Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Attachment 2 to AEP:NRC:0900M
FAUSKE ANDASSOCIATES'CTOBER
9, 1997 PRESENTATION
svcoava~ss evxomPDR AOGCK 05000815P PDR
4 ANAIVSKS OF 'AiE D.C. COOKCGNT NY RESPGNSE TG S54V L
BREAKI QSS-GF-CGGI AWE ACCIDENTS
R. E. HenryPauske A Associates, Inc.
Presented toUSNRC
White Flint GfficesRockville, Maryland
Gctober 9, 1997
OVI'IINK
Introduction to the MAAP4 computer code.
Benchmarking calculations for this effort.
Comparison of the containment pressure andice melt rate with I.OTIC-3 for 6" and 2"cold leg breaks.
Comparison of the RCS break flowwith theNOYRUMIP model for 6" and 2" cold leg
, breaks.
Comparison of RCS break Qow with a largebreak BSA calculation.
Comparison of the containment responsegiven DSA mass and energy releases.
Comparison with the Westinghouse icecondenser experiments.
o Important input parameters and sensitivitystudies for the B.C. Cook nuclear plantevaluations.
Results for postulated small break I GCAs at theB.C. Cook nuclear lant.
BASIS PGR INVIKSTIGATINGASPECTRUM GF I GCA CONDITIONS
A I OCA must be large enough for thecontainment sprays to be activated and neededover the long term.
For a large I OCA, the RCS willdepressurize,I PI willbe initiated and the core willbe cooledwith cold water leaving the RCS break location.In this case, the containment sprays would onlybe required early in the accident.
The sensitivity calculations show that theutilization of containment sprays is the greatestfor small I OCA conditions. The utilization ofcontainment sprays is determined by the transientcontainment pressure including (a) the spraysturning on ifthe pressure increases to 2.9 psigand turned off at 1.5 psig, and (b) the sprays runcontinuously once they are activated. Both areevaluated.
IXIRODUCTIONTO 'IHEMWU'4 COMPVIER CODE
EPRI owned code and used internationally.
Developed and maintained under a QA program incompliance with 10CFRSO, App. B.
MAAZ4is structurally organized as a modular code andincludes models for:
the reactor core response (BWR 4 PWR),
the reactor coolant system response (BWR 4 PWR),
the steam generators (PWR),
the containment response (BWR 4 PWR),
the contributions of the emergency safeguard features(BWR & PWR), and
the response of adjacent plant building (auxiliarybuilding, etc) where appropriate (BWR 4 PWR) ..
As an integral system model, the focus of MAAP4 is on thetotal plant response to postulated accident conditions, withparticular emphasis on accident management evaluations.
As an integral system model, the 1VQMP4 focus is on thebest-estimate evaluations for all phenomena evaluated.
MD4V'4Modular Accident Analysis Program
M44U'4 is a modular computer program written in fortranand is directed at evaluating the integral response of theRCS, containment and ESFs to a broad spectrum ofpossible accident conditions.
The MMQ'4 code is fast running (variable timestep) andhas been developed for:
PWRNSSS (B&W, CE, + K) designslarge dry containments,subatmospheric containments,ice condenser containments.
BWR NSSS (ABB + GE) designsMark I containments,Mark IIcontainments,Mark ID containments.
CAZG)U NSSS designsOntario Hydro containment designs with thevacuum building,AECL design with a separate containment foreach reactor.
VVER NSSS designsreactor confinement including the bubble tower.
Fugen NSSS designsingle containment with a suppression pool.
HV(5100997.A
MMQ'4Modular Accident Analysis Program
(Continued)
MAIAP4modeling includes:
Response to LOCA or inadequate cooling conditions.
Models for core degradation, core melt progression,debris quenching, etc. necessary to evaluate severeaccident conditions.
A generalized containment model that promotesextensive containment nodalization ifdesired. Thisgeneralized containment is used for all containmenttypes listed above.
M44&'4 contains a dynamic benchmarking capability thatenables the best-estimate models to be benchmarked withavailable experiments and experience. These benchmarkscan be easily repeated as the code evolves.
HV$ 100997-h
Steam Outlot (to turbino)
SteamGenerator
Steam Outlet(to turbine)
Feedwator Inlet(from con4onser)
Main Coolant Pump
Feedweter Inlet(from con4„neer)
Coro
ReactorVoo@H
4 Loop Westinghouse Reactor Coolant System
Cohl LeeSteam Geneakr
Cold LegTubes
Peseurtzer~
12
Leg $ 38
3'Vr@nkten'oops
B ~ IntennecHateLeg
1 'Broken'oop(NodaMzation Same as
Unbroken Loop)
FlNIce 3-1 PNR primary iyitcm nodalizatiea for Ncstinghousc 4-loop design.
: "- --' I-.i":r34Bt%i%&+'.r8%5@Ci@liKWKWl%~~.~ ~.-I';%.'~~~t=~
t IS* & ~ ~ " ~
. //'//J//r///lrr/-.r'/: -:,Ir(rr.
/,/. . ~!i~.-/i~ .r/r~ ". ''' I
'' %i'/iyirrrr~rr~rrirrrrr - ~ //ri r;,/r'rrr/r//r/r',
r/ ~ ' '
.. //////////r////r.'./. / '::s '+ /rrrriirrrirrirrr//Ir;.r i
~ 'I
,iiiir r/.
rrrr.. y 'yrriri r/r'I"
'I'///
.Ilr.
