Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Official Transcript of Proceedings
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee
Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
Rockville, Maryland
Date:
Friday, February 27, 2009
Work Order No.:
NRC-2693
NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 234-4433
Pages 1-135
1
1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
3
+ + + + +
4
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
5
(ACRS)
6
+
7
+
+
+
+
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THERMAL HYDRAULIC PHENOMENA
8
+
9
+
+
+
+
TRACE APPLICABILITY TO ESBWR LOCA
10
+
+
+
+
+
11
FRIDAY
12
FEBRUARY 27, 2009
13
+ + + + +
14
The
Subcommittee
15
Regulatory
16
T2B1,
17
Banerjee, Chairman, presiding.
18
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Commission,
11545
Rockville
Two
met
at
White
Pike,
at
Flint
8:30
the
Nuclear
North,
a.m.,
19
SANJOY BANERJEE, Chairman
20
SAID ABDEL-KHALIK, Member
21
MICHAEL CORRADINI, Member (via telephone)
Room
Sanjoy
22
23
24
25
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
2
1
ALSO PRESENT:
2
DAVID BESSETTE, Designated Federal Official
3
GRAHAM WALLIS, Consultant
4
RALPH LANDRY, NRO/DSRA
5
JOHN MAHAFFY, RES/DSA
6
JOE KELLY, RES/DSA
7
NATHANAEL HUDSON, RES/DSA/CDB
8
RON HARRINGTON, RES/DSA/RSAB
9
ANDREW IRELAND, RES/DSA/CDB
10
MATTHEW PANICKER, NRR/DSS/SNPB
11
KATHY GIBSON, RES
12
JOSEPH BOROWSKY, RES/DSA/RSAB
13
STEVE BAJOREK, RES/DSA
14
DON FLETCHER, Information Systems Labs
15
JENNIFER UHLE, RES
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
3
1
2
A-G-E-N-D-A
3
4
Opening Remarks by the Chairman .................... 4
5
Introduction from RES .............................. 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Chris Hoxie, RES
TRACE Film Condensation Development for ESBWR ..... 13
Joe Kelly, RES
TRACE Standard Separate Effects Assessment Applicable
to ESBWR .......................................... 96
Joe Staudenmeier, RES
TRACE Integral Test Assessment Specific
13
to ESBWR .................................... 96
14
Joe Staudenmeier, RES
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
4
1
2
3
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
4
8:29 a.m.
5
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
6
come to order.
7
Committee
8
Thermal
9
chairman of the subcommittee.
The meeting will now
This is a meeting of the Advisory
on
Reactor
Hydraulic
Safeguards
Phenomena.
Subcommittee
I'm
Sanjoy
on
Banerjee,
Subcommittee members in
10
attendance
11
join us later, Mike Corradini will be on the phone.
12
I'd also like to welcome ACRS consultant and former
13
ACRS chairman Graham Wallis.
14
designated federal official for this meeting.
15
are
Said
The
Abdel-Khalik,
purpose
of
John
Stetkar
may
David Bessette is the
today's
meeting
is
to
16
consider
17
hydraulic
18
analysis for ESBWRs.
19
information, analyze the relevant issues and facts,
20
and
21
appropriate for deliberation by the full committee in
22
September.
23
meeting have been announced as part of the notice of
24
this
25
Register.
the
applicability
system
formulate
for
the
of
the
TRACE
loss-of-coolant
thermal
accident
The subcommittee will gather
those
positions
and
actions
as
The rules for participation in today's
meeting
previously
published
in
the
Federal
Portions of today's meeting will be closed
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
5
1
for the discussion of proprietary information.
2
have received no written comments or requests for time
3
to make oral statements from members of the public
4
regarding
5
meeting is being kept and will be made available as
6
stated in the Federal Register notice.
7
that
8
available
9
subcommittee.
The
10
themselves
speak
11
volume so that they can be readily heard.
12
we can start the meeting and I think the first thing
13
on the agenda is an introduction from Chris Hoxie who
14
is there, and we'll take it from there.
participants
15
16
17
today's
meeting.
in
this
microphones
and
transcript
meeting
when
speaker
MR. HOXIE:
is Chris Hoxie.
A
with
use
of
one
first
sufficient
the
We request
of
addressing
should
We
the
the
identify
clarity
and
With that,
Okay, good morning.
My name
I will give you a brief introduction.
We are here today to discuss the adequacy of the
18
TRACE
19
analyses of design basis loss-of-coolant accidents and
20
the Economical Simplified Boiling Water Reactor, or
21
the ESBWR.
22
take the better part of the day.
23
used for transient calculations and MELCOR was used
24
for long-term containment pressure calculations, these
25
topics are not covered today.
computer
code
for
performing
confirmatory
As you can see from the agenda, this will
While TRACE is also
Today we're going to
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
6
1
focus on ESBWR LOCA calculations.
2
In
3
identification
4
reviews and evaluations on phenomena, processes and
5
components and systems important to the prediction of
6
ESBWR behavior during LOCAs.
7
equations,
8
reviewed for applicability to ESBWR LOCAs.
9
attention was paid, of course, to the new ESBWR design
10
features such as the gravity-driven cooling system, a
11
passive
12
region.
13
TRACE
14
analyses concerned the film condensation model, and
15
Joe Kelly will talk about that shortly.
