

rx~ ,-.0-.

N,

(~AJ

RECALCULAT ION OF THE HDR-TESTS PIPE LENGnh (M)

PRESSURE PRESSUREWITH ORIFICE AND WITH EXPANSION AT THE RPV

,f.. -

KWU

THE

AND

.PROFILE PLOT TRAC - P02 PARAMETER STUDY


THE MASS FLUX

'OftMY In%0

C,

(D TIME= 1.00 MS-'ý TIME= 2.00 MS+ TIME= 3.00 MSX TIME= 4.00 MS'ýTIME= 5.00 MS0

*

C,,

C,

CL.

g3

'ii

I\.)

LA.)

0

RECALCULATION OF THE HDR-TESTS PIPE LENGTH (M)

MASS FLUX WITH ORIFICE AND WITH EXPANSION AT THF PPV

I

KWU PROFILE PLOT 'RA(; - PD2 PARAMETER STUDY

THE EFFECT OF D IFFERENTJ PARAMETERS ON THE PRESSURE

AND THE MASS FLUX

0o

*3

5S

0

RPV WALL END or PIPEC). *ORIFIC7

d) _ _

C?

C)

0

C)nnn ni n n r -3 .0 .0 1.0 1.0 1.c

(DTIME= 6.00 MS..TIME= 7.00 MS*-TIME= 8.00 MS

X TIME= 9.00 MS"! TIME= 10.00 MS

0~

N)

U-)

-a PIPE LENGTH (M)

RECALCULATION OF THE HDR-TESTSMASS FLUX WITH ORIFICE AND WITH EXPANSION AT THE RPV

* ~ *-...

KWU

THE

AND

PROFILE PLOT TRAC - PD2 PARAMVETER STUDY


THE MASS FLUX

C.,

(D TIME= 20.00 MSJ4~ TIME= '*0.00 MS+4 TIME= 60.00 MSX( TIME= 80.00 MS'~TIME=100.00 MS

0

*

C')

C,

I.',

LAJ

I'.,0 RECALCULAT ION OF THE HDR-TESTS PIPE LENGTH (M)

MASS FLUX WITH ORIFICE AND WITH EXPANSION AT TH F PPV

KWU PROFILE PLOT TRAC - PD2 PARAM~ETER STUDY


AND THE MASS FLUXT2/HD RI-3A4ITHDUT oRiriCEA4ITIIOUT EXPANSION

C-,C,

(Dx

TIME=TIME=TIME=TIME=TIME=

1.00 MS2.00 MS3.00 MS4.00 MS5.00 MS

00

m

~1.

I',

I')

'b a- , G.~ 0 .40 0.60 0.930 1.00T3/HDR3-3/WITH ORIFICE/WIrH EXPANSION~ PIPE LENGTH (M)*TIME= 1.00 MSTIME= 2.00 MSTIME= .00 MSREACLTIO OFTE DR

YTIME= .00o MS RCLUA NO HHR~.TIME= 5.00 MS

-TESTS

PRESSURE

V.4

S -V..

KWU PROFILE PLOT TRAC - P1)2 PARAMETER STUDY0

THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE PRESSURE

AND THE MASS FLUXT2/HDR1-3/WITHOUT ORITICE/WITHOtJT EXPANSION

C,

0L

X1~N

TIME= 6.00 msTIME= 7.00 MSTIME= 8.00 MSTIME= 9.00 MSTIME= 10.00 MS

'.0

U)

('3l

R\)I'.

r. ; 0.o0.A 0.50 0.930 1 .00T3/HDR3-3/WITH ORIFICE/WITH EXPANSION

'~TIME= 6.00 MS PIPE LENGTH (M)TIME= 0 MSTIME= 9:00 MS

.. IM~ 900MSRECALCULATION OF THE HDR-TTIME= 10.00 MS

ESTS

WKL,)UI(L

-..................-

TRAC - PD2 PARAMETER STUDYKWU PROFILE PLOT

THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT PARAM'ETERS ON THE PRESSUREAND THE MASS FLUX

T2/HD R1-3/WITHIIO~T ORTFICEA.JITHOUT EXPANSION

0L

TIME= 20.00TIME= 40.00TIME= 60.00TIME= 80.00TIME=100.00

MSMSMSMSMS

cx,0

I')

CA)

CA)

RECALCULATION OF THE HOR-TESTS

* - C

KWU PROFILE PLOT TRAC - PD2 PARAMVETER STUDY '0THE EFFECT OF DI FFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE PRESSURE

AND THE MASS FLUXT2/HDRl-3A4ITHOUT ORIFICE/WITHOUT EXPANSION

C3

x

T IP1E=TIME=TIME=TIME=TIME=

1.00 MS2.00 MS3.00 MS4.00 MS5.00 MS

0/

X

c/)

I-

LAo

T3/HDR3-3/WITH ORIFICEP.4ITHSTIME T .00 MST TIMER 2.100 MS

X TIME= 5.00 MS

EXPANSION PIPE LENGTH (M)

RECALCULAT ION OF THE HDR-TESTS,MASS FLUX



AND THE MASS FLUXT2/HDRI-3/WITHOUT ORIFICE/WITHOUT EXPANSION

0:9

0

x

TIME= 6.00 MSTIME= 7.00 MSTIME= 8.00 MSTIME= 9.00 MSTIME= 10.00 MS

03

0

*

C,)

C,

Ci.

(~0

~11

co0.00 .0,.2'0 0 .4'0 0.60 0.80C 1 .00 1 .20T3/HDR3-3IWITH ORIFICE/WITH EXPANSION PIPE LENGTH (M)4' TIME-, 6.00 MSX~ TIME7= 7.00 Mi

'y 98 RECALCULATION OF TH HOR-TESTSX TIME= 10.00 MS is n x

a

4.I w . "

TRAC - Ff32 PARAMETER STUDYI(WI PROFILE PLOT


AND THE MASS FLUXT2/HDR1-3/WIrHOUT ORIFICE/WITHOUIT EXPANSION

C0C?

A±xC)

TIME= 20.00TIME= 40.00TIME= 60.00TIME= 80.00TIME=100.00

MSMSMSMSMS0

*

U)

0

~21

co

U.)

I'.,

00.00o 0.20 ý 0.40 0.60 ,0.60 1.0 1.20I-

T31DR-3WIH R~ICIWTHEXPANSION PIPE LENG71H (M)t TIMEý' ý80.70TME MS RECALCULAT ION OF THE HDR-TESTSZ TIME= 0O.00 MS* TIME= 80.00 MSMASFU* TIME=100.00 MSMASFU

- 814 -

PIPE 2 I PIPE 1

Level 4 0.177

Level 3 3,2742

Level 2 3,2742

Level 1 3,2742

VESSEL 3

11 12 13 1 ' 5 1~ l1 2 13 1679L BREAK

HDR 4/5

Fig. 2.14.1

KWU TRAC,- P02


RECALCULAT ION OF THE HDR-TESTS WITH THE VESSEL COtfOPET

C.3r-,

(r)n .r F 2 L2it "!PF 2 L.+r ý )

I,

Inrj 030 060 .70

TIME (S) *10-'

IVESSEL TYPEr 5 / FRICTION FACTOR (BOILER EXIT) = 0.5PIPE 2PRESSURE

AM&

w -

KWU TRAC - P02



C.)C.'

w

C-,

Dj

L' . 24~~~~~ yl e.___ __ ____

v -1

0

-r

I,

"'rF I L

Z'p L ~

C~L)

PIPE 2PRESSURE

TIME (S) * 0

/FRICTION FACTOR

V. ý ,j .- £ *U~

/ VESSEL TYPE 5 (BOILER EXIT) = 0.5

a or

ITRAC - P02

ECT OF DI1FFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

]LAT ION OF THE HDR -TESTS WI1TH THE VESSEL COMPONENTr Z

0

*

Cl)

C,:4

CL.

g3

I

co

I',

PIPE 2MiASS FLUX

/ VESSEL TYPE 5 / FRICTION FACTOR (BOILER EXIT) = 0.5

Admlbk

KWU TRAC -P02


RECALCULAT ION OF THE HOR-TESTS WI TH THE VESSEL CoMPONENT

V.L3,

*- r E L

1, r' F L 9

0

*

Cl)

a

I,co

In-

U.'

9 .r F3 .70TIME (S) * 10-1

PIPE2 1MiASS FLUX

/ VESSEL TYPE 5 1 FRICTION FACTOR (BOILER EXIT) = 0.5

w .