5.—'%//r/=/r'WK- bl ii
~ i FN.rZ. "'CMtl &'C%C
IIIi$~t
Irri/i ~TT
A I
'ir ~ r
rI .'I)'. ii r,
/yg
A/0~ iriii
iiri
'sr $,'ii
CP ~,;+r'ri
;i
'C'
pI /////////rrr
rrrr.
r cl 'h iiAI
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrPSNI/g P/Jill//SF ÃYISiÃXIIIPYPllixrirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrirrrrrrrrr/rrrrrirr'rJ
yt
PI
I
;~II
'r t?~» Pf =gI'~W '-~I, ', I."Ipm
~ ~ 5 I W W ' )J e' biol IX Se. 1,;I. ~ l. rl
UpperPlenum Compartment
IceCondenser
a
IceCondenser
DoorDead End
,'ompartment
0 ~
~ . 0
0
p~o<g'aio
Cavity
'.0."o '.0 e - 0 ~
A a+''gA4'+ a
o".
KS93N007.COA 11M'
o.... ~~ CV: b: a. y O' 0 Lower
Compartment
Figure 1 Containment diagram for an ice condenser plant.
VOLUMEII DATE: 05/01/94REVISION: 0.0
UpperPlenum Upper Compartment
IceCondenser
lceCondenser
DoorDead End
Compartment
)C.P '
P~cs ap P~Nest.jy~P
AAOSlON.COW >4@0
Cavity4 ~ ~
LowerCompartment
D. C. Cook 10 Node Containment Model
768'4'48'4'1
5'.7)1'pper
CompartmentUpper Dome Region
Upper CompartmentLower Dome Region
(Fan)J,
Q
8
Env Ironm8nt
Q»
(Skimmer)
+q, (Sammer)
J8715'11'ce
Cond.Upper
PlenumV
715711'pper
ompartmenthndrical
(Loakago)J11
( 4I ro)
808''p
or )oo 8ooPZR 4 SGEndo auro8 Enc)o8ur88
V
Ice ond.88 ~
top oooo) 8414%'4
re>1 Ioor)
Qve
Ran0o MalnySorf~) m'4'n
840.7't)oeoe orop oocrc)
508'%'owerCompartment
Qv~
AnnularCompt.
Q821'4'Af)nulus)
Cavity
J, (Tunnel)
ru8)4oo07.cort 1&~
D.C. Cook MAAP4 10 Node/18 JunctionContainment Model
HUG'rM297.A
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
k" a ~ ~
~ S
~ ~ ~
MAJOR BENCHMARKS
MAAP4
yster Creek loss-of-feedwater (BWR)
Cope
each Bottom turbine trip tests (BWR)
okai-2 turbine trip (BWR)
rystal River loss-of-feedwater and stuckn PORV (PWR)
CurrentDynamic
Bench marks
Davis-Besse loss-of-feedwater (PWR)
rown's Ferry fire (BWR)
I-2 (RCS)
I-2 containment
HEBUS
OFT-FP-2
Y (0-5 hrs.)
Y (0-5 hrs.)
ORA (BWR R PWR)
W ice condenser tests
Ice condenser DB calculation
W SG tests
0
aterial creep
COVE aerosol tests
RNL fission product release tests
DEMONA aerosol tests
ACE
ACE experiments
ETA experiments
4 CQM''ENC S
KEPORTEB XN 'lKKGPEN LITERA'PURE
S. J. Lee, et al., "Benchmark of the YKDREll.2Containment Hydlrogen MHxing Expex imentUsing the MVkAP4 Co@e," SUbBDttedl foxNovembex, I997 ANS meeting.
C. Y. PaRk, et al., "Validation Exercise fox theMIAA3P4 Containment Morsel," HfthInternational Confex'ence on Simulation Methodsin Nuclear Engineering, Montxeal, Canada,September S-II, I996.
H. Xixmka, et al., "An Analysis of HydlrogenMUoa'mg andi Bistribution Px'oMem ISP-35 UsingMA%F4 Code," PSA'95 Px oceedlings, November,I995.
BENC CAICULATIGNSFQR THE D.C. CQGK SBI.QCA
SUMP FJtI I EVALUATIGNS
Containment pressure and ice meltcomparison with I0'rIC-3.
6" cold leg LOCA.2" coM leg I OCA.
0 Yhe break Qow x'ate spectrum used in theMlAAP4scopHlg calculathons compax'ed withthe NOTRUMIP model.
6" coM leg LOCA.2" cold l.eg I GCA.
Yhe break How x ate for a large break I OCADSA condition.
The contamment xesponse given BSA massand energy xeleases to containment.
Comparison of the MlAAP4 ice condensexmodel with the VYestinghouse experiments.
WHAT IS EXPECTED FRGMTHE BENCHMAjRKCALCUIATIGNS
Assure consistency between "best estimate" and"design basis" analyses.
Assure consistency of the MAAP4 ice condensermodel with the experimental basis
large I GCA,
medium I.GCA,
small IGCA.
CGMtPAiRXSON VVXYHTIKELOYLC-3 RESUI I'
This compaxison is an ev"luation of therespective containment models.
The boundaxy conditions fox bothevaluations axe the mass and energy x'eleases
fxom a 6" and a 2" cold leg IOCA as
calculated by NOYRlUMP.
Given the NGYRM4P mass and energyxeleases and the specification of the Cookcontainment, the x'esulting containmentxesponse fox the tvvo models can be
corn pax'ed.
D.G.GOOK 6-INCH LOC A
MAAP4 (TEXITI F)LOTIC-3 (NOMINAL ICE MELT) 0
0
TIME
Comparison of the LOTIC-3 and MAAP4 ice depletion rate for a six-inch diameter cold let LOCA (NOTRUMP)for the D.C. Cook Unit 2.