16
were
17
predicting
18
pertinent to the ESBWR LOCAs.
19
tests representing important basic physical processes,
20
separate
21
unique
22
configured to represent the overall behavior of the
23
ESBWR reactor system.
24
experimental data represents a major portion of the
25
code adequacy demonstration.
our
work
ranking
numerics
containment
we
cable
and
used
a
approach
to
phenomena
focus
our
The TRACE code governing
closure
cooling
relations
system
and
were
Particular
a
chimney
In terms of development, a measure area of
model
development
made
of
integrated
the
behavior
effects
ESBWR
in
tests
components,
support
code
observed
the
ESBWR
Evaluations
performance
and
for
experiments
The experiments include
simulating
and
of
performance
integral
effects
of
test
Assessment of the code against
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
7
1
A
quick
review
of
the
agenda
and
the
2
presentation shows that we'll spend a fair amount of
3
time discussing these topics.
4
subcommittee's
5
presentations so that all of the public stuff is at
6
the beginning and then we go into closed session.
7
request,
To accommodate the ACRS
we
did
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
segregate
the
With regard to the
8
agenda items, which ones are going to be in closed
9
session?
You have the agenda in front of you, right?
10
11
MR. HOXIE:
Basically open is up until I
believe - let me.
12
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
So you see, closed
13
session you have to go in from 8:45.
14
overview - oh, okay.
15
MR. HOXIE:
16
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
17
This is not the It doesn't show the
closed.
18
19
No sorry, the
MR. HOXIE:
We were planning on following
this.
20
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Well, I don't mind
21
following whatever agenda, I mean that would be fine
22
too.
23
follow
24
different from what we have in front of us.
25
Okay, so you want to reorient the agenda to
the
thing
that
MR. HOXIE:
you've
got
there
which
is
The problem is going in and
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
8
1
out of closed session.
2
My understanding was that -
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Okay, so what we want
3
is to put Joe Kelly at some point, and that's the only
4
one which is open?
5
MR. HOXIE:
6
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
7
Yes.
The very first one.
TRACE Film Condensation Development?
8
MR. HOXIE:
9
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
10
Which is what, the
Right.
So, on the agenda that
we have in front of us that's shown at 11 o'clock.
11
MR. HOXIE:
12
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
That's correct.
So what we could do is
13
we could close the session after this and then open
14
the session at 11:00 through lunch, and then close it
15
after.
16
oh, sorry.
17
Is that what you would like?
MR. HOXIE:
The only open -
There really were only two.
18
There's Joe Staudenmeier with the separate effects,
19
and there's Joe with the film condensation.
20
were the two open pieces.
21
Everything else is closed.
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
22
the session after the break.
23
All right, carry on Chris.
24
agenda.
25
MR. HOXIE:
Those
Okay, so we'll open
Okay, we can do that.
We'll just reorient the
All right.
Let's see here.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
I
9
1
think then we're pretty much - basically I wanted to
2
mention we view this as an informational briefing for
3
you.
4
for ESBWR and we view this meeting here as supportive
5
of -
We know that there are future meetings scheduled
6
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
7
MEMBER CORRADINI:
8
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
9
started.
Sorry.
Good morning, Mike.
Good morning.
Okay, the meeting's
Just Mike, Chris Hoxie is on and
10
besides the first introduction section now he's simply
11
saying something about how the staff view the meeting.
12
Are you on, Mike?
13
MEMBER CORRADINI:
14
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
15
MR. HOXIE:
Yes sir, I'm on.
Okay Chris, go ahead.
Our hope is that this will be
16
supportive and informative, and that future meetings I
17
believe that are planned for this year, that they can
18
focus on the ESBWR design certification as opposed to
19
having TRACE be the center of attention.
20
I think -
21
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
So with that
Well, let me ask you
22
before, since Mike is now on, that there are two ways
23
to view this issue.
24
conclusions from - which the subcommittee and the full
25
committee then agree to - to an ESBWR report at some
One is that we could put in some
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
10
1
point which I have to ask Mike about.
2
is
3
something based on, say, TRACE applicability to the
4
various passive cooled plants in one document.
5
there have been two sort of schools of thought as to
6
how the ACRS as a full committee should respond.
7
me ask Mike first to give an opinion on this.
to
aggregate
8
9
10
the
passive
MEMBER CORRADINI:
apologize for being late.
plants,
write
So
Let
Mike?
Well, two things.
I
Beautiful weather in the
Midwest.
11
12
all
The alternative
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
I'm glad I'm missing
it.
13
MEMBER CORRADINI:
I was going to say that
14
I think since this is coming to the Thermal Hydraulic
15
subcommittee
16
opinion and I'll let you guys on the subcommittee and
17
full committee decide further, but I think the focus
18
ought
19
plants, and any particular technical challenges that
20
raises.
21
and
22
those.
23
things that the subcommittee on ESBWR is interested in
24
where we've asked the applicant to go back and do
25
analysis and we've yet to see it, but those things -
to
the
be
on
focus
-
TRACE's
I
mean,
now
applicability
this
to
is
my
passive
And then as those things are identified, try
understand
how
the
staff
is
going
to
address
There were some - there's been a number of
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
11
1
Said is there - those things involve noncondensable
2
gas trapping and then potential reduction in ECCS for
3
- on the GDCS and the PCCS because of that, and we
4
wanted to see calculations.