I -~

KWU TRAC - P02 i

Thid EFFECT OF D IFFERENT PARAMETERS ON TH OUTFLOW RATE

RECALCULAT IONOF THE HOR-TESTS WITH THE VESSEL COMPONENT

C3

cmJ

0

-- ~~~ -__ 9__ .0

OT 'rr ,+t !~

.~L

Lc ~1

CI

TIME (S) * 10-1 :

TYPE 5 / FRICTION FACTOR (BOILER EXIT) = 0.5PIPE 2

VOID FRACTION

/ VESSEL

lddslk&

Kwvul TRAC -P02

THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT pARAtWETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

RECA1I.CULAT ION OF THE HOR-TESTS WITH THE VESSEL COMMENET

-1! PF I CL '-

+ 'rrFX r''IF I ~.L 91

I.0D

0HHC-,

CL

H0

r\)

PIPIE 2VOID FRACTION

/ VESSEL TYPE 5 / FRICTION FACTOR (BOILER EXIT) = 0.5

.0

MI tV PW2E Ci'L

X mv r'rfi CUcL9

cI~

E

C-)0w

I') 20 n 30 f,.40 0 1o 0 Cn 0.70 c .91 C

TIME (S) * 10O1

IVESSEL TYPE 5 / FRICTION FACTOR (BOILER EXIT) 0.5

KWU. TRAC -PD2



0

C-3

+ TV VC';,

Wc LCt' L

:1

'1

I\

I'.)

TIME Cs) * 0-

IVESSEL TYPE 5 / FRICTION FACTOR (BOILER EXIT) = 0.5PIPE 2TEMPERATURE

UI El

S.

KWlU TRAC - P2

THE EFFECT OF DI FFERENT PARAM~ETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE


0

C.,C-?

(D 3P!rF., 'A!.L'

+ Tv I'I'w L

oPIPE 2TEMPERATURE

TME (S) * 0

IVESSEL TYPE 5 / FRICTION FACTOR (BOI LER EXIT) =0.5

KWtJ TRAC -P02


RECALCULAT ION OF THE HOR-TESTS WITHI THE VESSEL COMPONENT

'Il%

C:,C..,

(D 'S r'!rF I C',' 9

A i T/ r!rF 1C ' L9

I

Cl,

H

02) 0 .40 G.~ O0 A 0.0 c.3 1.']

TIME (S) * 10-1

IVESSEL TYPE 5 / FRICTION FACTOR (BOILER EXIT) = 0.5PIPE 2

TEMPERATURE

t F

- 95 -

PIPE 2 IPIPE ILevel .4 0.1773_-

Level 3 3,2742

Lovot 2 .3,2742

Level 1 3,27421

VESSEL 3

[1 1ji 2 j 1 . j1 I112+1zRIAHIII s75

HDP 5/4~

Fig. 2.5.1

KWU TRAC- P02

THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT PARAME TERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE


c.'3C3!

+ VFS,; LcL.S

0~

U,

PIPE 2PRESSURE

/ VESSEL TYPE 4

* f

KWU TRAC - P2Ra



r 3C3,

+ r Jp L

X< r!rf I L -.1~

V)

I',U'

PIPE 2PRESSURE

TIME

/VESSEL TYPE 4

0KWU TRAC -P02

THE EFFECT OF DI FFERENT PARMtETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

RECALCULATION OF THE HDR-TESTS WITH THE VESSEL COW1OINENT

L.

Orr

0

*

(/20

EL.

'~0

'11I-s.oq

U'

PIPE 2MASS FLUX

/ VESSEL TYPE 4

KWUý TRAC- P02

THEOEFECT OF D IFFERENT PARAM'ETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE


C)0

a

*

C,,

C,

C.3

'CJ

L-3

K] ~ ~ ~ . a__ 0___ 6___ G___ __

I~

Co' r.!F I c'LZL "!rF I ', ; '+ Fr'PF I ULx r'rF i 2L 02

p.

U'

ZA

TIME (SEC) * 1O-

/VESSEL TYPE 4PIPE- 2MASS FLUX

KWU TRAC - P2


RECALCULAT ION OF THE [DR-TESTS WITH TIE VESSEL COMPONENT

(D ! r 'F ' ' , ;L :

A V! z'JL " (.c'L 5~

I u~'0*-

*

0~H ''C-,

(z.

0

H

I',

U,

0~

TIME (S) * 1-

/VESSEL TYPE 4PIPE 2VOID FRACTION

r 19

KWU TRAC -P02


RECALCULATION OF THE HOR-TESTS WITH THE VESSEL COMPONENT

0

cl

(D I'frF I C*'L

+~- r,!rE I I(CL '

Y r 'rE Z UL

I-IaI.-'

*1

0I-I

I-40

~1.

U' TME (S) * 10O 1

IVESSEL TYPE 4PIPE 2VOID FRACTION

KWU TRAC. -

THE EFFECT OF

RECALCULATION

P02

DIFFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

OF THE HOR-TESTS WITH THE VESSEL COMPONENT

(~2

Cl,

I-IC-,0w

0-

C.J

L,

Ll

o rv r rF 2, L+ tiv r'rFi cALLlX mv r~r'fi (,'jLt1

CD

I',

U,

V,cIJ- T-

c14. 0.30I I I I

0.40 G' r,

TIME (S) * 10O

VESSEL TYPE 4

I~~ I I0-r, C0.70 (' (!t~ 0. jo

PIPE 1 2

VELOCITY.1

/

KWU TRAC,-FPD2

THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT PARAMWETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

RECALCULAT ION OF THE HDR-TESTS WI TH THE VESSEL COMPONENT

C14

L) i

.-----

0. 20Ig r 4 5c O l 0 0 )r

A T1. IZ ''L E. 'L S+ TV itZ~ t".51 ,

TIME (S) *110/VESSEL TYPE 4

-1

PIPE 2TEMPERATURE

I

KWU TRAC -P02

THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATERECALCULAT ION OF THE HDR-TESTS WITH THE VESSEL COMPONENT

C.,C-.)

± Tv r rF? 'L'

I-i

w'a.

0

PIPE 2TEMPERATURE

VESSEL TYPE TIECS4

.1

KWUJ TRAC -P02

THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT PARAMETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATERECALCULAT ION OF THE HDR-TESTS WITH THE VESSEL COMPON~ENT

Iddsoll,

C.)

C3)

TIME~L -A-*10

T tr r F I L,.

H0U,

I-'-)

U,

PIPE 2TEMPERATURE

/ VESSEL TYPE 4

PART III: RECOMMENDATION FOR THE APPLICATIONOF TRAC-PD2

TO SHORT-TERM TRANSIENTS

S

- 1-

This page intentionally left blank.

Ar-3-

Introduction

Since the first introduction of the TRAC-P1A computer code in

March 1979 and the installation of the improved version TRAC-PD2

in the meantime in September 1980, various calculations for the

Atucha II project and post-test calculations have been performed.

The knowledge gained from optimizing the computation models is

explained in more detail and illustrated, if necessary, in the

following chapters.

These activities were undertaken in particular in the process of

verifying the new version of the TRAC-PD2 code because it becomes

more and more apparent that due to its flexibility this code

yields good results in particular for complex plants and thus

has become indispensable for project work.

Kraftwei* Union

-4-

2 Automatic Calculation of Pressure Loss Coefficients for

,Contraction or Enlargement

From Chapter b. "Finite Difference Equations" (/I/, ref. p. 2) it

can be deduced that there are two possible procedures for solv-

ing the differential equations for the one-dimensional compo-

nent s.

Firstly, there is the semi-implicit procedure (subroutine DFIDS)

which determines the time interval by an explicit equation as

shown in eqn. 2.1:

hmt Eqn. 2.1

Se~condly., there is the-fully implicit procedure (subroutine

DFIDI) which is to be employed particularly for components where a

a priori high flow velocities are to be expectede.g. the

blowdown pipe. For the one-dimensional components, the user is

free to choose either one of these procedures.

.In any case the RPV. component (VrESSEL) is calculated by the

semi-implicit procedure. However, certain differences arise in

the determination of the pressure loss coefficients in the pipe,

depending on the solution procedure chosen. It can be seen from

Chapter d.6. "Form Losses" (/I/, ref. p. 28) that the semi-

implicit procedure allows for the pressure loss in the case of

sudden expansion, but not in the case of contraction or outflow

processes.

The ' ully-implicit procedure, on the other hand, calculates a

Bernoulli flowI which~however, tak~es nei~her contraction nor

expansion or outflow processes into account. This is due to

the definition of the Bernoulli equation, which only applies

to frictionless flow.