D.C.COOK 6-lNCH LOCA
MAAP4 (TEXITI~ )LOTIG-3 (NOMINAL IGE MELT) ()
0
TIME
Comparison of the calculated D.C. Cook Unit 2 containment pressure for LOTIC-3 and MAAP4. The RCS
blowdown is common to each analysis and is calculated for a six-inch diameter cold leg break using NOTRUMP.
D.C. COOK 2-INCH LOCA
MAAP4 (TEX)TI )LOTIG-3 (NOMINAL ICE MELT) ()
T IME
Comparison of the LOTIC-3 ice depletion rate for a two-inch diameter cold leg LOCA with the MAAP4 calculationusing the same mass and energy inputs from the NOTRUMP calculation.
D.C. COOK 2-INCH LOCA
()8(
0
MAAP4 (TEXITI )LOTIC-3 (NOMINAL ICE MELT) (!
()) () 0 () < 0 ooo(xSr (N)()n'o(go cx()) 0 ()%) ((())(r)()()ar)( ~<)a~ ~ 9'Q$> ()
T IME
A comparison of the LOTIC-3 containment pressure calculation, biased for maximum containment pressure, withthe nominal MAAP4 calculation with the accident initiator being a two-inch diameter cold leg LOCA as representedby NOTRUMP.
D.C. COOK 2-INCH LOCA
~ ~~ p ~o~ o ~1 ~ ~
A h4
~ ~~P
~ ~~ ~ 0 ~ ~
0 ~~ ~~ ~
~ ~
0 0
O~~ ~~ ~~ ~
~ ~
~ 0f+y 0
h 0 h h h h 6 h AIAAPh/Vp,
~ ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t 0
ICCRMIX 1Mxaxnr $ t q(~RNaPQ>< l~<
UPPER COMPARTMENTMAAP4 (TEXITILOTIC-3 (NOMINAL ICE MELT)LONER COMPARTMENTMAAP4 (TEXITI= )LOTIC-3 (NOMINAL ICE MELT)
TIME
Comparison of the upper and lower containment compartment temperatures for a LOTIC-3 calculation biased formaximum containment pressure and the hQdd'4 representation with the accident initiator being a two-inch diametercold leg LOCA as represented by NOTRUMP.
C3LljCO
CXl
IVI~ I II~MOIIV LOOt SALAS ASIA I~ ~ II~ III~ IUCVIMOSIV LOO ~ SSlll ASOUS LOUIS COOS I IL001 I~ Ut IO 1Ct tUVt SUCIIOV~ll IVS ~ UULSS OI tVVtS ~ 01 lACV ~ SS SSSIS ~ IO ISUUSL ~ OI Otl1AIIOUAL SI tVUAS IS ~UUVOIS OI Otl1AIIOVAI SAA ~ VVtS I~ I~UUSIS OI OtlSAIIOUAL CUA10LV~ tUUtl I~ I
~ AIA ~ AOV ~ ASLS I I
0 500 ]000 ) 500
TIME SEC
A comparison of the instantaneous mass flow rates for the MAAP4 primary system and NOTRUMP assuming a six-inch cold leg LOCA.
o
DLU
I—Ql
z0I—Q cvCh
IOtll~ I'I~~Ollll LOOt SALAS Sill I~ ~ I ~ I III~ LUCVI~lllllLOOt SALll ASOVC LOUIS COWL tLOOA I~ W 'IO ACt tUUt SVCIIOU
C ~ SS ~ IN AVUSIA Ot tlwl ~ 01 SACII llt SVSISO IO I~ UOSLA Ot OtlllflllllSI tUUtl IS IAVUSSA 0I Stilllllllllll~ Ultl L ~ IUVOSLA Ot OtllltlllllCVAASNO tVltl I~ I
SAIA till LASLS I I
III
LLl
0 500
TIME SEC
1000 1500
A comparison of the instantaneous energy release to the containment for NOTRUMP and the MAAP4 primarysystem model assuming a six-inch cold leg LOCA.
V\ED
XIrtlI II~~11111 IOOt Ollll 111 ~ IS ~ II~ III~ ISCSI~lollo loot Sllll llotl iorll corti IIOOO I~ vt Io lct tort IvcIICV
1 lll Irl SUSlll OI tVWS Iol ~ 1CV lit OVSICO Io I~VOOIS OI otl11'Ilooll SI tortl I~ IOVOSIS OI otll~ IIollI SOS tlotl i~ IOlrllo OI OII11II011I CVCSOIS ~ tootl N I
4 IOIlllllloIllllOSIS
O00
6
G
6
OO
O
O
0 500 1000 l500TIME SE C
A comparison of the integral mass release to containment for NOTRUMP and the MAAP4 RCS model assuming asix-inch cold leg LOCA.
Itt
o)ettl II~Ololl~ LOOt Ollll lilt I~ ~ II~ III~ IUCN)lllllV~ 00t Oltll llltt LOU)V COVt) )LOCO I~ Ut 10 OCt tVUt CUC)IOV
C ll'I IVl OVUlll OI tVVUO ~ OO llCN ~ lt ll~ )IO 10 I~UOOIO Of Otlll))CULL ~ I tVOtl I~ I~VOOIO OI Otlll~ IOULI OVO tVVtl I ~ ~OVOOLO Ot Otlll)IOVl) OUCOOIO ~ tVVtl ll ~
I~ )OOOOICD 1llLC Ol)l
o ~0
OO
OItt
ClCl
C9Itt
LLJ
LLl
0 500
TIME SEC
]000 1500
The integral energy released to the containment for NOTRUMP and the MAAP4 RCS models assuming a six-inchcold leg LOCA.