5
that
6
applicant's calculations to make sure that they have
7
comfort that things are working properly and they'd be
8
using TRACE, we want to understand the applicability
9
of TRACE to those same situations.
if
the
staff
is
Similarly, I would expect
using
TRACE
to
audit
the
So I think I would
10
be looking for, from my perspective, general technical
11
issues that are unique to passive plants that staff is
12
going
13
applicability and use.
to
have
to
look
at
relative
to
TRACE
14
I mean, the one that - I'll give one that
15
I wanted to ask about eventually, and I will apologize
16
since I have to go somewhere in two hours anyway, is
17
the - is this question was raised in the peer review
18
about the momentum equation and corrections that have
19
to
20
particularly when I have low pressure driving heads,
21
that could be an issue.
22
something
23
generic, but yet has particular application when I
24
have a passive plant with low pressure heads.
25
enough for now?
be
made
to
that
make
started
it
off
more
consistent.
And
So that's an example of
in
the
peer
review
as
Is that
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
12
1
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Yes, I think that's
2
fine Mike.
3
can write me a brief paragraph or a note at some
4
point.
What I understood from you, and maybe you
5
MEMBER CORRADINI:
6
CHAIRMAN
7
Yes, I will.
BANERJEE:
Okay,
just
summarizing your views that would be fine.
8
CORRADINI:
Yes,
10
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Thanks.
11
MEMBER
9
and
MEMBER
that's
fine.
I'll
listen
Sorry.
CORRADINI:
And
12
primarily unless - I just ask everybody if you could
13
for at least the next couple of hours speak up a tad
14
so I can hear, and then I'll try to be quiet unless
15
there's something that you guys aren't going to pick
16
up.
17
you're going to ask similar questions.
But with you folks in the room, I'm guessing
18
19
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
All right.
Okay.
So
Chris, are you done now?
20
MR. HOXIE:
21
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Yes.
So, in the revised
22
agenda the next speaker will be - we are still in open
23
session and we will be in open session till the break.
24
The next two speakers will be Joe Kelly on the film
25
condensation
model
development
and
followed
by
Joe
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
13
1
Staudenmeier, who will speak on the separate effects
2
assessment.
3
Why are we into closed session for such a large amount
4
of time?
After that we go into closed session.
Is it because the data are proprietary data?
5
MR. HOXIE:
6
DR. WALLIS:
7
It's proprietary.
Do we have a handout from Joe
Kelly?
8
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
9
DR. WALLIS:
10
11
Yes.
We do?
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
from Joe?
Where is the handout
I think you can go ahead, Joe.
12
MR. KELLY:
Okay.
I'll be speaking to the
13
development that we did for the TRACE condensation
14
model, the applicability to the ESBWR.
15
actually a model that was - the need for which was
16
identified
17
concentrated
18
you're going to see was pretty much done five to six
19
years ago, and committee members that have been for
20
awhile have seen elements of this presentation several
21
times already.
22
this time.
23
early
in
the
development
I'm
program
effort
on
and
And this is
we
it.
spent
The
a
work
But I'll see if I can get it better
going
to
start
out
with
an
24
introduction, very, very brief background, modeling
25
approach, and overview of the model accuracy.
The
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
14
1
model
2
framework,
3
constitutive models in five different areas:
wall
4
friction,
interfacial
wall-to-liquid
heat
5
transfer,
and
liquid-to-interface
heat
6
transfer,
7
effect.
8
to go through all five areas, so I flagged the two
9
that I'm going to attack, and that's the -
description,
10
11
and
there
then
then
fits
are
into
the
a
actually
shear,
finally
the
two-fluid
changes
noncondensable
to
gas
There wasn't enough time in this presentation
DR. WALLIS:
What's missing in there is
buoyancy.
12
13
so
this
MR. KELLY:
Well, if we're talking about a
falling film then it's the gravitational -
14
DR.
15
ceilings and water surfaces.
16
TRACE had was modeling the surface of the pool, the
17
condensation on the pool, which is governed very much
18
by buoyancy effects.
19
didn't see them in your scope.
20
MR.
WALLIS:
No,
I'm
interested
in
One of the problems that
And ceilings are the same, and I
KELLY:
No,
and
you
won't.
I
21
shortened the title of this presentation by one very
22
critical word.
23
24
DR. WALLIS:
So maybe you have some work
to do in those areas, Joe?
25
MR. KELLY:
Well, we've looked at doing,
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
15
1
you know, the turbulent wave jet modeling in the pool
2
and so on, and didn't go to the history effect because
3
we were initially going to use TRACE for the whole
4
containment and so I started doing some work on that
5
and kind of developed a first cut at a model to put
6
into the suppression pool.
7
the contained code for the containment, so all the
8
TRACE work on that stopped.
9
with the TRACE contained coupling and we went back to
10
using TRACE for everything, but by then it was too
11
late to put that model in.
12
DR.
WALLIS:
Then we were going to use
Then there were problems
Well,
you're
telling
me
13
history, but it seems to me that there is work to do
14
on the area where you don't match the data which is
15
predicting surface condensation on the pool.
16
MR.
KELLY:
And
this
is
just
my
17
recollection because this has been years and I haven't
18
been involved with this work for a couple of years
19
now, to handle that they did some sensitivity studies
20
to see how important the effect was and decided that
21
for, you know, and I don't remember what the data was,
22
but -
23
DR. WALLIS:
Yes, but that still isn't an
24
excuse for why it doesn't model PUMA.