Kraftwei* Union

AdsmbhAir "T& - 5-

In this case, therefore, the mathematical results must besubjected to a correction as follows:

Ap= k z. V . lvi

where k follows from

Eqn. 2. 2

k=(I- Al )2A2

Eqn. 2.3

for expansion, and equation 2.4

k = 0.5 -0.7 (,C) + 0.2 -1)2 Eqn. 2.4

holds for contraction, with A, being the smaller and A2 thelarger flow area. These calculations are Performed by a sub-

routine called FWAIJL.

In the TRAC-PD2 version, the final pressure loss is given by

&P= J IC.1)3 vIlvi

The FF value in the TRAC-OUTPtJT is given by

Eqn. 2.5

FF = -Dh J'& + Xj

Eqn. 2.6

and the FIIC. values are calculated by including the appropri-

ate Ivalue in the following equation:

hIC~ = j h.D Eqn. 2. 7

This way it is Balso possible to put in the loss coefficientsby hand- by calculating, say, the K value for the contrac-

tion and explicitly entering it as a FRIC value in the input

of the component.

KraMt werk Union

JV-6-

'~values due to form losses, elbows, apertures, orifices, flow

restrictors, etc. can thus also be taken into account. However,

it is the purpose of the following text to determine how the

semi-implicit and the-fully implicit procedures cooperate

with the automatic calculation of the loss coefficients.

For this purpose, the respective pressure losses upon expansion

and contraction in a p~ipe are calculated; the surface area ratioA,A2 -= 0.25 is the same in both cases. The actual model is rep-

resented in Fig. 2.1.

Fig. 2.1

As has already been mentioned, the semi-implicit procedure is

capable of accurately calculating the pressure profile in the

case of expansion without a correction. The pressure difference

as determined by-the TRAC and the manual calculation*(Eqn. 2.8)

as well as the corresponding FF values for the four possible

combinations are listed in Table 2.1. This shows clearly that

the statement previously made regarding the semi-implicit pro-

cedure is correct. According to Table 2.1, the fully implicit

procedure only produces correct results if NFF = -1 is included

in the calculation. In this *case only 'the FF value from the TRAC

output is equal to the calculated FF value. For 1NFF = +1 and

fully implicit, the pressure regain is far too high, as in

this case the frictional losses are not covered by the Bernoulli

eciuation.

Kraftwei* Union

- 7-

Ex~pan sion Ap4-2~TRAC

Ap 4 - 2FFc~ k Dh.j

CAL2ý Xj j-1j

NFF-1I

INFF + I

NFF - I

NFT + I

Fl

Fl

SI

SI

0.2870

0.7228

0.2870

0.2880

0.2915

0.2933

0.2910

0.2910

0. 2267

0.00268

0.002684

0.002684

0.2244

0.2244

0.2244

0.2244

Table 2.1

1 2 1 ( 2AP 4 - 2 = P 4 V4 r P 5 (k 3

- v 32 ) Eqn. 2.8

k A, () 12-12

Contr'action Ap5- 7~TBRAC APC5 - 7

ALC FF FF= kh,

4 .1.- 4.

ITFF

IUF

M7~F

IqF-F

-1I

+1

+1

Fl

F'

SI

SI

1 .0795

0.7987

1.0841

1.2750

1.*0846

1.0917

1.0862

1.0862

*0. 1570

0.002347

-0.08742

0.002345

0.1546

0.1546

0.1546

0.1346

Table 2.2

Ap 5 - 7 -fPv 62 +P(v 2? kv 7

2 Eqn. 2. 9

kc = 0.5 - 0.7 2 .

In contrast to this, none of the procedures a priori cover

correctly the pressure loss upon contraction, as can be

seen from Table 2.2, so that for the semi implicite as well

as for the fully implicit procedures the automatic calculation

has to be employed.

With the option N~FF = -1 and semi-implicit, the dubious

case occurs that a negative loss coefficient is used in the

program. This is due to the fact that the pressure loss is

overestimated; the pressure is therefore boosted by means

of a negative I value in order to obtain the correct value.

Generally it can be stated that a full agreement between TRAC

and calculation by h 'and can only be achieved by the fullyimplicit procedure combined with a negative NFF value in thepressure loss as well as in the FF value. This combination

should, tAeref ore, generally be used so as to avoid all

uncertainties from the start.

Kraftwerk Union

-9-

5Parameter Study on IED? Tests

It-is imperative to check tests in order to verify a computa-

tional program. For this reason, the PHDR/V51 tests were checked

by means of the program version TRAC-PD2, so that the calculated

pressures and outflow rates from the TRAC calculations could be

compared with the test re sults. There was some uncertainty re-

garding the handling of the TRAC-PD2 input.; a parameter study

(Table 3.1) was implemented in order to clarify these problems

in principle. For this purpose, the results of the model modifi-

cations elucidated in the following chapters were related to an

initial calculation so as to enable the effect of the individual

changes to be determined. This initial calculation *is based on a

model of the HDR experiment(Fig.3.1) in *ihich the RPV(Fig.3.2) was

simplified to a great extent, since it was only required as a

pressure boundary condition for the basic examinations of the

pressure curves and outflow rates in the blowdown nozzle. For

this reason, the res ults are to be deemed to be of qualitative

rather than of quantitative relevance; a direct comparison with

the lIDR measurements is only possible to a limited extent. The

exact post-test calculations were performed with a more detailed a

model by H. Herterich /4/..

Kraftwei*Union

-10-

-Series of IIDR tests

HDRI/3 Junction of the blowdown nozzle without any special

changes

Ratio pipe surface: vessel junction surface I :21PIFE2 SI/PIPEI FI/pressure boundary condition in

2 ms to I bar

}IDP2/3 Automatic junction of the pipe to the vessel

Expansion of pipe surface to vessel junction surface

PIPE FI/PIPEI FI/pressure boundary condition in

2 ms to I bar

HTJR3/3 Automatic junction of the pipe to the vessel with

nozzle

All pipes FI and INFF = -1/pressure boundary condition

instantaneous

HDR'4/5 New nodalisation of vessel with 2 radial zones in thedowncomerVessel junction surface = pipe surface

I= 0.5 for the outflow from the vessel

HDR5/4 Only I radial zone in the downcomer

Vessel junction surface = pipe surface

BDR6/5 Vessel division as for HDR4/5Vessel function surface = pipe surfaceNodelling bypass mode'l in-the biowdown nozzle

SI 2' semi-implicit

FI 6- fully implicit

Table 3.1

Kraftwerk Union

- 11 -

nozzle Al

JPNF

Schematic Isometry of Lines and Loops

Participating During Blowdown Fig. 3.1

-12 -

ROB - Deckel ' 1sr

!oberes Plenum(upper plenurr

oberer Einspannflansch(upper flange)

1100

KStutzen A2 (nozzle A2)

Innenraumn (hiner region)

Alernmantei 23 ± 1mm(core barrel)

*Ringraumn (downcomer)

-ROB(PV, pressue vessel)

(muss -ring)-Masse - Ring

-untere4 Pt qnum(lower plenumn)

- altwaiss erstu tzen(cold water inlet) a

I,-

ROB und Kern mantelIgeometri e f *Ur B lowdown Exp.(RP1 and Core Barrel Geometries for Blowdown Experiments)

Fig. 3.2

-15

RD 20M1RD M0f2

RM3 003RM300I.RP30CIRp..0O2

RP3U05I~ ~r~it~r~ -~

9 P9109ROB

PJF 2 1 IPE1 6789

12 3

0,2 0,2 1 0,2 0.20, 01 011

8-35Ifm OI I 1.01 m

-, .. , Sim1,3098M0,0145 M

1,5045 M

Blowdown nozzle for the IIDR 1/3 4/5 5/4 models

~KPIPE 2RD 3001RD 3002

RM 3003RN13001.RP3001

U3002RP3006

PIPE 1 C7R~

1 22 1 67893 6 1 2 3 4 5

8PSiOSROB 02 0 2 0,2 0,2

0,Ol

0,977m1,3096m

0,1j ,1 01 0,1 D0,02w/ -~0,01m

0,01I.5M

I I~1

1,504,5M -I

Blowd~own nozzle for the HDR 2/3 3/3 models

RD 3001kD 30 02

RM3003RK3001.RP 3001RP 3002

R P3006PPP1PI PE 2 91011i

__________PIPE "1h~ II

BP9109ROB

1

02

2 3 4 5 1 2 3j4j56I7 1-QiC=ý 1t C

0O1 U "'C!C= H0 2 0 2 02

0;2 02 01-0,835m

0,977m1, 3098

0, 'A 0,01MU~0145m

1--- 1,5045M

Bypass junction

Blowdown nozzle for the HDI? 6/5 model

- 14. -V31-1 RPVI

. RM 3oo30 2 RM 3oo.4

/BN SHORT 110 BAR 338/268 DEG CSCANNING FREO CHZJ 5000.0 MPAN OF 2 ALUES

rý I

I-

--- -

'-I

NO14R 1/3HOR 2/3

--.- OR 3/3

TIME AFTER BREAK IN SEC

c

LaJ

V31.1 RPVI

I. RH 3oo3 BN SHORT 110 BAR 308/268 DEG C9 2 RM 3oo4 * ' SCANNING FRED CHZJ 5000.0 MEAN OF 2 VALUES

C3

--- --- --- - - - ... .