TSNI~II~444414 LOOt 44ILC 4414 I~ ~ ~ II IIII IVCVI400414 ~ 00t 44114 44411 LOTTO COWL t1000 Ll Vt 10 OC ~ tINt 4VCIIOV
4 lll 144 440410 Ot tVWO ~ 04 LLCV lit 414'llO 10 I~VVOL~ Ot ONOLIIOVLL CI tVVt4 Il I~ 4441 ~ Ot Otl441IOVLI 444 tVVtl s4 I~ VV410 Ol Otl041100LL 04440IVO tVVtl I~ ~
0 ~ LIL 1400 11411 I I
LLICO
CQ
LJJ OCI
tK
oC)C4
CLtD
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
TIME SEC
Comparison of the MAAP4 and NOTRUMP instantaneous mass flow rates for a two-inch cold leg LOCA.
o
0LLJ
I—Ql
CV
0I—OO
I~ 1 ~ I II~NOIIS l041 NIIS ISIS I~ ~ ~ II III~ ISSSINOSIS l001 SSIIS ICOSI SO%IS 4001I tl041 IS 01 IO Sct 1401 ISCIIOS
4 III ISI 040SIS 01 14014 ~ 01 ISCO II1 SI ~ IIO IO ~4404IS 01 0141 ~ 'IIONl 41 1041 ~ IS ISSOOIO 01 01ISSIIOSSl 411 140tS I~ I4404IO 41 01I11IIOSll 4414410 ~ tNtS IS I
~IIS 1104 ISII~ I I
LLj
LLI
0 0Q 0
LLjI—
0
CL
0 IOOO 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO
TIME SEC
Comparison of the MAAP4 and N(%RUMP values for instantaneous energy flow to the containment for a two-inchcold leg LOCA.
Irtl~ II~~ OOCIN IOOt lllll11IC I~ ~ ~ I\ IIII INCNI~ OOCIN IOO ~ llllllloll IV%IS COUII tl001 I~ Vt IO Nlt tUNt ~ UCIION
C lll INI NUNCIO OI tUSt1 IO ~ ICCS lit Ol ~ 'IIV IO I~UNOI1 OI OtlSIIIONll ll tIStl I~ I~ISOI1 OI Otl11IIONII SSS tINtl IC INUN~ I1 OI Otl1 ~ IIONll CNCNOIN~ tUNI~ I~ I
INIION~ ICO I~lll OCI1
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
TIME SEC
Comparison of the integrated mass releases for the MAAP4 and NOTRUMP for a two-inch cold leg LOCA.
Vera~ II~~ SOSLV LOOP SSLSS OSIS I~ ~ OII IIII IVCIII~ 101IV Loop OSL11 ssovl Loel1 covpl PL001 Is vp IO 1cp pvvt svcvISV
c slv Ivo Vvesl1 ot tvvts I01 lsee 1st svslle Io I~ VOSIS OI OtlSSIIOVLL ~I FOOtS IS I~VOSIS OI OtlOSIIOVOI 111 tVVPS I~ IOOVOLS 0$ oplIIIISVLL 01110IVS pvvts I~ I
I~ Il~ Sl'ICS I~ SLS SSVS
Z IA0I-ClCI
O
0 l000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
TIME SEC
Integrated energy release to the containment for MAAP4 and NOTRUMP for a two-inch cold leg LOCA.
CDIIP P P I
0 WESTINGHOUSE ANAI.YSIS
0000
00
00
00 0 0 O
0 0 0O QIS0 0 00m
10 15
TIME SEC
20 30
Comparison of the MAAP4 break flow rate for a large break LOCA with that used in D.C. Cook design basisanalyses.
IIIAII0 WESjIHGHOUSE ANALYSIS
cKaI
ChCh
4
444
44
44
4
4 4 44
o o 4
10 15
TIME SEC
20 30
Comparison of the MAAP4 and design basis calculations for the rate of energy release into the D.C. Cook Unit lcontainment.
CD
000
00
0
0
O0
00
00
NAAPCWESTINGHOUSE ANALYSIS
00 0000 OO
0 OOEISOO
00
000
8
0 10 15
TlME SEC
30
Comparison of the integrated break flow rate to containment for MAAP4 and the design basis assessment.
~Pl
PC
dK0na
ChCh
C9IKLSj
LLJ
NAAPiWESTINGHOUSE ANALYSIS
0
00
40 0 00 4 4
040
0 10 15
TIME SEC
20 30
Comparison of the integrated energy release to containment for MAAP4 and the design basis calculation.
t)AA)'1 I ()H( lt C()N)'A)(It)lN I ( I)()AA) ~ ))I I rk c()t)l'Akin( Nl (I)Nl:i)IN(,))()l)S( ANA) Y!>IS (I ()HI k)HI '.)IN( l)()l)SE'NAI Y'i( i (()Vl'I It)
C)I I
(H„
() I I
II
() IIII
() ))II
() (I
t)()
--"b-n C) (I()) (I)I )4( gl )(g,)))g))
'.>0 100 150 200T INf . l CANf)!i
2'.) () :>') ()
Comparison of the upper and lower compartment containment pressures using the MAAP4 code with design basiscalculation input for mass and energy releases.
