BEMUSE PHASE II: COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS REV. 1

Transcription

1 DIPARTIMENTO DI INGEGNERIA MECCANICA, NUCLEARE E DELLA PRODUZIONE - UNIVERSITA' DI PISA PISA - ITALY BEMUSE PHASE II: COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS REV. 1 A. Petruzzi, F. D Auria Workshop on Evaluation of Uncertainties In Relation To Severe Accidents and Level 2 Probabilistic Safety Analysis November 7 9, 2005 Aix-En-Provence, (FRANCE)

2 FOREWORD BEMUSE: OECD/NEA/CSNI PROJECT (02-07) 07) PHASE I (completed) DESCRIPTION OF UNCERTAINTY METHODS THIS PRESENTATION PHASE II (completed, report to be approved) LOFT ISP 13 (test L2-5) REVISIT & SENSITIVITY STUDY KEY RESULTS PHASE III (activity completed, report to be issued) UNCERTAINTY METHOD APPLICATION TO TEST L2-5 PHASES IV AND V (started, to be endorsed by CSNI) UNCERTAINTY METHOD APPLICATION TO ZION W NPP LBLOCA

3 CONTENTS NODALIZATION QUALIFICATION Nodalization Tables (Template N 1, Pag. 1) Pressures Vs Length Curve (New Request to the Participants) QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION Resulting Time Sequence of Events (Template N 1, Pag. 1) Experimental Time Trends Comparisons Qualitative Judgments (T. #1) Relevant Thermalhydraulic Aspects (RTA) Tables (Template N 2, Pag. 1) QUANTITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION Application of the FFTBM USER S EFFECT SENSITIVITY STUDY (Template N 3) 2/50

4 PARTICIPANT ORGANIZATIONS TO PHASE II Code Resources 14 Participating Organizations; 7 TH System Codes 3/50

5 NODALIZATION QUALIFICATION Part A Part B 4/50

6 NODALIZATION QUALIFICATION Part A: Nodalization Development 5/50

7 NODALIZATION QUALIFICATION Part B: Steady State Level 6/50

8 NODALIZATION QUALIFICATION Results of the Nodalization Qualification QA and QB should be less than 1. 7/50

9 NODALIZATION QUALIFICATION NODALIZATION QUALIFICATION Results of the Nodalization Qualification Qa Qb /50 EDO [T97] Global Acceptability Factors Organization's Name

10 NODALIZATION QUALIFICATION Pressures Length Curve ( MPa) ( MPa) ( MPa) ( MPa) ( MPa) ( MPa) ( MPa) ( MPa) ( MPa) ( MPa) ( MPa) ( MPa) ( MPa) ( MPa) Experimental Normalized Pressure (-) HL IN HL OUT UT TOP SG OUT LOOP SEAL PUMP OUT CL IN CL OUT LP BAF TAF HL IN SG IN OUT SG NOZZLE PUMP IN Loop Length (m) 9/50

11 QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION Resulting Time sequence of Events Time After Experiment Initiation (s) Maximum cladding temperature reached Accumulator emptied Experimental Core cladding fully quenched LPIS injection terminated 10/50

12 QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION Resulting Time sequence of Events - 2 Time After Experiment Initiation (s) Experimental Partial top-down rewet initiated Subcooled break flow ended in cold leg Pressurizer emptied Accumulator A injection initiated Partial top-down rewet ended 11/50

13 QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION Resulting Time sequence of Events Time After Experiment Initiation (s) Subcooled blowdown ended Reactor scrammed Experimental 0.2 DNB /50

14 QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION Experimental Time Trends Comparisons Qualitative Judgments INTACT LOOP PRESSURE IN HOT LEG Pressure (MPa) EXP: PE-PC /50

15 QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION Experimental Time Trends Comparisons Qualitative Judgments SG PRESSURE - SECONDARY SIDE Pressure (MPa) EXP: PE-SGS /50

16 QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION Experimental Time Trends Comparisons Qualitative Judgments ACCUMULATOR "A" PRESSURE Pressure (MPa) EXP: PT-P /50

17 QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION Experimental Time Trends Comparisons Qualitative Judgements PRESSURIZER PRESSURE Pressure (MPa) EXP: PT-P /50

18 QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION Experimental Time Trends Comparisons Qualitative Judgements CORE INLET FLUID TEMPERATURE Temperature (K) EXP: TE-3LP /50

19 QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION Experimental Time Trends Comparisons Qualitative Judgements CORE OUTLET FLUID TEMPERATURE Temperature (K) EXP: TE-5UP /50

20 QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION Experimental Time Trends Comparisons Qualitative Judgments BREAK FLOW RATE IN COLD LEG Flow Rate (Kg/s) EXP: FR-BL /50