C3.

... . . ... .. . ... ...

C3

......... . ...

C3C2

C3

w

0 .30 Oi.40

TIME AFTER BREAK IN SEC

0.50 0.60 0'. I o-,- - HOR 4/5

NO-. UR 5/4--- - HR 6/5 Fig. 3.4I

o'.90 00

-15 -,

o 1

2 j~, ::~.~;j

e~SCANNI*NG F-REO CHZJ 5000.MIEAN or 2 VALUES _.

- I

C

c-,

Li

C

I - .

I - 4.....,. - - -

* --

-l *~=-. - - - ~*- ---.- - -.-- -~ -----o . . - -q ~* ~ .- * ~.

I . . I ~ Io 4 I

* . . Io . . ,l.. **

* 4 I I.,.* . * 1I I.* I

* . . . Io . . I ___ ___ ___0

o I *I '1.-0.20 0.00 0.10 o~ao "'~ 0.40 0.50 0.EO__ 0.70 0.60 0.W0 I. 00

TIME AFTER BREAK IN SEC1- - HUH 1/3

-. . OR 2/3

HOR 3/3

L.a

C-)C-)

C-

- -NO f,/TIME AFTER BREAK IN SEC

HUR 5/I,

SNOR 6/5 Fig. 5.5

AIR- -% 16 -

5.1 EDRI/3 Initial Test Calculation -

The results of this calculation form the basis for an assessment

of the effectiveness of the measures subsequently implemented.

The pressure and mass flow rate curves determined are compared

with those resulting from the KDR tests; no absolute agreement

is to be expected here; nevertheless, the same qualitative behav-

iour should be observed. Fig. 5.1 shows the entire set-up of the

HDR experiment. In this model, only the PPV and nozzle Al are

pictured. Fig. 3.2 provides an overview of the RPV internals and

the corresponding geometrical dimensions. The model pertaining

to this calculation is pictured in Fig. 3.6. The RE~ACTOR PRESSURlE

VESSEL is subdivided into 4I levels', each of which consists of 2

radial annuli and 4 azimuthal segments, so that each level com-

prises 8 zones. The blowdown nozzle is connected to zone 5 in

level 4. It consists of 2 pipes (PIPEI and PIPE2). Fig. 3.3 shows

the exact discretization. The surroundings are represented by a

BRlEAK (pressure boundary condition). A pressure drop to I bar

within 2 ms is specified as the boundary condition. The locations

of the measuri~ng points for the pressures and flow rates are also

indicated in Fig. 3.3. Figs. 3.4 and 3.5 feature the correspond-ing measurement curves. For easier comparison, the mathematical

results obtained from the 6 calculations are also listed in

these figures.

Furthermore, the most important mathematical results are plotted

in Figs. 3.7 to 3.10. These are pressure, steam quality and flow

rate.

Kraftwei* Union

AMU, 17-

A comparison of the calculated ma~ss -flow rate (Fig. 3.8) inPnIPE2 CELL~5 (measuring point Rflu 3003/3004) with the measurement

curve (Fig. 3.4) makes readily apparent that in this case the

outflow rate is calculated as being more than twice as high at'

0.1 s. This is due to the vessel connection. The actual outflow

losses are not covered by this model; this implies an excess-ive outflow velocity and a correspondingly high outflow rate.

This results in a faster pressure loss in the RPV, which has

nearly reached the pressure within the pipe after 0.1 s (Fig.

3.5).

Kraftwe* Union

- 18 -

Level 4. 1,44

PIPE 2

1 1I 2 1 3I 1. 5 1 11I2 131NIHII1 BREAKIPIPE 1

Level 3 2,6533

Level 2 2,48533

Level 1 2,8533

4.

VESSEL 3

HODR 1/3

Fig. 3.6

- 19 -

KWU TRAC-FD2-

EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMiETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

CHECK OF THE KDR TESTS WITH VESSEL COM"PONENT

CD BREAK40UTLET

LoJ

TIME CS) m 10'PIPE 2 - SEMI-IMPLICIT / VESSEL VERSION 3PRESSURE

KWU` TRAC-P.D2

EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMIETERS ON THE OUTFLOW BATE

CHECK OF THE EDR TESTS WITH VESSEL COMPONENTC30

o! PIPE 2 CELL TA PIPE t CELL 5+ VEWSL CELL 5

I-

Qa

PIPE 2 - SEMI-IMPLICIT / VESSEL VERSION 3PRESSURE Fig. 3.7

- 20 -

KWU` TRAC-PD2

EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

CHECK OF THE HDR TESTS WITH VESSEL COMPONENT

6BREAK40UTLET- 1t )lr Cli.L 9

PIP 2 - SEMI-IMPLICIT / VESSEL VERS ION5FLOW RATE

KWIJ TRAC-PD2

EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARMW'ETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATECHECK OF THE HDR TESTS WITH VESSEL COMPONENT

oD PIPE 2 CXLL IA PIPE 2 CELL

;.ecc.~ .Z2 .AOTI) .(S

PIPE 2 - SEMI-IMPLICIT I VESSEL VERSION 3FLOW RATE' Fig. 3. 8

- 21 -

KWU TRAC-PD2

EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS ON THtE OUTFLOW RATE

CHECK OF THE EDR TESTS WITH VESSEL COMPONENT

Q) FIrf I CUL :& lfrf I CILL I+ p I r I c ItL SX Fiff I CIL.L 9

.oc ~ ~ ~ -i ,: o., 0.3 -a .0 o~ 0.-,o.- -TIME(ýS) .10-' -

PIPE 2 -SEMI-IMPLICIT / VESSEL VERSION

STEAM QUALITY

KWU` TRAC-PD2

EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMIETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE


0 ~flp CE.LL t

+ VESSEL CELL S

TIME (s) -. o'

PIPE 2 Q EMI-IMPLICIt'/ VESSEL~ VERSION 3STEAM QUAL~ITY Fig. 3.9

- 22 -

KWU` T2RAC-PD2


CHECK OF THE EDR TESTS WITH VESSEL COMIPONENTr

X Pi~r I CUM 9

.. ~ ~w ~

C,'-"C

C-,

L~ C,0

0

a.

TIME (S) v 10"

PIPE 2 - SEMI-fIMPLICIT / VESSEL VERSION 3

PRESSURE

KWU` TRAC-PD2

'EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

CHECK OF THE HDR TESTS WITH VESSEL COM'PONENTC,0

CU

C-i

I-"

',_

9* 3im

C3

a.

Co

-.L

oD PIPE I CELL I,& PIPE I CELL 3+ PIPE I CELL 6X PIPE I CELL 9

Is

Tirl (s)- :..3 . - ý. j a -

PIPE 2 - SEMI-IIIPLICiT / VESSEL VERSION 3

FLOW RATE Fig. 3.10

-23-

5.2 11DR2/3 Automatic Vessel Junction

In-the following paragraphs,, the various possible vessel jun~c-

tions and their effects on the outflow rate as well as the

pressure curve are discussed.-.

In this model (Fig. 3.11), the pressure loss occurring due to

the contraction and turbulence of the flow upon leaving the

vessel, is taken into account within the pipe.

This is effected by reducing the vessel junction area within

the first two zones of the cross sectional area of the blowdown

pipe. The pressure loss resulting from the contraction is thus

automatically calculated with 1NFF = -4i, in accordance with. the

equations in Chapter 1. Fig. 3.4I shows a relatively good agree-

ment of the measured and the calculated curves of the outflow

rates.

The agreement in the pressure curve for the IRPV is similarly

extensive, whereas in the blowdown nozzle the value of approx.

10 bar remains below the measured curve. This is certainly due

to the outflow losses through the pipe and into the open being

insufficiently considered (Figs. 3.12 to 3.15).