I> IIr
I
I
<I('I
II I
ll
I>(I
(II
0')
IIA»I e I I)Ht N I:IIIII>A(I(IIINI lr)II(II>I>1 IIPP( II CIIIII>AltIIIINI I l )Hl '> I INCIIUUS( ANAI I'>I!i II IIH( N )Hl ' I INCIIOUS( ANAI 1'.i('i IIII'I'tIl)
) ()II
(()(I
8()()V) () () 0
(l ()() (),()))!
() ()() Q () () ()() () ) ()()> ~ l1>I )fJ >I
I
I> I
((I
( )()
I-tI tl.
Q " III I () II
0II II II IIII(I
0 ')0 I00 I'.) 0 20()I I N I '. ) I (: ( ) N I ) '. I
2')() :<') ()
Comparison of the temperatures in the lower and upper containment compartments between the MAAP4 code andthe design basis calculations using the existing design basis calculations for mass and energy releases into thecontainment atmosphere.
Table
Com arison
1. Comparison of the hQ~'4 containmentmodel and the LOTIC-3 calculations for asix-inch cold leg LOCA.
2. Comparison of the MAAP4 containmentmodel and the LOTIC-3 code for a two-inch cold leg LOCA.
3. Comparison of the MAAP4 andNOTRUMP mass and energy releases fora six-inch cold leg LOCA.
4. Comparison of the MAAP4 andNOTRUMP mass and energy releases fora two-inch cold leg LOCA.
5. Comparison of the MAAP4 and largebreak LOCA mass and energy releases.
6. Comparison of the MAAP4 containmentresponse with the design basis analysis.
Result
Good comparison between the calculatedice consumption rates for both codes andthe transient containment pressure history.
Good comparison between the ice meltingrate, as well as consistent representationsof the containment pressure history and thecalculated temperature histories in theupper and lower compartments.
Agreement between the integral mass andenergy releases to the containment.
Agreement between the integral mass andenergy releases to the containmentatmosphere.
Agreement between the integral mass andenergy releases to the containmentatmosphere.
Good agreement between the transientcontainment pressure and temperaturehistories in the upper and lowercorn artments.
BENC G WITH 'HHE %lFSTINGHOUSEICE CONDENSER EXPERIMENTS
The Westinghouse ice condenser experiments have beenrun for a variety of break sizes.
These experiments were performed for a full scalesegment of the ice condenser with an ice basket heightthat is three-fourths of the plant.
'he
principal information from the experiments is thedepressurization of the simulated RCS, the pressure inthe containment lower compartment,.the pressure in thecontainment upper compartment, the temperatures ofgases exiting the top of the ice condenser, the draintemperature of water leaving the ice condenser and theapproximate ice melted.
It is important that the integral system model beconsistent with the experiments since the ice melt rate isa major contribution to the integral containmentresponse and is also an important component of thewater inventory in the circulation sump.
MIAAJP dynamic benchmarks are being performed forthree different break sizes investigated in theseexperiments which are generally representative of alarge LOCA (Test A), a medium size LOCA (Test C)and a small LOCA (Test F), and decay heat steamingcondition (Test K). These benchmarks are performedusing the dynamic benchmarking capability in theMAAJP4 code.
IN ERHEOIATE OECX OOORS
RECEIVER VESSEL
LATTICE FRAIIES
ICE BASKET
BOILER VESSEL
RUPTUREOISK ANOORIFICE
0 ISCIIARGE PIPE
OIVIOER OECK
INLET OOORS
TURNING VANES
0 ISCNARGE NOZZLE
Isometric view of boiler and receiver vessels at the Waltz Milltest facility.
LOWER COMPARTMENTMAAP4DATA
UPPER COMPARTMENTMAAP<DATA
IIAICeJ
40I AI
Ot.liJ)I!IO'IL AjIY.
i/ ~rIIIlgIIII
I
4
4
I4
10
T IMF.
15 7. J 3ll
Comparison of the upper (solid lines) and lower compartment pressures (dashed lines) for the MAAP4 containmentmodel with an ice condenser exit temperature of and the experimental data from Test A (large break LOCA)of the Westinghouse ice condenser experiments.
hlAAP4Q MEASURED tCE BASS AT THE
ENO OF THE EXPERIBEHT
I
ICD
RES y
TIME (SECONDS)
Cornparitson of the cakuhtion of ioe meIting for the MAAP4 nodd with an ice condenser exit temperature of Pand the end point. remaining ice mass for Test A (hrge bmdc LOCA).
Ch
O>CbCD
QlQl
AI il
WCr
COCOUjQCCl.
IM(rJCOill
IILOSER COMPARTMENT
MAAP4DATA
UPPER COMPARTMENTMAAP4OATA
llW
illC3CAj
t IJ.
4esasela &%%4JNtlttttAtWCl4tttttt4%4ltW4~4J4%4AAIAL4ll444JAA4AAtAIJtl$4RS Jtll44144tatt4414144LII TD4t4t4LI 44t444IIAII tIAIIJJilLAIIDDIIIJDJLIItDDD
T I M l'.
Comparison of the upper and lower compartment pressures for the MAAP4 model using an ice condenser exittemperature of with the measured behavior of Test C (medium LOCA).
SAAP4'EASURED ICE BASS AT THE
END OF TKE EXPERIBENT
Pg4'p
TINE (SEGOIIIIDS)
~anon of the MA@% ice mdt history with aa ice amdeaser exit temperature of 'F with the measured iceat the cod ofTest C (roedium LOCA).