25
get into that till we talk about the data.
So let's not
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
16
1
MEMBER CORRADINI:
Can I ask a follow-up
2
question just so I'm clear?
3
to actually do containment condensation phenomena such
4
as the one Graham is suggesting, or is that just an
5
extra benefit?
6
MR. KELLY:
So is the intent of TRACE
For this particular case where
7
the
8
reactor system, the final position was to use TRACE
9
for the entire containment.
containment
is
so
intimately
10
MEMBER CORRADINI:
11
MR. KELLY:
coupled
to
the
Okay, thank you.
And I really should have said
12
this presentation is about film condensation because
13
certainly what Professor Wallis was talking about are
14
important things, but they're different than what I'm
15
going to talk about.
16
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
So your interest is
17
primarily here to model the PCCS to ICS and these
18
types of -
19
MR. KELLY:
That was the initial thrust
20
was,
21
component,
22
sure TRACE has a model for it.
ICS is also there and
23
then
the
24
extended to include the containment volumes, then we
25
needed a model for the condensation on the containment
you
later
know,
we
it's
an
when
know
that
important
the
scope
the
ECCS
component,
of
TRACE
is
a
let's
model
new
make
was
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
17
1
walls with the effect of noncondensable on those as
2
well.
3
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
So you can handle, if
4
you like, the vertical walls, film condensation on
5
those?
6
7
MR.
Yes,
and
I'll
show
some
comparisons here.
8
9
KELLY:
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Whereas what Graham
was talking about, on the horizontal surfaces -
10
MR. KELLY:
Yes, evaporation from, you
11
know, a stratified layer on top of the suppression
12
pool, that kind of thing, that's different.
13
CHAIRMAN
BANERJEE:
What
about
the
14
ceilings on things where pre-convection effects and so
15
on could be important?
16
17
MR. KELLY:
detail so I can't say.
18
19
I haven't looked at that in
DR. WALLIS:
The ceiling is - they'll talk
about the ESBWR or not in this stage.
20
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Maybe not.
Well, I think we'd
21
better hold it to the closed session.
22
understand exactly, and I think you brought it up
23
there.
24
condensation.
25
As long as we
PCCS to ICS and the wall - vertical wall
MR. KELLY:
All right.
So this is what I
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
18
1
was tasked to do was first to come up with a model in
2
TRACE, or just show that the existing TRACE model was
3
adequate for the passive containment cooling system.
4
What you have here is obviously condensation and the
5
presence of noncondensable gases, but it's co-current
6
downflow and the films tend to be laminar and the
7
Reynolds number of the gas mixture is fairly modest so
8
the gas velocities are low, so interfacial shear does
9
not play much of a role.
It's pretty much a falling
10
laminar film with noncondensable gas condensation.
11
we start condensing noncondensable gases we've got a
12
problem.
13
model the Isolation Condenser System.
14
be more pure steam because the primary system is still
15
closed up, at least when that tends to be important.
16
And what you have here is a highly sheared turbulent
17
film,
18
condensation.
19
If
But at the same time we wanted to be able to
more
of
the
DR. WALLIS:
classical
kind
That tends to
of
in-tube
Now, the argument that's used
20
later in the report is it doesn't matter because the
21
PCCS is self-regulating anyway.
22
23
24
MR. KELLY:
I think that's probably true.
Quite often there are system effects that one thing
balances the other.
25
DR. WALLIS:
Or if it goes too far one way
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
19
1
it corrects itself.
2
MR. KELLY:
3
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Right.
How - I guess this was
4
my question and Graham has asked it already, is how
5
sensitive
6
right?
7
are
the
overall
MR. KELLY:
results
to
I don't know.
getting
this
I haven't been
8
involved with this for awhile and I didn't do the
9
ESBWR calculations.
There are people here in the room
10
who can answer that question better than I can.
11
think when they start doing the plant calculations and
12
show those to you they'll be able to answer that.
13
CHAIRMAN
14
these condensation -
BANERJEE:
15
MR. KELLY:
16
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
17
DR. WALLIS:
18
The
And I
sensitivity
to
Right.
Okay.
Have you been out of the
picture for awhile?
19
MR.
KELLY:
I've
been
working
on
gas
20
reactors for more than a year now and my last year
21
really with the TRACE development team was dedicated
22
to documentation.
23
DR. WALLIS:
Nobody comes back to you and
24
says Joe, why did you do this?
25
whatever you did?
They just accept
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
20
1
MR. KELLY:
No, they do, and that's kind
2
of why I'm here today.
Later on, pretty late in the
3
process it was decided to extend the scope of TRACE to
4
the
5
modified the model to account for that as well.
6
first thing you do is, you know, does what we have
7
existing in TRACE work well enough that we just go
8
with that?
9
and kind of went well, I don't think so, but just
10
because you'll see like the effect of noncondensable
11
gases was an empirical correlation and it was for
12
condensation on a turbulent liquid jet in a cross-air
13
stream which you don't expect to work in PCCS.
wall
condensation.
14
And
so
you'll
see
how
I
The
So I took a look at what was in the model
DR. WALLIS:
So the question here is that
15
TRACE has to be rebuilt when you get to ESBWR.
16
going to have to be redone when you get to some other
17
design?