Krafiwork Union

- 24 -

Level 14 1,44

Level 3 2,8533

Level-- 2 -- 2-8533

Level 1 2,8533

VESSEL 3

P PIPE 2 PIPE 213 BRA

1 6711

A

HODR 2/3

Fig. 3.11

- 25 -

KWU TRAC-PD2


CHECK OF THE 11DB TESTS WITH VESSEL COMiPONIE1T

oD PIPE 2 CELL I4 PIPE 2 CELL 3+ P IPE 2 CELL 6X< VESSEL CELL 5

L.J

a-

PIPE 2 - Fl/VESSEL VERSION 5/AUTOKATIC VESSEL JUNCTION

PRESSURE

KWU TRAC-PD2



C3

03

C3 I

C 7 ac 09 0

o! fiff I CCLL 146 PIPE ICELL 3+ PIPE I CELL 6X PIPE I CELL B

"a

C-,La0~

PIPE 2 ý- Fl/VESSEL VERSION 3/AUTOMATIC VESSEL JUNCTION

PRESSURE Fig. 3.12

- 26 -

KWU TRAC-PD2

EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAM~ETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE


PIPEP I CELL ISPIPE I CELL3

+ I PE I CELL 6X PIPE I CELL 9

0.40 0.o 0.60 0.70 0.80TIME Cs)1 .

VERSION 3/AUTOMATIC VESSELPIPE 2 - PI/VESSEL JUNCTIONSTEAMi QUALITY

KWU TRAC-PD2


CHECK OF THE HDlR TESTS WITH VESSEL COMPONENT'C

CC

C

~~1 I I

__ __ __ __ I __ __ ________ ______ I : ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

TAI I

~CI___ ___ _______ ___ ___ ___T I!

oD PIPE 2 CELL. I& PIPE 2 CELL. 3+ PI PC 2 CELL 6X VESSEL CELLS

.:; C 0 so i -6CTIME (s v .0--

I -GG

PIPE 2 - FI/VESSEL VERSION 5/AUTOMATIC VESSEL JUNCTION

STEAM QUALITY Fig. 3.15

- 27 -

KWU TRAC-1PD2


CHECK OF THEE HDR TESTS WITH VESSEL COMPONENT

CDC

.-c

Ccc

Q PI Prc ~Iu CEL&BREAK40OUTLET

0.00 0.10 0-20 0.30

VERSION 3/AUTOKjATIC VESSEL JUNCTIONPIPE 2 - FI/VESSEL

FLOW RATE

La.

KWU TRAC-PD2

EFFECT OF VARlIOUS PARAMETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

CHECK OF THE IiDR TESTS WITH VESSEL COMPONENT

Q

C3

in.

P IPE;~ CELL tPIPEc 2 CtfLL 0

TIME (S) I0

PIPE 2 - :FI/VESSEL VERSION 3/AUTOMA.TIC VESSEL JUNCTION

FLOW RATE Fig. 3.14V

- 28 -

KWVU TURAC-mPD2

EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMIETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATECHECK OF THE 1DR TESTS WITH VESSEL COMPONENT

CD IIP I CEL *i c I.& PIPE t CELL 3+ P I E I C ELL6

C3 X PIPE I CELL

0.0 o.1 0.20 0.30 0 .40 .50 0.6c 0.10 0.90 0.90 1 .00TIVZ (0s)0*

PIPE 2 -Fl/VESSEL VERSION 5/AUTOMIATIC VESSEL JUNCTIONFLOW RATE

Fis. 3.15

-29 -

3.3 HDR3/3 Automatic Vessel Junction with N9ozzle

This model (Fig. 5.16) -is intended to serve for a more de-

tailed examination of the effect of the boundary conditions on

the computation results. Here, a continuous transition from

the system state to the environment (BREAK) occurs, whereas in

all other calculations a pressure discontinuity function is

employed, which drops linearly from system pressure to I bar

within 2 ms. For this purpose, a nozzle with an opening angle

of 500 is positioned between the BREAK boundary condition and

the blowdown pipe. In order to prevent the possibility of a

water slug acting as a delay element in the nozzle, the nozzle

is filled with steam. However, this implies that for programm-

ing reasons, an instantaneous pressure drop to I bar must be

calculated. The time-based pressure curve thus displays a more

rapid drop to saturation pressure during the first few milli-

seconds than in the measurement, which'-can be clearly seen in

Fig. 3.5. On the whole, the calculated results agree best withthe measured results. Firstly, due to the increased outflow

velocity (in spite of an increase in steam formation), the

outflow rate features an even smaller deviation from the mea-

sured value than in the case of H7Df2/5; secondly, the pressure

level in the blowdown nozzle is slightly raised, so that the

pressure in the steady state agrees better with the measure-

menit curve.

This is due to the realistic simulation of the free jet. Nor-

mally, this effect should be covered-by the boundary conditions.

In any case, the program must take these outflow conditions into

account, provided these are exactly defined- in physical terms.

In a first approximation, a diffusor with an opening angle of500 can be used for this purpose.

Kraftwerk Union

- 30 -

PIPE 999

Level 4 1,44

Level 3 2j8533

Level 2 2,F8533

Level 1 2,8533

VESSEL 3

~PIPE 2 PIPEl1

1Y 6713

H DR 313

Fig. 3.16

- 31 -

KWU TRAC-PD2

EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS ON THlE OUTFLOW RATE

CHECK OF THE HDR TESTS WITH VESSEL COM~PONENT

o) ?lrr I CfL !;11PE it C'LI+ zrf C CLL 6

X rzrr I CELL 9

.0c C.10 c -20 0.30 c.40 .,,o 0 .6c - .-0 - 0.'sC 0.90 1.00TIME Cs) ~o

PIPE 2 - Fl/VESSEL VERSION 3/AUTOMATIC VESSEL JUNCTION WITH NOZZLE

STEAM Q.UAILITY

KWU TRAC-PD2


CHECK OF THE HDR TESTS WITH COMIPONENT

o ?HE i tECLL 13

+ PIPE , ' CELL 6X 'ECSSCL rt

TIME Cs) * .

PIPE 2 .- FI/VESSEL VERSION 3/AUTOMATIC VESSEL JUNCTION WITH NOZZLE


- 32 -

KWU TRAC-PD2


CHECK OF THE 11DB TESTS WITH VESSEL COMPFONENT

± !Pf 21 U'L !

;! rPf 2 ti'L 1

X vrrLCt'L

TME (s) -0PIPE 2 - Fl/VESSEL VERSION 3/AUTOMATIC VESSEL JUNCTION WITH NOZZLEPRESSURE

KWU TRAC-PD2


CHECK OF THE 11DB TESTS WITH VESSEL COMPONiENT

o! PIPE I CrtL IA. PIPE I CF'l *3+ PIPE I CE*L 6X( PIPE I CELL S

w

L.J

C-,C-,

0~

-~TRIE (S)* x*,s

PIPE 2 - F1/VESSEL VERSION 5/AUTOMATIC VESSEL JUNCTION WITH NOZZLE

PRESSURE Fig. 5.18

- 53 -

KWU TRAC-PD2

EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMtETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

CHECK OF THE HI)R TESTS WITH VESSEL COM1PONEN~T

! REAK' OUTLET

PIPEFLOW

2 - F1/VESSEL VERSION 3/AUTOM~ATIC VESSEL JUNCTION WITH NOZZLE

RATE

MW TRAC-Pfl2


CHECK OF THE HDR TESTS WITH VESSEL COM~PON~ENTaa

C)PIPE f CELL IA PIPE 2 CELL 6

''TIME (S)PIPE 2 - Fl/VESSEL VERSION 5/AUTONATIC VESSEL JUN~CTION WITH NOZZLE

FLOW RATE Fig. 5.19

- 341 -

-KWU TRA.C-PD2


-CHECK OF THE HDR TESTS.-WITH VESSEL COMiPONENT

,t irEF I CELL 3+ P I PE CftL 6X ripr I SELL 9

PIPE 2 - FI/VESSEL VERlSION 5/AUTOMATIC VESSEL JUNCTION WITH NOZZLE

FLOW RATE

Fig. 3.20

3.4 HJXR4/5 Ves "sel- Junction Area = Pipe Cross Sectional Area

with Los's Coefficient

An additional vessel junction option is provided by the dis-

cretization of the vessel junction area (Fig. 3.21), so that it

is in exact agreement with the pipe cross sectional area. How-

ever, this requires a great deal of discretization, which in the

case of a complex installation can hardly be implemented, as the

capacity of the computer is rapidly exhausted by the significant

increase in the number of celles in the vessel. Furthermore, the

outflow process from the EPV into the pipe is a three-dimensional

flow for which a model must be produced which also represents the

flow within the pipe. Within the BPV, as has already been men-

tioned, this is only possible with considerable difficulty; how-

ever, calculations within the pipe must always be one-dimensional,

so that it is impossible to produce a complex model of the three-

dimensional flow in the vessel nozzle with this program. Further-

more, due to the crude azimuthal subdivision of the RPV,the measured

value obtained from the test does not coincide with the mathemat-

ical location in the program, so that a direct comparison of the

curves is only possible to a limited extent.

