0
Research Papers

Uncertainty Quantification of the RELAP5 Interfacial Friction Model in the Rod Bundle Geometry

[+] Author and Article Information
Ikuo Kinoshita

Institute of Nuclear Safety System, Inc. (INSS),
64 Sata, Mihama-cho, Mikata-gun, Fukui 919-1205, Japan
e-mail: kinoshita@inss.co.jp

Toshihide Torige

Institute of Nuclear Safety System, Inc. (INSS),
64 Sata, Mihama-cho, Mikata-gun, Fukui 919-1205, Japan
e-mail: torige.toshihide@inss.co.jp

Minoru Yamada

MHI Nuclear Engineering Co., Ltd. (MNEC),
3-3-1 Minatomirai, Nishi-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 220-8401, Japan
e-mail: minoru2_yamada@mnec.mhi.co.jp

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received January 31, 2015; final manuscript received August 12, 2015; published online February 29, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Milorad Dzodzo.

ASME J of Nuclear Rad Sci 2(2), 021003 (Feb 29, 2016) (8 pages) Paper No: 15-1012; doi: 10.1115/1.4031377 History: Received January 31, 2015; Accepted August 12, 2015

Interfacial friction in the core affects the two-phase mixture level and the distribution of the dispersed gas phase during a small-break loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). The RELAP5/MOD3.2 code uses the drift flux model to describe the interfacial friction force in vertical dispersed flow, and the Chexal–Lellouche drift flux correlation is used for the rod bundle geometry. In the present study, the RELAP5 model uncertainty was quantified for the bubbly–slug interfacial friction model in the rod bundle geometry by conducting numerical analyses of void profile tests in the Thermal Hydraulic Test Facility (THTF) of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). The model uncertainty parameter was defined as a multiplier for the interfacial friction coefficient. Numerical analyses were performed by adjusting the multiplier so that the predicted void fractions agreed with the measured test data. The resultant distribution of the multipliers represented the interfacial friction model uncertainty.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Asaka, H., and Kukita, Y., 1995, “Intentional Depressurization of Steam Generator Secondary Side during a PWR Small-Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident,” J. Nucl. Sci. Technol., 32(2), pp. 101–110. 0022-3131
Asaka, H., Ohtsu, I., Anoda, Y., Kukita, Y., and Ohnuki, A., 1998, “Core Liquid Level Responses Due to Secondary-Side Depressurization during PWR Small Break LOCAs,” J. Nucl. Sci. Technol., 35(2), pp. 113–119. 0022-3131 10.1080/18811248.1998.9733831
Asaka, H., Anoda, Y., Kukita, Y., and Ohtus, I., 1998, “Secondary-Side Depressurization during PWR Cold-Leg Small Break LOCAs Based on ROSA-V/LSTF Experiments and Analyses,” J. Nucl. Sci. Technol., 35(12), pp. 905–915. 0022-3131 10.1080/18811248.1998.9733963
Suzuki, M., Takeda, T., Asaka, H., and Nakamura, H., 2006, “Effects of Secondary Depressurization on Core Cooling in PWR Vessel Bottom Small Break LOCA Experiments With HPI Failure and Gas Inflow,” J. Nucl. Sci. Technol., 43(2), pp. 55–64. 0022-3131 10.1080/18811248.2006.9711067
Boyack, B., Duffey, R., Griffith, P., Lellouche, G., Levy, S., Rohatgi, U., Wilson, G., Wulff, W., and Zuber, N., 1989, “Quantifying Reactor Safety Margins: Application of Code Scaling, Applicability, and Uncertainty Evaluation Methodology to a Large-Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident,” Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, .
The RELAP5 Code Development Team, 1995, “RELAP5/MOD3 Code Manual,” Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, .
Kinoshita, I., Yamada, M., Torige, T., Murase, M., and Yoshida, Y., 2013, “Development of the PIRT for the Small-Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident With High Pressure Injection Failure,” Proceedings of the ASME 2013 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition (IMECE2013), IMECE2013-63682, San Diego, CA, Nov. 13–21, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
Griffiths, M. J., Schlegel, J. P., Hibiki, T., Ishii, M., Kinoshita, I., and Yoshida, Y., 2014, “Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table for Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena During a Small-Break LOCA With Loss of High Pressure Injection,” Prog. Nucl. Energy, 73, pp. 51–63. 0149-1970 10.1016/j.pnucene.2014.01.008
Chexal, B., and Lellouche, G., 1986, “A Full-Range Drift-Flux Correlation for Vertical Flows (Revision 1),” Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, .
Chexal, B., Lellouche, G., Horowitz, J., Healzer, J., and Oh, S., 1991, “The Chexal-Lellouche Void Fraction Correlation for Generalized Applications,” The Nuclear Safety Analysis Center, .
Felde, D. K., Durall, R. L., Fraysier, D. J., Gould, S. S., Keith, E. C., Mailen, G. S., Ott, L. J., Sutton, A. G., and Wolfe, J. E., 1982, “Facility Description THTF MOD3 ORNL PWR BDHT Separate-Effects Program,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, .
Anklam, T. M., Miller, R. J. and White, M. D., 1982, “Experimental Investigations of Uncovered-Bundle Heat Transfer and Two-Phase Mixture-Level Swell Under High-Pressure Low-Heat-Flux Conditions,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, .
Griffiths, M. J., Schlegel, J. P., Clark, C., Chen, S. W., Hibiki, T., Ishii, M., Kinoshita, I., and Yoshida, Y., 2014, “Uncertainty Evaluation of the Chexal-Lellouche Correlation for Void Fraction in Rod Bundles,” Prog. Nucl. Energy, 74, pp. 143–153. 0149-1970 10.1016/j.pnucene.2014.02.023

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of THTF at ORNL [12]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Pressure instrumentation [12]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Sectional view of the test section of the THTF [12]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Nodalization of the analyses

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of predicted and measured void fraction profiles (Test 3.09.10J)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of predicted and measured void fraction profiles (Test 3.09.10K)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of predicted and measured void fraction profiles (Test 3.09.10M)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of predicted and measured void fraction profiles (Test 3.09.10N)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of predicted and measured void fraction profiles (Test 3.09.10AA)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of predicted and measured void fraction profiles (Test 3.09.10BB)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of predicted and measured void fraction profiles (Test 3.09.10CC)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of predicted and measured void fraction profiles (Test 3.09.10DD)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison of predicted and measured void fraction profiles (Test 3.09.10EE)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison of predicted and measured void fraction profiles (Test 3.09.10FF)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison of measured and predicted void fraction for THTF test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Interfacial friction multiplier CM

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Distribution of interfacial friction multiplier CM

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In