TEST F
LONER COMPARTMENTMAAPiOATA
HIIIIIII/IlIIIIIIIIIlIlIIIIlIIIIllllllllslllllllllllllllllllllllllllIlIlllIIIIIlIIIIIIIIII[/Ju
T IMl-
Comparison of Test F pressure versus time for an ice condenser outlet temperature of
BAAP4Q MEASURED ICE BASS AT THE
END OF THE EXPEAIHEHT
CDI
s45I
CO
cD
CA
CD
TIME (SECONDS)
Comparison of the calculated remauung ice mass and the ead point mamuemait for Test F.
LONE fl COMP AHTMENTDATAMAAP<
LLjCj
CDC1J
LCC
OLCL
ILLC
CDCDLAL
lKLLI)I IJC3LLJ
tK
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
TIME:
Comparison of the measured lcnver compartment pnssure for the long term decay heat removal experiment (Test K)and the MAAP4 containment model using an ice condenser exit temperature of
MAAP<
I
VII
CD
VICX
TIME (SE G 0 NO 8)
Calculated ice mass melting history for Test K using an ice condenser exit temperature of
CD
VIVIiI
CONCI USIONS WITHRESPECT TOTAHE BENC G ACTIVITIES
The comparison of the MAAP4 containment model andLOTIC-3 for the 2" and 6" cold leg LOCA show goodagreement between the ice melt rate and the transientcontainment pressure history with LOTIC-3 having asomewhat higher ice melt rate and higher containmentpressure consistent with the design basis philosophy ofthe code.
The integral break flow and energy flow considered byM4VdP4 are in agreement with the flow rates fromNOTRUMP. Also, the spectrum of LOCAs consideredin the M44V'4 analysis span those which are to beinvestigated by the BSA codes.
Comparisons of the MAAP4 best-estimate model withthe full scale experiments show a consistent response ofthe containment with the measured behavior. This istrue for both the containment pressure response and theice melt conditions.
The composite of these benchmarking activities shows aconsistent representation of the containment responsefor the best-estimate scoping model (MAdd'4) and thedesign basis calculations (NOTRDHP and LOTIC-3).Furthermore, the best-estimate model is consistent withthe results of the large scale experiments used tocharacterize the response of an ice condensercontainment to variety of LOCA conditions.
SENSITIVITYS'I UBIES FGRTHjK CGGK NUCLEAR PLAlVX
SUMP FILLEVALUATIONS
Yhe most important sensitivity calculation is toconsider a variety of break sizes. In this regard,the MAAP4 sensitivity studies wil. investigateLGCAs from one-half inch to six inches indiameter. This encompasses the entire smallLOCA range.
The particular issue of interest for this evaluationis the sump depth for the containment spraypumps. Consequently, the duration of thecontainment sprays is an important variable inthis evaluation. Therefore, the variations in plantparameters, within tech spec limits, are assessedto determine the influence that these could haveon the use of containment sprays. The Mluenceof conditions whereby the sprays would be turnedon at 2.9 psig and turned offat 1.5 psig or runcontinuously once they are activated willbeevaluated.
Other plant parameters inAuence the mass of airin containment, the condensing capability of thesprays, etc. These willalso be investigated inthese sensitivity calculations.
are ~~. -;.K @I'll.-&% "-. 'M V4lh C2W. PTWPM4> -'7.: K4 Z.ICB
I r I e
I I
l I
I P'
Y/~ Y~
l/J' . l8/ ...~ /I /II I -: I f/i
~ J~
/I ~ ~ J/ '~ //I/'8l
//J//AJF/PPFZ/PIJJJÃJIIISPI//PP/jlljl/SSS Yj/JJJJÃIP)X/jjlj/7/P/ji/A/'JJJ.'
I ~ I
Lower Carta.iIimentSimplified Schematic
(333,000 gallons)
612'-0"(337,000 gal excl. cavity) 610'-0"
Inactive Sump(Pipe Annulus)
(276,000 gallons)
Active Sunup602'-10"(110,000 gallons)
(126,000 gal
ReactorCavity
598'-9"
Important levels and volumes for the active and inactive sumps.
Volume Descri tion
Available RWST Water Inventory
Available Ice Mass
TOTAL
Accumulators
TOTALWI'MACCUMULATORS
Volume/Mass
295,000 gal
2.43 x 10'bm(291,472 gal)
586,472 gal
4 x 921ft'27,500gal)
613,972 al
Volume Descri tion
Reactor Coolant System (including the pressurizer)
Volume of the Pressurizer
Approximate Inventory Needed to Keep RCS Full During CoolDown
Inactive Sump Reference Water Volume
Net Volume for Water Accumulation in the Inactive Sump
Active Sump Reference Water Volume to the 602'10" Level
Net Volume for Water Accumulation in the Active Sump to the602'10" Mvel
Water Volume for the Reactor Cavity
TOTAL
Volume/Mass
11, 159ft'83,469gal)
1800ft'13,464gal)
- 20,000 gal
335,960 gal
319,000 gal
117,320 gal
116,000 gal
117,795 gal
572 795 31
Table 4-3
Location
Water required to fillthe containment spray
and RHR piping but not the RHR spray lines.
Water in-flightduring spray operation
o upper compartment (h = 80.2 ft),~ lower compartment (h = 50,9 ft),~ annular compartment (h = 36,75 ft).
Sprays impinging upon walls and draining as a
film
upper compartment (42,000 ft ),
lower compartment (15,000 ft'),
annular compartment (10,000 ft').
TOTAL
Ma nitude of Water Holdu
7,789 gal
267 gal
93 gal
13 gal
206 gal
74 gal
49 gal
8 491 al
!