18
19
MEMBER CORRADINI:
that again?
20
Is it
Graham, can you say
I didn't understand what you just said.
DR. WALLIS:
I was just saying, if you
21
found that the old model didn't work for ESBWR and you
22
fix it.
23
MEMBER CORRADINI:
24
DR. WALLIS:
25
Okay.
I'm just wondering if it has
to be fixed again when we get another design.
Because
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
21
1
these phenomena are so design-specific.
2
MR.
KELLY:
If
we
talk
about
tube
3
condensation, I'll say no.
4
completely different, you know, say it's an innovative
5
design for the
6
Well, if that's something that's never been studied
7
before, yes.
8
model.
9
TRACE against data to see if it did work, and the
If we talk about something
flow of an accumulator, for example.
But I didn't just go on reviewing the
I went ahead and did some calculations with
10
performance was pretty poor.
11
model development effort.
12
said this a couple of times, in-tube condensation, the
13
presence of noncondensable gases for the PCCS, but I
14
also make that same model applicable to the isolation
15
condenser, later on modify it for wall condensation
16
for large containment models.
And so that led to a
And so again, I've already
17
TRACE is a two-fluid code, as you know.
18
Most literature correlations are really built for, I
19
don't want to say homogenous things, but you know,
20
where you assume things are at saturation temperature.
21
So a lot the literature models don't go into a two-
22
fluid code very easily.
23
and play some tricks, and so on.
24
do since I had the chance to possibly develop a new
25
model was try to make it consistent with the two-fluid
You have to shoehorn them in,
So what I wanted to
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
22
1
framework.
2
solving
3
providing a lot of the information that some of the
4
empirical models really would need.
5
talking about here is by solving the mass and energy
6
equations
7
condensive flow rate.
8
it like you do in the Nusselt model.
9
momentum
And another part of that is when you're
the
two-fluid
you
get
equation
equations,
the
you
axial
you're
already
Now what I'm
distribution
of
the
You don't have to calculation
now
get
to
By solving the
liquid
film
10
thickness, assuming you do that right, okay?
11
get to liquid film thickness, the Nusselt formula is
12
just
13
thickness.
the
14
15
liquid
connectivity
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
by
the
film
But that's only for
laminar.
16
MR. KELLY:
17
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
18
divided
If you
That's correct.
Assuming the film is
laminar.
19
MR.
KELLY:
That's
correct.
But
I'm
20
replacing that final formula with K over delta because
21
I'm taking advantage of what - everything the code is
22
going to go through to calculate the delta anyway.
23
DR. WALLIS:
It's not just gravity that's
24
pulling the film.
25
the first by doing momentum balance, but it's only
The second equation follows from
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
23
1
gravity that's working.
2
MR.
KELLY:
Right.
Yes,
there's
no
3
interfacial drag in the Nusselt, it's only gravity and
4
wall drag.
5
that comes out of solving the two-fluid conservation
6
equations, if you do it right you at least can get the
7
effect
8
thickness.
9
Whereas if you're using a film thickness
of
interfacial
CHAIRMAN
drag
on
BANERJEE:
the
liquid
Well,
there
film
is
a
10
problem with the Nusselt formula because as soon as
11
you get significant waves you get stirring.
12
delta there is an effective delta and not a -
13
MR. KELLY:
So the
That's exactly right.
You
14
know, it kind of all comes out in the wash because you
15
change the Nusselt formula part, but.
16
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
17
think we get the picture here.
18
MR. KELLY:
All right.
Right.
Anyway, I
Well, so I want to
19
give you an overview of the model accuracy.
20
is
21
condensation database, and the calculations I'm going
22
to show you in just a second are more spreadsheet-
23
based.
24
local conditions from the experimental data and stuck
25
them in the new model and I'm going to compare the
the
set
of
test
data
that
I
used
Now, this
for
the
What I did was for each data point I took the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
24
1
TRACE model to several empirical correlations.
2
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
3
stuff in the report, is that the MIT stuff?
4
MR. KELLY:
Yes.
So, this - the ABDHBI
I will refer to it as
5
MIT-Dehbi and I'll show some - a plot of that later.
6
I can describe.
7
you what it looked like later.
8
because this is what I started with, and the Dehbi is
9
more, you know, a vessel test.
I don't have drawings, but I can tell
This was done for N2
I wanted to do pure
10
steam
11
conditions
12
Berkeley, and the last one which was the one that got
13
the best data because they learned progressively how
14
to do the tests better was by a student named Kuhn,
15
and he did both pure steam condensation tests as well
16
as steam air and steam helium.
17
three of those show up.
18
me the conditions that you're more likely to see in
19
something like the PCCS.
20
those
21
films into small diameter.
condensation
are,
there
you
first.
was
a
know,
Well,
whole
DR. WALLIS:
23
CHAIRMAN
series
the
of
ESBWR
tests
at
And you'll notice all
So for pure steam, that gives
The NASA Goodykoontz test,
highly
22
for
sheared
turbulent-type
That's very old.
BANERJEE:
Even
the
UCB-Kuhn
24
data, falling liquid - if you're basing that Reynolds
25
number on the film thickness, falling liquid films
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
25
1
become turbulent actually at close to 400 to 800.
2
the 2000 data is well turbulent.
3
MR. KELLY:
Yes.