21 QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION Experimental Time Trends Comparisons Qualitative Judgments BREAK FLOW RATE IN HOT LEG Flow Rate (Kg/s) EXP: FR-BL /50

22 QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION Experimental Time Trends Comparisons Qualitative Judgments ECCS INTEGRAL FLOW RATE Mass (Kg) EXP: Derived-ECCS /50

23 QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION Experimental Time Trends Comparisons Qualitative Judgments PRIMARY SIDE TOTAL MASS Mass (Kg) EXP: Derived-MASS /50

24 QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION Core Geometry and Position for the Hot Rod Cladding Temperatures ZONE 4 = HOT ROD (RODS N = 1) ZONE 3 = HOT CHANNEL (RODS N = 203) ZONE 2 = AVERAGE CHANNEL (RODS N = 876) ZONE 1 = PERIPHERAL CHANNEL (RODS N = 220) CONTROL RODS (RODS N = 137) TAF TOP 1.0 m 2/3 ZONE m 0.4 m BOTTOM BAF ZONE 4: HOT ROD (FUEL ASSEMBLY N 5) - HEIGHT: 2/ J N A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O PCT Min : 5H (0.94 m K) 8 9 PCT MAX = PCT Ref : 5H (0.61 m K) /50

25 QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION Maximum Linear Power Adopted 24/50

26 QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION Experimental Time Trends Comparisons Qualitative Judgments HOT ROD TEMPERATURE (ZONE 4) - BOTTOM LEVEL Temperature (K) PCTmax: TE-5F PCTmin: TE-5H /50

27 QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION Experimental Time Trends Comparisons Qualitative Judgments HOT ROD TEMPERATURE (ZONE 4) - 2/3 LEVEL Temperature (K) PCTmax: TE-5H PCTmin: TE-5H /50

28 QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION Experimental Time Trends Comparisons Qualitative Judgments HOT ROD TEMPERATURE (ZONE 4) - TOP LEVEL Temperature (K) PCTmax: TE-5H PCTmin: TE-5M /50

29 QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION Experimental Time Trends Comparisons Qualitative Judgments AVERAGE ROD TEMPERATURE (ZONE 2) - BOTTOM LEVEL Temperature (K) PCTmax: TE-2G PCTmin: TE-4F /50

30 QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION Experimental Time Trends Comparisons Qualitative Judgments AVERAGE ROD TEMPERATURE (ZONE 2) - 2/3 LEVEL Temperature (K) PCTmax: TE-2H PCTmin: TE-4F /50

31 QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION Experimental Time Trends Comparisons Qualitative Judgments AVERAGE ROD TEMPERATURE (ZONE 2) - TOP LEVEL Temperature (K) PCTmax: TE-2H PCTmin: TE-4F /50

32 QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION First PCT and Time of First PCT as function of Linear Power in PCT Location First PCT Time of First PCT First PCT (K) EDO Time of First PCT (s) Linear Power in PCT location (KW/m) 31/50

33 QUALITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION Relevant Thermal-Hydraulic Aspects 32/50

34 QUANTITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION APPLICATION OF THE FFTBM AAINTACT PRESSURE < 0.1 AATOT < /50

35 QUANTITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION AA Dispersion for Participants P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8 P-9 P-10 P-11 P-12 P-13 P-14 P-16 P-18 P-19 P-20 AA Parameter's IDs 34/50

36 QUANTITATIVE ACCURACY EVALUATION AA Dispersion for Parameter 1.2 P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8 P-9 P-10 P-11 P-12 P-13 P-14 P-16 P-18 P-19 P /50 AA Participant's IDs

37 USER S EFFECT User effect is originated by: A) Nodalization development; B) Interpreting the supplied (or the available) information, usually incomplete; C) Accepting the steady state performance of the nodalization; D) Interpreting transient results, planning and performing sensitivity studies, modifying the nodalisation and finally achieving a reference or an acceptable solution. Items A) and B) can be connected with the global acceptability factor for the nodalization development, QA; The global acceptability factor for the nodalization qualification at steady state level, QB, deals with item C); The activities at item D) can be summarized trough the single average accuracy values (AA, and particularly AA P-1 ) and by the global average accuracy value (AA TOT ). 36/50

38 USER S EFFECT USER S EFFECT /50 EDO [T97] Q a, Q b (AA) tot 1.44 Organization's Name Qa Qb (AA)tot Global Acceptability Factors & AATOT

39 SENSITIVITY STUDY 38/50

40 SENSITIVITY STUDY 39/50

41 SENSITIVITY STUDY Comparison of the Results (Time Trends) Pressure (MPa) SENSITIVITY N 1: Break Area UPPER PLENUM PRESSURE Mass Inventory (%) SENSITIVITY N 1: Break Area PRIMARY SYSTEM MASS INVENTORY 0.00 SENSITIVITY N 1: Break Area HOTTEST ROD SURFACE TEMPERATURE 0.0 Temperature (K) /50