OCCOOK 10 HOOE 6 COLO LEG LOCASLO6
IO 10
TIME HOURS30 60 0 IO 20
TIME HOURS
30 40
Io 20
TIME HOUR S
30 o Io 10
TIME HOURS30 40
Summary of the containment system response for a six inch diameter cold leg LOCA.
DCCOOK Io RODE 3 COLD LEG LOCASLOi
ttI
CCC
re
COCO
illvl
D
vsICC
IO 20 30 io 50 40 70 $ 0 90 100
TIME HOURSIO 20 30 io 50 40 70 jo 90 IOO
TIME HOURS
D
ill
CL
COVl
CCC ~
IO D
' IO 20 30 i0T IME
50 90 70 00 90 IOR
HOURS0 10 20 30 io 50 40 70 $ 0 90 101
TIME HOURS
Summary of the containment system response for a three inch diameter cold leg LOCA.
!
DCCOOK 10 HOOE 2 COLO LEG LOCA BASE CASESLOI
44
CO
~4
UJ
44
O
~41
o0
vsILL
20 40 60 10 I 00
TIME HOURS~ f W 4 I
~ . L„...L........ -...I4 ..I44
I 20 I 40 f60 ~ 0 20 40 60 $ 0 I00 I20 !40 I60TIME HOURS
~ ~ f I44 4 4 I f4 4444 f 4 I ll I ~ *
O
UJ
CI
3c
IL
4O44
UJ
I
' 20 40 60 00 I00TIME HOURS
L.L20 I 40 I6
.L....I .. L., l . L....I ....I.. ~ .0 20 40 60 $ 0 I00 I20 I40 I60
TIME HOURS
Summary of the containment system response for a two inch diameter cold leg LOCA.
0
!
DCCOOK IO RODE 2 COLD LEG LOCA. COOLDOWH AT 30 FIHRSPRAYS RUN UONYINUOUSLY ISLOI SIII
~S
''S S'' I I Y I"'pa ~ I '"S "I
~YS
SSS
UU
S
OEP
~ 0 IO 10 30 l0 $ 0 ~ 0 10 !0 %0 l00TIME (HOURS)
IO 20 30 IO $ 0 40 10 20 $ 0 IOO
TIME (HOURS)
SSS
SSS
~SS
OU
ISS
S
O
SPS
S
OSLS
SS
SS.
' I ~ 1 ~ 30 i~ 3 ~ ~ 0 1 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ l0 ~
T IME (HOURS)I 0 2 ~ $ 4 < ~ $ 0 40 10 IO 'I ~ I 0 ~
TIME (HOURS)
Summary of the containment system response for a two inch diameter cold leg LOCA with containment spraysoperating continuously once they are activated.
DCCOOK IO NODE I COLD LEO LOCASPRAYS STAY ON AFTER THEY START
ISLO3 53
o vst%
WOC
h~A40WK
04
O
I
XOEJ
DC DA0
D0 l0 20 20 40
TIME HOURS40 0 IO 20 30 40
TIME HOURS$ 0 40
I
OX
Q1
~Ilo
KOlI
sl
IEJ
' 10
I I
20 )0 44
TINR HOURS
WD
a. O I I
2 ~ ~ 0 0 IO 20 20 40 $ 0 ~ 4
TIMe HOURS
Summary of the containment system response for a one inch diameter cold leg LOCA with the accumulators assumedto be blocked and the sprays operating continuously once they have been started.
!
DCCOOK )0 NODE 0.) COLD LEO LOCASPRAYS STAT ON APTER THET START5)02 $ 2
Vl
IIII~J
~I
C D
lalee
~tlUl~C0
I
X0LJ
aD
0A,
DO 10 20 )0 fo )0TIME HOURS
fo ~ 0 10 20 )0 Co
T)ME HOURS)0 fO
aa
aa
D
Ql
WD
~C
QlI
'Vla
EJ
'0 10 20 )0 CO
T)ME HOURS
aC4
D0 0 10 20 )0 ~ 0
TINE HOURS)0 fo
Summary of the containment system response for a one-half inch diameter cold leg LOCA assuming the accumulatorsare blocked and with the containment sprays operating continuously once they have been started.
SensitivityRun No.
Sl
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
Parameter Chan ed
Core power = 3315 MWt.
Core power = 3588 MWt.
Core power = 3425 MWt.
RWST temperature = 70'F.
Containment gas temperature= 70'F.
Thermal conductivity ofcontainment structural heatsinks decreased by a value of1.4.
Thermal conductivity ofcontainment structural heatsinks increased by a factor of1.4.
NominalValue
3250
3250
3250
105
UC = 100'F,LC = 120'F,DEC = 120'F
1.0
1.0
Comments
Licensing value for Unit 1.
Licensing value for Unit 2.
Nominal operating power,for Unit 2.
Minimum tech spec value.
Lowest value to maximizethe mass of air incontainment.
Minimize the influence ofcontainment structural heatsinks.
Maximizes the influence ofcontainment structural heatsinks.
S8
S9
Heat exchanger cooling ratesset at minimum lake watertemperature = 45'F.
200 gpm of uppercompartment spray flowdrains to the inactive sum .
87'F
45 gpm
Minimizes ice melt.
Upper bound of the flowthat could be diverted to theinactive sum .