So
Well, as in - I brought
4
along a bunch of extra slides so I can show you how
5
the wall liquid correlation goes, and it does - first,
6
it goes above Nusselt through the effect of the holes
7
on the film, and then as the Reynolds number increases
8
it gets higher, then it gets fair into a correlation
9
for a turbulent film.
So that's there, and that's why
10
we can do these tests, okay?
11
again the UCB-Kuhn, but they had some companion tests
12
at MIT, two students named Siddique and Hasanein, and
13
then helium steam, those three.
14
style presenter.
15
16
MR. KELLY:
Sitting in front of a laptop
just doesn't - isn't CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
20
reporter can hear, that's okay.
21
MR. KELLY:
22
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
As long as the court
Oh, that's right.
That's all that really
matters.
24
25
We can get you a laser
pointer.
19
23
I'm still an old
I like getting up and pointing.
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
17
18
Then for air steam,
DR. WALLIS:
same tube size.
So everybody uses about the
How does that compare with the ESBWR
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
26
1
tube size?
2
3
MR. KELLY:
Kuhn is prototypic.
4
DR. WALLIS:
5
MR.
6
As far as I remember, the UCB-
Okay.
KELLY:
Because
these
tests
were
sponsored by GE.
7
MEMBER
CORRADINI:
If
I
may
break
in.
8
Joe, just to follow on Graham's question, this - to
9
get back to the bigger picture, if I understand it,
10
the periphery tests were done literally so that you
11
could get an in-tube condensation heat transfer with
12
noncondensables and they stuck with the same weight
13
scale because it's pretty unclear as to when you go
14
from essentially in-tube to an in-vessel phenomenon.
15
Is that correct?
16
MR. KELLY:
The part about doing the test
17
to develop heat transfer correlations to use in their
18
model for the ESBWR is correct.
19
length scale I can't say.
20
make the tubes prototypic.
21
The choice of the
I just know they tried to
MEMBER CORRADINI:
Okay.
Well, the reason
22
I bring it up like that is the Dehbi experiments at
23
MIT,
24
centimeters even though it was viewed as a vessel,
25
whereas Tagami-Uchida from long ago were much larger
the
length
scale
there
was
only
about
30
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
27
1
vessels.
2
something
3
actual design to get around the question of how to
4
scale.
So I'm only getting at that we're focused on
where
length
scales
5
MR. KELLY:
6
MEMBER CORRADINI:
7
CHAIRMAN
are
matched
to
the
That's correct.
Okay.
BANERJEE:
Yes,
actually
of
8
course, as you get towards the bottom of the tubes
9
your Reynolds numbers for liquid film will increase
10
significantly.
11
MR. KELLY:
Yes, actually on my previous
12
slide, those Reynolds numbers were the tube exit.
13
film
14
ventilate.
15
was
the
tube
Okay?
exit,
the
gas
was
the
The
tube
So, here are the experiments again.
The pointer doesn't work on white.
So, you see the
16
number of data points, and there's three different
17
correlations, the Vierow-Schrock which was developed
18
from the first set of UCB tests, the Kuhn-Schrock-
19
Peterson which was the last set, and then the well
20
known Shah correlation for pure steam condensation in
21
tubes.
22
I'm showing here the average error and the RMS error
23
for each of these compared to all the data points in
24
those sets.
25
Kuhn-Schrock model compared to their own data.
And what you'll see if you'll compare the -
And let's just for example look at the
The
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
28
1
errors are very small, but you're fitting an empirical
2
model to one set of data, so that's kind of what you'd
3
expect.
4
as good with what I'll call a semi-mechanistic model
5
in TRACE.
6
model and apply it to a different data set, like you
7
take this model which was for lightly sheared laminar
8
films and you apply it to a highly sheared turbulent
9
film, the errors are pretty large, whereas again, the
10
What is surprising is we're able to do almost
Now, if you take a model, an empirical
TRACE errors aren't too bad.
11
DR. WALLIS:
12
MR. KELLY:
13
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
14
That's the old TRACE?
No, that's the new TRACE.
You'll show us the
formative correlation at some point?
15
MR.
KELLY:
Yes.
It's
not
one
16
correlation.
17
different
18
showing you some of them.
19
ahead and try to - but you know, that's a 2- to 3-hour
20
presentation, so.
21
What it is, it's models for those five
categories
CHAIRMAN
I
show,
and
I'm
planning
on
If we have time I can go
BANERJEE:
Right.
The
other
22
thing you could do is just give us the backup slides.
23
I mean, we've been reading this report, but you know,
24
we've got thousands of pages to read through.
25
MR.
KELLY:
You
don't
have
the
TRACE
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
29
1
theory manual by heart now?
2
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
3
DR. WALLIS:
Almost.
It's okay.
It doesn't really
4
tell us applicability to the range of variables we're
5
interested in because the - I don't know if RMS tells
6
us much about where ESBWR fits on the statistical
7
curve, on the tail of your distribution.
8
- we need to know that.
9
MR. KELLY:
Perhaps more
Well, these NASA tests, that's
10
pure steam, high flow rates - that's ICS, not PCCS.
11
And
12
conditions overlap.
13
tests were designed for -
I
don't
remember
the
degree
to
which
the
However, both the UCB and the MIT
14
DR. WALLIS:
They top out the right range.
15
MR. KELLY:
The MIT ones tend to cover
16
about the right range.