.A comparison of the curves in Figs. 3.4 and 3.5 shows that due

to the increased pressure loss within the first few milliseconds,

the flow curve remains below the experimental curve due to the

increase in steam formation. In this case, the transition equal

in area does not lead to an improvement in the result, since the

loss for the outflow is not taken into consideration to a suf-

ficient degree, in spite of I~ being given as 0.5.

Kraftwerk Union

- 36 -

t

PIPE 2 IPIPE 1

Level 4 0,1773

Level 3 3, 2742

Level 2 3,2742

Level 1 31 274 2

VESSEL 3

111251213 1 j ~123L4U BREAK

.1

HDR 4/5

Fig. 3.21

- 57 -

XWU TRAC-PD2EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

CHECK OF THE HJ)R TESTS WITH VES$EL- COMPONENT

(D BREAK40UTLETd, *lE I UILL 9

TIME (S) 1 1PIPE 2 - SI/VESSEL VTERSION 5/ZETA (VESSEL OFF) 0ý.5

FLOW RATE

KWLJ TRA.C-PD2

EFTECT OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

CHECK OF. THE IIDR TESTS WITH VESSEL COMPONENT

o noi 2 Ltut t,A Pift t2W.ZL 3

PIPE 2 - SI/VrESSEL VERSION 5/ZETA (VESSEL OFF) =0.5

FLOW RATE Fig. 3.22

- 38 -

KWU TRAC-PD2 -

EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMiETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

CHECK OF THE EDE TESTS WITH VESSEL COMIPONENT

(0 BREAK40UTLET

liML k5) . v 0'

PIPE 2 - SI/VESSEL VERSION 5/ZETA (VESSEL OFF) = 0.5

PRESSURE

KWU TRAC-PD2


.CHECK OF THE H])R TESTS WITH VESSEL COMPONENT

Air 2 CCLL S+ Vasa: £II.L0

4

S

1-0


PRESSURE Fig. 2.23

- 39 -

KWU TBAC-PD2

EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMETEBS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

CHECK OF THE 11DB TESTS WITH VESSEL COMPON~ENT.

;I*rr I CI.L LI PfE I tf~t 5

X PIPE I CELL 9

b.oc cI - c., - 0.30 -C.40 - '. 0.7. .0 0 .80 0.90TIME (S) wigo-,

PIPE 2 -SI/VESSEL VERSION 5/ZETA (VESSEL OFF) =0.5

STEAM QUALITY

KWU TRAC-PD2


CHECK OF TEE 11DB TESTS WITH VESSEL COMPONENT

+ vrwcumt. 9

TirE (S)PIPE 2 -SI/VESSEL VERiSION 5/ZETA (VESSEL OFF) =0.5

STEAM QUALITY F:ig. 3.24

- 40 -

KWU TRAC-PD2



A+x

*!Ff! rr

firr ~1L 9

i

PIPE 2 - SI/VESSEL VERSION 5/ZETA (VESSEL OFF) =0.5

PRESSURE

KWU TRAC-PD2


CHECK OF THE HDR TESTS WITH VESSEL COMPONENTC39

CDPP CEL.L I& PIPE I CELL 3+ PIPE CELL 6X FIFE I CUL. 9

i

TIME Cs)


FLOW RATE Fig. 3.25

AV%-41-

3.5 HDR5/4' HTJ4/5 without -

The difference between this calculation and the last calcula-

tion in subsection 3.4 lies in the reduced model of the down-comner, consisting of a single ann~ulus compared to 2 annuli in

the HDR4/5 and IflJI6/5 calculations. It can be seen from Fig.

3.4 that the calculated time-based mass flow curve deviates by

more than 40 % from the measurement. This calculation showsquite clearly that this discretization leads to a different

pressure profile and thus also to a different velocity profile

in the downcomer, which in turn effects a higher outflow rate.

It is thus evident that with an increasing number of annuli in

the RPV downcomer and equal surface area ratios in the nozzle

area, closer agreement of the mathematical results with the

measurements is achieved.

Krafiwerk Union

.- 42 -

PIPE 2 IPIPE 1

Level 4 0,1773

Level 3 3,2742

Level 2 3,2742

Level 1 3, 2742

VESSEL 3

1 1 211 & ' 11I2131&4W BREAK

(A

H DR 5/4.

Fig. 3.26

- 43 -

KWU TIAC-PD2


CHECK OF THE HDR TESTS WITH VESSEL COMiPONENT

* ______ J _______ ______ ______________________ ______ ______ ______ ______

C-,I I j I I.- C,

t~.j c.,. __________ _________ _________ _________ _________

(D BREAK40UTLET4- 'Iff I UL 9

C,

C,ýC?C3

10TIME (s)

PIPE 2 -SENI-IIIPLICIT/VESSEL

FLOW RATEVERSION 4

C.¶C C.SO .0O

KWU TRAC-PD2

EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAM'~ETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

CHECK OF THE EDI? TESTS WITH VESSEL COM'PONENT

?~in 'c au. 5

PIPE 2 - SENI-INPLIC IT/VESSEL VERSION 4i

FLOW RATE Fig. 3.27

KWU TRAC-PD2


.CHECK OF THE KDR TESTS WITH VESSEL COMiPONENT

-ii1

WI2CA~

~

~iI)

0) BREAK40OUTLET

t

PIPE 2 - SEMI-fIMPLICIT/VESSEL VERSION 4

PRESSURE

EMWl TRAC-PD2

EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAME~TERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

CHECK OF THlE 11DR TESTS WITH VESSEL COMiPONENTaa.c~.

a0

p PIPE t cflL IA PIPE 2 CELL 5+ VEBSfl. CELL 5

cc-

JIME (S)SEliI-IHPL~ICIT/VFSSEL VERSION 4PIPE 2 -

PRESSURE Fig. 5.28

- 45 -

KWIJ TRAC-PD2



C,C,

W0

o *iPE I CFLL '' Iirf I Mt.I 3

+ rlPf k CR.L 6X !Zrr I CULL. 9

TIME CS) s10-,

PIPE 2 - SEMI-IMPLICIT/VESSEL VERSION 4

PRESSURE

KWU TRAC-PD2


,,HECK OF THE HDR TESTS WITH VESSEL COMPONENT

^.^a C.10 1C.40 ^ ~.110 1.r 1-70TIME (S) 1 -

SEMI-IMPLICIT/VESSEL VERSION 4PIPE 2 -

FLOW RAT] Fig. 3.29

- 46 -

KWEJ TRAC-PD2


CHECK OF THE FfDR TESTS WITH VESSEL COMIPONENT

A !Pf I C~

+ lrr I Ct' L 5X riFF I CEU. 9

.5

i

OCl S.10 0.~ .3 .O C ~ O6 .TIME (S)

PIPE 2 - SEMI-IMPLICIT/VESSEL VERSION 4

STEAM QUALITY

C3

KWU TRAC-Pfl2

E FFE CT OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

CHECK OF THE IUYR TESTS WITH VESSEL COMPONENT

c;

0L

(! rIP! t.CL IA rIPt t CELL 5+ VEsSSM CELL S

5 -- sTIME (S)

VERSION 4

I.'393 1. -0.

PIPE 2 - SEMI-IMIPLICIT/VESSEL


-47-

5.6 IflR6/5 HDR4/5 with By-pass in Blowdown Nozzle

This calculation is basically identical with IITR4/5. However,

in this case, the bypass to the blowdown nozzle is moddlled,

which is used in the ebxperimental set-up for setting a uniform

-temperature distribution within the nozzle.

In view of the measurement curves, the question remained-as to

whether the liquid present in the bypass might prevent flash-

ing in the nozzle within the initial 10 to 20 ins, thus increas-

ing the outflow rate. This assumption could be confirmed by the

calculation as a trend; however, the effect on the mathematical

results is marginal. It was assumed, however, that the valve in

the bypass is closed, so that only liquid from the dead end can,

flow into the blowdown nozzle.

The drop of the outflow rate to zero after 5 ms can be clear-ly seen in Fig. 3.4. None of the .po st-te st-c alculat ions has produced

results which have even approximated this behaviour. This is

probably due to the rupture opening not being included with a

sufficient degree of accuracy. After the rupture disc has been

destroyed, a certain amount of time is required to blow it out

of the pipe. During this time, however, the first decompres-

sion wave is reflected from the LIDR inlet and hits the disc

still located in the pipe.