OCCOOX Io NOOE 2 COI.O LEOINITIAL CORE POWERINITIAL CORE POWER aINITIAL CORE POWER ~INITIAL CORE POWER ~
LOCA. SENSITIVITIES Sl.3230 MWlh (SLO$ )33I3 MWlh (SLO$ SI)3300 I4WIh (SLO$ 63)342$ MWlh (SLO$ 60)
r w'"S). S I
III
D ~ ~
~0IO~IIILIL
I
OEP
. ~ 10 ~ ~ 0 ~ I~ l0 0 Il~ I ~ 0 I ~ 0
TIME (HOURS). 0 20 <0 40
TIME* I"" I
IO 100 I 10 I ~ 0 14 ~
(HOURS)
D
~0
~O
D l
0 10 <0 0 ~ l0 I ~ 0 I10 I ~ 0 I00TIME (HOURS)
~ 2 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0
TIME
I I I
I~ IOO I10 I ~ 0 I ~ 0
(HOURS)
Summary of the containment response for sensitivity cases S1, S2 and S3.
OCCOOK IO NODE 2 COLO LEO LOCA: SENSITIVITY S ~ANSI IEIIPEIIAIUIIE Ill F (SIUIIRWST TELIPEAATUAE ~ 10 F (SLOS $ 0)
~sl
~O~+
~II
~U
CC:
EPE
IOIIICC:
IL
I
O
ILIEICLEL
~ 0 20 ~ 0 ~ 0 I~ 100
TIIIE IHOUAS)Il~ I CO I I0 0 20 CO ~ 0 IO IOO l20
TlllE IHOUAS)I ~ 0 I ~ 0
~IS
Ill
SllI
~Sl
CL
I
~ O
~0
~O
X
IC2
0 l0 ~ 0 0 ~ 00 100
TIME IHOURS)
ESS
ILCL
ll~ I ~ 0 I ~ 0
I I I
~ 20 IO ~ 0 20 IOO I2 ~
TIME IHOURS)I ~ 0 IO ~
Summary of the containment response for sensitivity case S4.
!
DCCOOK )0 NODE 1'OLO LEG LOCA. SENSITIVIT Y 51INITIAL GAS TEMP )10 F (LC), 100 F (UC) (SLOS)INIIIAL OAS TEMP ~ 10 F (SI.OS„S1)
UJ
Q
CC
~ll~O
IL'L
ICL
OO
o0 10 ~ 0 ~ 0 I~ 100 11 ~
TIME (HOURS)140 I ~ 0
I I I . I I
. 0 10 lO ~ 0 IO 100 110 110 I~ 0
TIME (HOURS)
~II
~ll ~ll
A~ll
O
46
~ll rIIII
'0 1 ~ IO ~ 0 I~ 100 11 ~
TIME (HOURS)114 I ~ 0 0 1 ~ IO ~ 0 10 100 110 I ~ 0 'l~
IIME (HOURS)
Summary of the containment response for sensitivity case SS.
I ~ ~ I ~ I ~
I 'I '
OCCOOK 10 NODE 2'OLO LEG LOCA. SENSITIVITY SllHX COOLING WATER AT l00 F ISLOS)HX COOLING WATER AT ~ S F {SLOS Sll)
I I'"
I
OEP
10 I~ ~ 4 IO IOO Il~ I ~ 0
TIME (HOURS)I ~ 0 ~ 0 10 40 00
T IIIEIO IOO ISO I ~ 0 IOO
IHOURS)
gA & OWA
ill~ll
10 ~ 0 ~ 0 40 IOO II~ I''TIQE IHOURS)
I ~ 0 0 10 IO ~ 0
I IIIE
10 IOO I 10 I ~ 0 IO ~
IHOURS I
Summary of the containment response for sensitivity case S8.
OCCOOK IO NOOE O'OLO LEO LOCA. SENSI'TIVITY S)2UPPER IU ANNULUS LEAKAGE A'I ~ I GPII ISLUII
~ UPPER TO ANNULU6 LEAKAOE AT 200 OPll (SLOS SI2)
oI'
IG
O
SL
OCP
EC~SS
SE.O
o0 20 IO ~ 0 ~ 0 IOO I2 ~
TIIIE {HOURS)I < ~ I I0 ~ 0 20 I 0 ~ 0 IO 100
TINE IHOURS)Il0 I ~ 0 II~
SAS
SAE
EL'
~ O
W
+V VV V VPUVVV
ISA
SAS
~O
XX
/rr/rrII
'I I
20 IO I~ I~ IOO 12 ~
TIIIE lHOURS)I ~ 0 I ~ 0
I, I
20 IO ~ 0 IO 100
2IIIE IHOURS)I 20 II0 I ~ 0
Summary of the containment response for sensitivity case S9.
0 Tjhe greatest conservatism in the analysis jsthat thc lce mass cx'edhted ln the calculationls 2o43 x 10 ibm+ RealhsthcaHy~ thecontainment ice mass is approximately 2.7 x10 ibm, which when melted, would addappxoximately 36,000 gallons of watexhnventory to the containhLent. At theequhlhbrhum spill QVCF crhterha~ tjhhs wouMincx'ease the active sump watex'evel by 16inches.
1" and 2" diameter break analyses do notcredit unblocking of the accumulators by theoperators. This wouM add 27,500 gals. AndwouM increase the active sump level by 12inches,
These analyses do not credit othex operatoxacthons such as FCNhtng of the RWSY.AIMhthonal hnventory into the contalnmcntwouM further hncrease the active sumpwater level.
R
i~ ii
~ .
~ i
r ~
~i
~ ~,~
~ rI
~ '
i ~, ~1
4 ~~ .
~ g ~
I ~ ~ ~ ia ~ ~( ~ ' ~ I ', I
I~,
~ I r ~
0
'I
0d ~ J
