0
Research Papers

Analysis of the Core Exit Temperature and the Peak Cladding Temperature During a SBLOCA: Application to a Scaled-Up Model

[+] Author and Article Information
Andrea Querol

Instituto de Seguridad Industrial,
Radiofísica y Medioambiental (ISIRYM),
Universitat Politècnica de València,
Camino de Vera s/n, Valencia 46022, Spain
e-mail: anquevi@upv.es

Sergio Gallardo

Instituto de Seguridad Industrial,
Radiofísica y Medioambiental (ISIRYM),
Universitat Politècnica de València,
Camino de Vera s/n, Valencia 46022, Spain
e-mail: sergalbe@iqn.upv.es

Gumersindo Verdú

Instituto de Seguridad Industrial,
Radiofísica y Medioambiental (ISIRYM),
Universitat Politècnica de València,
Camino de Vera s/n, Valencia 46022, Spain
e-mail: gverdu@iqn.upv.es

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received March 16, 2015; final manuscript received June 26, 2015; published online February 29, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Leon Cizelj.

ASME J of Nuclear Rad Sci 2(2), 021020 (Feb 29, 2016) (6 pages) Paper No: NERS-15-1029; doi: 10.1115/1.4031016 History: Received March 16, 2015; Accepted July 13, 2015

During loss-of-coolant accidents (LOCAs), operators may start accident management (AM) actions when the core exit temperature (CET) measured by thermocouples exceeds a certain value. However, a significant time delay and temperature discrepancy in the superheat detection were observed in several facilities. This work is focused on clarifying CET thermocouple responses versus peak cladding temperature (PCT) and studying if the same physical phenomena are reproduced in two TRACE5 models with different geometry (a large-scale test facility (LSTF) and a scaled-up LSTF) during a pressure vessel (PV) upper head small break LOCA (SBLOCA). Results obtained show that the delay between the core uncover and the CET excursion is reproduced in both cases.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Model nodalization of LSTF with SNAP (extracted from Ref. [17])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

(a) Mass flow rate and (b) the discharged inventory through the break

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Core exit temperature

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

CET versus maximum PCT

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Core- and downcomer-collapsed liquid levels

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Sensitivity analysis: (a) CET, (b) PCT, and (c) CET versus PCT

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