The outflow rate is thus reduced to zero and subsequently rises

again with an increased gradient. This process could be clari-

fied,, by using for instance the PISCES-2 DELK-pro gramn.

Kraftwerk Union

.1

- 48 -

PIPE 2 ITEEl1

Level 4 0,1773_

Level 3 3,2742

Level 2 3,2742T

Level 1 3,2742

VESSEL 3

1 1i 1 13 1 1 5 1112[131 RE\ AK191011I

1312

FIL Y=O

V

HDR 6/5

Fig. 5.31

-- 49 -

KWU TRAC-PD2

EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAM4ETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

CHECK OF THE HDR TESTS WITH VESSEL COM2PONENTC

oBREAK40OUTLET6 ?(C I? CELLUI

PIPE 2 - SI/VESSEL VERSION 5/ZETAL (VESSEL OFF) = 0.5 WITH BYfPASS

FLOW RATE __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

KWU TRAC-PD2


CHECK OF THE 11DR TESTS WITH VESSEL COMPONENTC39

0 PIPE Z CELLIA PIPE t CELL 5

PIPE 2 - SI/VESSEL VERSION 5/ZETA (VESSEL OFF) = 0.5 WITH BYPASS

FLOW RATE Fig. 3.32

- 50 -

KWU TRAC-Pfl2EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAM~ETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATECHECK OF THE IiDR TESTS WITH VESSEL COMIPONENT

0 BREAK40UTLET

PIPE 2 - SI/VESSEL VERSION 5/ZETA (VESSEL OFF) = 0.5 WITH BYPASSPRESSURE_____

KWU TRAC-PD2

EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATECHECK OF THE 11DR TESTS WITH VESSEL COMIPONENT

0 1UttCEL?'A let *.CPl994+ 'Ir it VMLLX let lrtiF -lt.

a.

TDIM (s) T

PIPE 2 -SI/VESSEL VERSION 5/ZETA (VESSEL OFF) = 0.5 WITH BYPASSPRESSURE Fig. 3.33

- 51

KWU TRAC-FD2EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

CHECK OF THE ITDR TESTS WITH VESSEL COMIPONENT

0 rift 2 CELL I,& PIPE 2 CELL 5+ V ESSEfL CELL SX VESSEL CELL 5

PIPE 2 - SI/VESSEL VERSION 5/ZETA (VESSEL OFF) = 0.,5 WITH BYPASS

PRESSURE

a

L.t

KWIJ TRAC-PD2

EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAM'ETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE

CHECK OF THE HDR TESTS WITH VESSEL COMiPONEN~T

@4

mcd

C90-07 0 D 10

CD Tgv t 1?cr.L AA Aft -it CELL 4+ MK IF CELL. *1X nTE IF CELLSO

.00 0.10

PIPE 2 -

FLOW RATI

TIME (S) maSI/VESSEL VERSION 5/ZETA (VESSEL OFF) =0.-5WITH BYPASS

Fig 5.54

- 52 -

KWU TRAC-PD2

EFFECT OF VARIOUS PAPRAMETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATE- .CHECK OF THE KDE TESTS WITH VESSEL COMIPONENTC

0 IEE IF CELL I,& TEr IF CELLI+ Trr I F CELL 7X TEE If CELLIII

#4

1OO0 .0 0-o .20 0.3 0 .4 , 0-i fl.i 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

TIME (S) z1* 1PIPE 2 -SI/VESSEL 1 VERSION 5/ZETA (VESSEL OFF) =0.5 WITH BYPASSSTEAM QUALITY

KWU TRAC-PD2

EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAM~ETERS ON THE OUTFLOW RATECHECK OF THE IIDR TESTS WITH VESSEL COMPONENT

o! ?IPCI.LLX tilrf,461LL a+ vEuIsI CELL 9

a

0.00 0.10 G..-0 0.30 0.43 3.5G , 0.60 0.10 0.80

TIVE Cs) 1 'PIPE 2 - SI/VESSEL VERSION 5/ZETA (VESSEL OFF)STEAM QUALITY

=0.5 WITH BYPASS

fig. 3.35

- 53 -

3.7 Summary o-f the Results from HIM? Computations

Comparing the pressure and mass flow curves for the various

computations plotted in Figs. 3.41 and 3.5, it can be stated

with a high degree of certainty that the computations HDP2/5

',d 3/3 yield by far the best results. In these two models,

the pressure loss due to outflow from the RPV is calculated

relatively well, so that very close agreement of the pressure

curves as well as the mass flow curves with the measurements

is obtained. The EDR2/3 computation is to be given preference

over the others here, as the transition from the system state

to the ambient state is modelled with pl-y7sical exactness with

the aid of the nozzle, thus forcing the program-to take these

conditions into account in the calculations.

Krattwork Union

54-

4 TRAC .Coniponents

This chapter contains several hints which have resulted from

the work done so far with the TRAC program. However, there are

plans to establish a systematic card file of all TRAC users

so as to profit from the experience of others.

4.1 TRIP-DATA

W~hen restarting with TRIP cards, the following possibilities

exist: Firstly, the TRIP-data cards can again be placed into

the input. This leads to the TRIP being reinitialized and re-

started. In most cases, however, the TRIP is to be continued

with the restart. In this case, a card with a negative numb~er

and a blank card must be placed behind the Main Control Cards,

so that the TRIP's are read in from the restart file. This is

the only way to continue an already started TRIP in the re-

start mode.

Xraftiwork Union

-55-

4. 2 BREAK

This instruction is based on several test calculations regard-

ing the arrangement of components having a BREAK at the

inlet and the outlet.

In this case, so high a pressure difference is obtained that

the flow velocities in the components may be far greater than

the speed of sound. For this reason, no useful results can be

obtained with this calculation; in principle, this arrangement

is therefore not advisable. As an alternative, either a large

vessel or a large-volume pipe can be employed for the pressure

boundary condition.

IKraftwerk Union

-56-

4-.3 TEE-

This component allows the modelling of branches in a

network.

The following conditions should be fulfilled: A minimum of 2

celles should exist between the junction celles of the side3

tube and the pipe end of the primary tube, as otherwise

numerical instabilities must be expected.

Fig. 4I.3.1 shows an obstructed rupture with a TEE; the geometri-

cal data are represented as a function of pipe diameter.

Fig. '4.3.1

This model has generally proven to be reliable. Furthermore,

it is important to reduce the celle length in the rupture open-

ing to 1 cm, so as to keep the time interval at the high out-

flow velocities as small as possible.

Kraffwerk Union

A992fth,

Ar- _1%

%Wj

- 57'-

4.4 STEAM GENERATOR

The great advantage of the TRAC program is the modular arrange-

ment of complex installations. For this reason, realistic mo-

deling is possible with all components. The only exception is

the steam generator, since only the flow in the inner shroud is

calculated. The secondary side of the steam generator thus only

acts as a heat sink. This fact barely has any relevance for the

pressure wave analysis in the primary circuit, so that no

negative effect results from this. Nevertheless, an improved

steam generator component is to be employed in subsequent TRAC

versions. For the steam generator component in this TRAC version,

two items of information are required for the feed-water inlet

on the secondary side. These are inlet velocity and inlet tem-

perature. The respective values are determined by the following

calculating operation:

VAW TRAC SystemBounidary

.1L4A1,

Fig. 4.4

Kraftwerk Union

hv%VW

- 58 -

During steady-state operation, ~1W =-"I ;Hence:

ýG= f'W (h' - hW) Eqn. 4. 1

for the steam generator i- SG

This equation allows us to calculate the inlet water mass flow:

ýSG"W=Un-h Eqn. 4. 2

Furthermore, the following equation applies to the riser:

31 ris hris = 11W hW + (C - 1) 31W h' Eqni. 4. 3

C ý- number of cycles

With the mass flow rate in the riser given as

ALris s . Eqn. 4.4

we obtain the following expression for the enthalpy in the riser:

1!W hW + (C - 1 ) AW . hhri s - Eqn. 4.5

~ri a

With the enthalpy obtained from Equation 4.5 and with the aid

of the steam table, the temperature of the water in the riserspace and hence the inlet temperature in the FILL on the second-

ary side of the steam generator can be calculated.

Furthermore, the specific volume at that temperature and system

pressure can be determined from the steam table.

Hence it follows from Equation 4.6 that

'~ 1 311ri s

= kgnas jh& s v Eqn. 4.6

Kraftwork Union

'p- 59 -

Given the f low area oiia the secondary side, the inlet velocity

into the riser can be calculated using Equation 4.7:

Vri =Iris Eqn. 4.7

Thus all the input parameters required for the FILL on the

secondary side of7 the steam generator are known.

