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

NEA/COM, 1996, Implementing Severe Accident Management in Nuclear Power Plants, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), Paris, France. 92-64-15286-5
Tóth, I., Prior, R., Sandervag, O., Umminger, K., Nakamura, H., Muellner, N., Cherubini, M., Del Nevo, A., D’Auria, F., Dreier, J., Alonso, J. R., and Amri, A., 2010, “Core Exit Temperature (CET) Effectiveness in Accident Management of Nuclear Power Reactors,” Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations, OECD, Nuclear Energy Agency, .
Freixa, J., Martínez-Quiroga, J. V., Zerkak, O., and Reventós, F., 2015, “Modelling Guidelines for Core Exit Temperature Simulations With System Codes,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 286, pp. 116–129. 0029-5493 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.02.003
Adams, J. P., and McCreery, G. E., 1983, “Detection of Inadequate Core Cooling With Core Exit Thermocouples: LOFT PWR Experience,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, .
Suzuki, M., 1993, “Characteristic Responses of Core Exit Thermocouples During Inadequate Core Cooling in Small Break LOCA Experiments Conducted at LSTF of ROSA-IV Program,” Proceedings of ICONE2, San Francisco, CA, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, United Engineering Center, New York, Vol. 1, pp. 63–68.
Suzuki, M., and Nakamura, H., 2010, “Reliability of Core Exit Thermocouple for Accident Management Action During SBLOCA and Abnormal Transient Tests at ROSA/LSTF,” J. Nucl. Sci. Technol., 47(12), pp. 1193–1205. 0022-3131 10.1080/18811248.2010.9720986
Thermalhydraulic Safety Research Group, Nuclear Safety Research Center, 2006, “Final Data Report of OECD/NEA ROSA Project Test 6-1 (1.9% Pressure Vessel Upper-Head Small Break LOCA Experiment SB-PV-09 in JAEA),” Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Tokai-mura, Japan.
The ROSA-V Group, 2003, “ROSA-V Large Scale Test Facility (LSTF) System Description for the Third and Fourth Simulated Fuel Assemblies,” JAERI-Tech, Tokai-mura.
Gallardo, S., Abella, V., and Verdú, G., 2010, “Assessment of TRACE 5.0 Against ROSA Test 6-1, Vessel Upper Head SBLOCA,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, .
Freixa, J., and Manera, A., 2010, “Analysis of an RPV Upper Head SBLOCA at the ROSA Facility Using TRACE,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 240(7), pp. 1779–1788. 0029-5493 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2010.02.007
Freixa, J., and Manera, A., 2011, “Verification of a TRACE EPR-TM Model on the Basis of a Scaling Calculation of an SBLOCA ROSA Test,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 241(3), pp. 888–896. 0029-5493 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2010.12.016
Queral, C., González-Cadelo, J., Jimenez, G., and Villalba, E., 2011, “Accident Management Actions in an Upper-Head Small Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident With High Pressure Safety Injection Failed,” Nucl. Technol., 175(3), pp. 572–593.
Queral, C., González-Cadelo, J., Jimenez, G., Villalba, E., and Perez, J., 2013, “Simulation of LSTF Upper Head Break (OECD/NEA ROSA Test 6.1) With TRACE Code. Application to a PWR NPP Model,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, .
Division of Risk Assessment and Special Projects, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, 2007, TRACE V5.0. Theory Manual. Field Equations, Solution Methods and Physical Model, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington.
Division of Risk Assessment and Special Projects, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, 2007, TRACE V5.0. User’s Manual. Volume 1: Input Specification, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Applied Programming Technology, 2007, Symbolic Nuclear Analysis Package (SNAP), Bloomsburg, PA.
Querol, A., Gallardo, S., and Verdú, G., 2015, “Simulation of a SBLOCA in a Hot Leg. Scaling Considerations and Application to a Nuclear Power Plant,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 283, pp. 81–99. [CrossRef]
Liu, T. J., Lee, C. H., and Way, Y. S., 1997, “IIST and LSTF Counterpart Test on PWR Station Blackout Transient,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 167(3), pp. 357–373. 0029-5493 10.1016/S0029-5493(96)01302-7
D’Auria, F., and Galassi, G. M., 2010, “Scaling in Nuclear Reactor System Thermal-Hydraulics,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 240(10), pp. 3267–3293. 0029-5493 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2010.06.010
Petelin, S., Mavko, B., Koncar, B., and Hassan, Y. A., 2007, “Scaling of the Small–Scale Thermal–Hydraulic Transient to the Real Nuclear Power Plant,” Nucl. Technol., 158(1), pp. 56–68.

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