The Kuhn ones go a little bit
17
past that.
18
to five bar, but we're not planning on having five bar
19
inside the containment.
20
range very well, but also bracket it.
So for example, pressure goes from one bar
So they tried to cover the
21
So, for the pure steam test - actually,
22
the point I really wanted to make here is that when
23
you
24
empirical model gets its own database, it's very good.
25
now
go
to
air-steam
TRACE is equally as good.
condensation,
again
the
And if you then go to a
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
30
1
test outside that database, TRACE is much better than
2
the
3
comparison.
4
coefficient versus measured.
5
or minus 25.
6
You see it lines up very nicely except for a few
7
points
8
turbulent film transition where we're going from one
9
model to the other.
10
other
correlations.
So
this
just
shows
that
So this is the calculated heat transfer
here,
The error bars are plus
This is the UCB-Kuhn pure steam data.
and
those
are
right
in
the
laminar
We over-predict the heat transfer
by a bit.
11
CHAIRMAN
BANERJEE:
That's
interesting.
12
So, you'd expect the laminar ones to be on the left-
13
hand side, but lower.
14
MR. KELLY:
Well, this has to do with the
15
way the models in TRACE work.
16
mean.
17
Oh no, I see what you
You're expecting CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
It's at the lower end
18
of the - the turbulent along the -
19
MR. KELLY:
Yes.
Now, I'm overlaying on
20
the same plot the results of the Kuhn air steam test.
21
And you see again they line up very well with a
22
slight bias, but there are some points out here where
23
TRACE
24
points tend to be at the end of the tube, and so then
25
all the errors, you know, for the mass and energy as
under-predicts
fairly
significantly.
Those
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
31
1
you integrate down from the top of the tube to where
2
you're actually running out of steam, those errors
3
have accumulated.
4
That's part of it.
CHAIRMAN
BANERJEE:
Let
me
ask
you
a
5
question here.
6
on the gas side which becomes significant due to the
7
accumulation of the air.
8
9
MR. KELLY:
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Okay.
So it's sort of
diffusion control.
12
13
That model I'm going to show
in detail later.
10
11
Obviously you've now got a resistance
MR.
KELLY:
It's
a
mass
transfer
of
conducted -
14
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
15
a
16
transfer.
heat
transfer
controlled
Yes, you're going from
condensation
17
MR. KELLY:
18
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
to
mass
Exactly.
And that - is that
19
sort of where the big errors arise?
20
MR. KELLY:
Well, no, but close, because
21
what you're - for these points, if you go and look at
22
where
23
Reynolds number is in the hundreds.
24
laminar regime.
25
what the Sherwood number ought to be you expect it to
they
actually
are,
the
local
gas
mixture
So you're in the
And if you back out from the data
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
32
1
be on the order of four because it's laminar in a
2
tube, but instead it's on the order of 10 to 12 which
3
doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
4
think,
5
something phenomenologically?
6
proof, but from what I've looked at, what I think it
7
is is the persistence of turbulence, it's a history
8
effect.
well
9
is
it
the
data,
or
So you have to
are
we
missing
And I don't have any
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Or it could be the
10
stirring effect of the liquid film.
11
DR. WALLIS:
12
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Maybe it's not a steady flow.
Well, you've got -
13
that's what I'm saying, you've got large waves by
14
then.
15
stirring the -
The
film
is
16
MR. KELLY:
17
CHAIRMAN
18
and
it
could
be
That's possible as well.
BANERJEE:
MR. KELLY:
It's
a
classical
My explanation also covers one
other case though.
21
22
thick
problem.
19
20
fairly
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Could be also fossil
turbulence.
23
MR. KELLY:
When we first looked at the
24
PUMA PCCS condensers, and now these are quarter height
25
so everything is shortened up, but the tubes are still
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
33
1
a pretty good diameter.
2
scaled that facility for a noncondensable conduction
3
heat
4
Schrock, and that model is only - it's a function of
5
the laminar film Reynolds number and a function of the
6
gas - you know, mole fraction of noncondensable gas.
7
It doesn't have any effect of the gas mixture Reynolds
8
number in it.
9
didn't worry about the gas mixture Reynolds number in
transfer
model
I don't remember.
they
were
using
When they
the
Vierow-
So when they scaled the facility, they
10
the PCCS tubes.
11
noncondensable gas concentration there.
12
actually come in laminar, if you look at the local
13
Reynolds number.
14
conditions
model,
15
should
4,
16
under-predict that, just like we under-predict this.
17
But if you go back and look at the facility, and I
18
don't remember this exactly, but you know, size of the
19
pipe coming in and what the Reynolds number of the
20
pipe going into the header is, that flow is highly
21
turbulent before it enters into the header.
22
instead of the header being the size of the plant, the
23
header is reduced because it's quarter height.
24
have a highly turbulent flow coming in, going to the
25
set of tubes.
be
They just wanted to get the right
Well, so they
And our model, which is only a local
says
Sherwood
our
laminar
number
should
Nusselt
be
4,
number
and
we
And now
So you
They're going to have a history effect
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
34
1
and have some turbulent kinetic energy in them even
2
though
3
laminar.
the
local
Reynolds
number
says
hey,
I'm
So -
4
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
How long - are other
5
deviations occurring near the entrance or near the
6
exit of the type?
7
MR.