42 SENSITIVITY STUDY Comparison of the Results (Time Trends) SENSITIVITY N 3: Gap Thickness UPPER PLENUM PRESSURE (NOT PERFORMED) SENSITIVITY N 3: Gap Thickness PRIMARY SYSTEM MASS INVENTORY (NOT PERFORMED) (NOT PERFORMED) Pressure (MPa) (NOT PERFORMED) Mass Inventory (%) SENSITIVITY N 3: Gap Thickness HOTTEST ROD SURFACE TEMPERATURE (NOT PERFORMED) Temperature (K) (NOT PERFORMED) /50

43 SENSITIVITY STUDY Comparison of the Results (Time Trends) SENSITIVITY N 5: Fuel Conductivity UPPER PLENUM PRESSURE SENSITIVITY N 5: Fuel Conductivity PRIMARY SYSTEM MASS INVENTORY (NOT PERFORMED) Pressure (MPa) (NOT PERFORMED) (NOT PERFORMED) Mass Inventory (%) (NOT PERFORMED) Temperature (K) SENSITIVITY N 5: Fuel Conductivity HOTTEST ROD SURFACE TEMPERATURE (NOT PERFORMED) (NOT PERFORMED) /50

44 SENSITIVITY N 10: Maximum Linear Power UPPER PLENUM PRESSURE SENSITIVITY STUDY Comparison of the Results (Time Trends) SENSITIVITY N 10: Maximum Linear Power PRIMARY SYSTEM MASS INVENTORY Pressure (MPa) Mass Inventory (%) SENSITIVITY N 10: Maximum Linear Power HOTTEST ROD SURFACE TEMPERATURE Temperature (K) /50

45 SENSITIVITY STUDY DPCT and DTREFLOOD: RESULTS of Sensitivities 44/50

46 SENSITIVITY STUDY DPCT Dispersion for Sensitivity Parameter DPCT (K) Break Area Gap Conductivity Gap Thickness Presence of Crud Fuel Conductivity Core Pressure Drop CCFL Decay Power Time of Scram Max Linear Power Accumulator Pressure Accumulator Liquid Mass Pressurizer Level HPIS Failure LPIS injection Time Participant's IDs EDO [T97] 45/50

47 SENSITIVITY STUDY SENSITIVITY STUDY DPCT Dispersion for Participants 46/50 Break Area Gap Conductivity Gap Thickness Presence of Crud Fuel Conductivity Core Pressure Drop CCFL Decay Power Time of Scram Max Linear Power Accumulator Pressure Accumulator Liquid Mass Pressurizer Level HPIS Failure LPIS injection Time Sensitivities EDO [T97] DPCT (K)

48 SENSITIVITY STUDY DPCT Gaussian Distribution Curves for Sensitivity Parameter Gaussian Distribution (-) Break Area Gap Conductivity Gap Thickness Presence of Crud Fuel Conductivity Core Pressure Drop CCFL Decay Power Time of Scram Max Linear Power Accumulator Pressure Accumulator Liquid Mass Pressurizer Level HPIS Failure LPIS injection Time DPCT (K) 47/50

49 SENSITIVITY STUDY DtREFLOOD Dispersion for Sensitivity Parameter Break Area Gap Conductivity Gap Thickness Presence of Crud 30.0 Fuel Conductivity Dt REFLOOD (s) Core Pressure Drop CCFL Decay Power Time of Scram Max Linear Power Accumulator Pressure Accumulator Liquid Mass Pressurizer Level HPIS Failure LPIS injection Time Participant's IDs EDO [T97] 48/50

50 SENSITIVITY STUDY SENSITIVITY STUDY DtREFLOOD Dispersion for Participant 49/50 Break Area Gap Conductivity Gap Thickness Presence of Crud Fuel Conductivity Core Pressure Drop CCFL Decay Power Time of Scram Max Linear Power Accumulator Pressure Accumulator Liquid Mass Pressurizer Level HPIS Failure LPIS injection Time Sensitivities EDO [T97] DtREFLOOD (s)

51 SENSITIVITY STUDY DtREFLOOD Distribution Curves for Sensitivity Parameter Break Area Gap Conductivity Gaussian Distribution (-) Gap Thickness Presence of Crud Fuel Conductivity Core Pressure Drop CCFL Decay Power Time of Scram Max Linear Power Accumulator Pressure Accumulator Liquid Mass Pressurizer Level DPCT (K) 50/50

52 KEY RESULTS FROM BEMUSE PHASE III 50/50

53 KEY RESULTS FROM BEMUSE PHASE III 50/50