Kraffiverk Union

- 60 -

4.5 VESSEL

As a matter of principle, only one PIPE component may be con-

nected to the VESSEL component. If it should be necessary to.

initialize a pressure loss in the junction area of the PIPE

component by stating a I value, the pressure loss is given by Eqn.4. 5.1

hp= IPIPE * 17 3V2 PIPE, End Eqn. 4.5.1

The corresponding FRIO PIPE value, which is entered as an input

parameter, follows from Equation 4.5.2:

FI PIPE -P ILLH D PIPE Eqn . 4.5.2

The individual items of Equation 4.5.2 are depicted in Figure

4.5.1.

5PIPE e-A

A

PIPE

Fig. 4.5.1

Kraftwerk Union

AOMIth,K in

%F- 61 -

Equation 4.5.2 also applies in ~case s where the PIPE component

is connected to one of' the inner cylinder surf'aces of the ves-

sel component; of course, a different &r must be employed.

Furthermore, it is possible to state " values inside the vessel

component so as to take for instance the pressure loss upon

flowing through a cooling channel into account. In this case,

the loss coefficient 5 between two axially superimposed celles

is determined and enters as CFZ input. Its numerical value is

obtained from Equation 4.5.3:

CFZ' I AXIAL--2h1,2

Eqn. 4. 5. 3

with Fig. 4.5.2 explaining the geometric parameter h112 -

.4

A i4IV, # TAXIAL

112.

I

h41 2

Fig. 4.5.3

Kraftwerk Union

AsEbý,AV 'M

um

-, 62 -

If a 1coefficient is to be inserted between two radiai celles,

Equation 4.5.L14 applies:

CFR - ! RADIAL~2&Kij Eqn. 4.5.4

Ar1,,2 being given in Fig. 4.5.3.

A r1, 2 = ~--~+ B-

Fig. 4.5.3

Kraftwork Union

-63-

4.6 PUMP -. a

The pump is an important aid for the exact setting of the steady

state solution. In complex model configurations, it is the only

effective means of influencing the steady state setting. Such a

model consists, tor example, of a RPV and two closed loops, so that no

boundary conditions, neither BREAK's nor FILL's, which determine

the state of the installation, exist. The pump determines both

the flow rate (i.e. the mixture velocity) and the pressure in-

crease in the loop. The required data are included in the input

of the pump.

M21. Rated head 7'

5

2. Rated torque /Nm/M3

3. Rated flow /L-

4. Rated density k

5. Rated pump speed /rpm/

The input information of the rated head consists of the head of

the pump multiplied by the gravitational constant g. This can

be expressed as follows:

RH =H .g 2 Eqn. 4.6.1

RH = Rated head/2/5

H = Discharge head of the pump (manufacturer's specification) /m/

g = Gravitational constant PT

The specific rated speed is given by the following equation:

nq = Eqn. 4.6.2

H3/

nq = Specific rated speed 1rpm!

n = Speed /rpm/

Kraftwverk Union

-64I

H = Head/m

Q= Flow rate P-is

The relationship between the pressure. increaseap and the rated

head is given by the following equation:

Eqn. 4.6.3

-- p = Pressure increase in the pump /bar/

S= Rated density/kM3

With the aid of the last two equations, 4.6.2 and 4.6.3, the

flow rate and the pressure increase in the pump can be set within

a certain bandwidth. The procedure is as follows:

The manufacturer's pump data are used in the first mathematical

operation for the steady state setting. The specific rated speed

nq is given by Equation 4.6.2. The current values for each of

the boundary conditions then result from the TRAC computation.

If the calculated values do not sufficiently correspond with the

intended setting, the input data are corrected in a new compu-

tation. If, for example, the flow rate through the pump and the

loop is insufficient, the specific rated speed nq is to be in-

creased in accordance with Equation 4.6.2. If furthermore the

pressure increase achieved by means of the pump is insufficient,

IRH (Equation 4..6.1) would also have to be increased. This in

turn has an effect on the specific rated speed nq, which there-

fore must also-be'changed. This is evidently an iterative pro-

cess, which must be continued until the values calculated by

means of TRPLC correspond with the stipulated setting. This method

has been tried and tested in practice by setting each of the

circuits individually and only then linking the component sys-

tems to the RPV.

Kraftwerk Union

-65

5 General TBAC Instructions-

In the following paragraphs, several facts or items of experi-

ence are briefly outlined.

Due to its state equations, the TRAC program can only compute

up to a pressure of 190 bar.

Since the error messages are not always very informative and a

direct cause may not be indicated, the input should be checked

very thoroughly. All errors that hitherto appeared to be in-

explicable were inpunt errors.

In order to accomplish an optimal setting of a steady state

solution, the components should be tested individually and only

then be combined to form a system. This may mean having to put

up with more extensive paperwork, since it is not possible to

combine several restart files. However, there are plans to pro-

vide for such an operation.

In pressure wave analyses, DELT = 1. E-5 should be employed in

the calculation during the first 10 to 20 ms in order to accu-

rately calculate the initial phase of the decompression wave.

Kraftwerk Union

-66-

References

/1/ TRAC-PD2

An Advanced Best Estimate Com-puter Program for PWR

LOCA Analysis, LOS ALJAMOS Scientific Laboratory

NUPEG/CR-2054

/2/ HDR Versuchsprogramm

/3/ G. HughesTRAC-P1 A

Inbetriebnabme auf der CYBER 176

KWU-Arbeitsbericht R 11/2113/79

/4/ J. Herterich

Diplomarbeit IKWIJVerifikationsrec'bnuingen fUr das ProgrammsystemTRAC-PD2 anhand einiger me~technisch erfa~ter, bzw. a

analytisch berechenbarer VersucheBochum/Erlangen 19)81

Kraftwerk Union

NRC FORM 335 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER (Assigned by TIOC. add Vol. No., it any).12-84)

3201,I320 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET TUE/A00SEE INSTRUCTICNS ON THE REVERSE.

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 3. LEAVE BLANK

Assessment of TRAC-PD2 Usinci SUPER CANNON and HDRExperimental Data 4. DATE REPORT COMPLETED

MONTH YEAR

5. AUTHOR(S)

6. DATE REPORT ISSUED

U.NemanMONTH Y EARU._________Neumann_________________ Auciust 1986

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS (Includeztjo Code) B. PROJECT/TASK/WORI( UNIT NUMBER

Kraftwerk Union 9.__FIN __OR__GRANT__NUMBER_

Hammerbacherstr. 12+14 9 I RGATNME

Postfach 32208520 Erlanaen, The Federal Republic of Germany

10. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS (Include Zp Code) Ila. TYPE OF REPORT

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Technical ReportU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ______________

Washington, DC 20555 b. PERIOD COVERED fnuieas

12. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

13. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

This report assesses the predictive capabilities of the Transient Reactor-AnalysisCode (TRAC-PD2) using data from the SUPER CANON and HEISS DAMPF REACTOR (HOR) experiLmental facilities. The report is divided into three parts. Part I is the TRAC-PD2assessment using the SUPER CANON data. Part II is the TRAC-PD2 assessment using HORdata. Part III provides recommendations for the user using the combined assessmentresults. In general, it is shown that the TRAC-PD2 predictions were in good agreementwith the actu~i test pressures and mass flow rates for both these tests. TRAC-.PD2provided considerably better results thaii TRAC'PlA. This was particularl'y true withregard to sound velocity predictions which play a signifcdnt role whenever the speedof pressure relief waves must be determined.

14. UU'.UMcNT ANALY5I5 -4. KEYWDRD5IDE5CRIPTORS14. DOCUMENT ANALYSIS - a. KEYWORDSIDESCRIPTORS 15. AVAILABILITY

STATEMENT

TRAC-PD2, Super Canon, and HDR

b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN.ENDED TERMS

Unl imited16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

(T7hiis )ec

Unc fssified( This res'jort

Uncl ass if ied17. NUMBER OF PAGES

1s. PRICE

UNITED STATESNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555

OFFICIAL BUSINESSPENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

SPECILFOURTH-CLASS RATEPýTG rFEES PAID

IUSNRCII WASH. D.C

PERMITNo.G-67

/*

-t

NUREG/IA-0001, 'Assessment of TRAC-PD2 Using Super Cannon ... · agreement for the exchange of...

Documents

Transcript of NUREG/IA-0001, 'Assessment of TRAC-PD2 Using Super Cannon ... · agreement for the exchange of...