KELLY:
In
these
tests
where
the
8
Reynolds number was about 20,000, these are all at the
9
exit.
10
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
11
MR. KELLY:
Right.
And that's one thing where the
12
experimental error has been magnified because you're
13
integrating it from the top of the tube to the bottom,
14
but that's also where the local gas Reynolds number
15
says it would be laminar, and like you said, that's
16
also
17
maximum.
where
18
the
liquid
film
thickness
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
is
at
its
There are - I mean,
19
there's a lot of evidence that the liquid film, the
20
waves can stir up the gas.
21
laminar liquid film mass transfer due to that which
22
gives you over 50 percent, 60 percent higher than
23
you'd expect from Nusselt theory.
24
film side I'm not sure.
25
sort of effect is seen due to these large waves.
You get an effect even on
So on the liquid
On the gas side, the same
So
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
35
1
anyway, it's an interesting problem, but I don't know
2
how germane it is to our prediction for ESBWR.
3
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
I have sort of a big
4
picture question.
5
means for the TRACE model to either under-predict or
6
over-predict
7
percent.
8
sensitivity study will be done to look at the effect
9
of that much deviation in various parameters on the
10
overall plant response - on the calculated overall
11
plant response?
12
the
I'm trying to understand what it
heat
transfer
coefficient
by
40
Is there a presentation later on where a
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
I guess we asked that
13
question earlier and we said we're going to defer that
14
to.
15
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
I'm just trying to
16
see, you know, how much I should keep track of these
17
individual deviations.
18
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
I don't think we have
19
any sensitivities on that because what that really
20
affects is going into long-term cooling and we don't
21
have plant calculations doing that.
22
23
MEMBER CORRADINI:
We have some -
Can you speak up?
And
I didn't hear, you will have plant calculations?
24
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Joe Staudenmeier.
25
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
Joe Staudenmeier.
Our
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
36
1
plant
2
cooling period where this becomes more important.
3
had some integral test facility calculations that do,
4
but
5
essentially what you do if you're under-predicting a
6
heat
7
you're doing is changing the temperature difference
8
that it's floating by, and then you can translate that
9
into
calculations
we
don't
transfer
a
don't
have
in
into
sensitivity
coefficient
difference
extend
or
t-sat
on
the
long-term
that.
But
over-predicting,
and
a
We
difference
what
in
10
pressure if you want, and that's really the way you
11
have to look at it.
12
MEMBER
CORRADINI:
I
understand
your
13
explanation.
14
is exactly the sort of stuff the TH community should
15
worry about, but eventually if we ever get back to an
16
ESBWR subcommittee, somebody in that meeting is going
17
to ask, this is all very good for the physics of it,
18
but how much does it impact?
19
Said's major point.
20
going to be a question.
21
I think Said's point is - I mean, this
And I think that's
And I think downstream that's
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
Yes, that will be a
22
question.
23
a question more for MELCOR than for TRACE since we're
24
not responsible for the long-term cooling calculation.
25
I think for long-term cooling that's really
MEMBER CORRADINI:
Hold on there.
That's
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
37
1
the - well, I guess - this is Mr. Chairman Banerjee's
2
issue here, but that was part of the reason I think
3
that we had this - or that he had had this meeting is
4
that it was my understanding and Joe's response to my
5
original question that you have to couple into the
6
containment.
7
able to do this.
8
you do it, how much sensitivity you have to these
9
models.
10
That means TRACE has at least got to be
That leads us to the question of if
I mean, that's kind of going back to Said's
original question, if I understood it.
11
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
Yes, and you'll get to
12
see some integral test predictions and I'll discuss
13
sensitivities of that during that presentation.
14
CHAIRMAN
15
access to the slides being shown?
16
BANERJEE:
MEMBER CORRADINI:
Mike,
do
you
have
They just came.
I'm
17
sorry, if I'm taking you off track just tell me to be
18
quiet.
19
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
20
you're on track.
21
through the day?
22
No, no, it's fine,
You're not going to be with us
MEMBER CORRADINI:
I go into budget crisis
23
meetings and doctor things in about an hour and a
24
half, and I'll come back to you after that.
25
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
All right.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
38
1
MR. KELLY:
The one thing that I can say
2
about the plant response, at least the last time I
3
checked,
4
condenser error - area were over-designed.
5
safety margin built in.
6
under-predict
7
happens is you just open up a little bit more of the
8
area.
9
of the way down the tube and the last third of the
things
like
the
the
PCCS
tube
heat
transfer
There's a
So as we talked later, if you
condensation
heat
transfer,
what
Typically, this completes say about two-thirds
10
tube is pretty much all noncondensable gases.
11
you just move that interface down a little bit further
12
until you condense all the steam.
13
steam up to the partial pressure corresponding to the
14
temperature in the PCCS pool.
15
DR. WALLIS:
16
MR. KELLY:
17
DR. WALLIS:
Now,
You know, all the
So, sort of self-controlled.
Exactly.
Which is nice.
Now, as I read before, it
18
seems that you fixed the driving force by using the
19
partial pressure.
20
21
MR. KELLY:
For the noncondensable gas
effect, that's true.
22
DR. WALLIS:
It may be okay when you have
23
a very turbulent flow with everything well mixed in
24
the tube, but when you're dealing with containment,
25
the buildup of noncondensables is more governed by
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
39
1
diffusion and you get this layer which snuffs out
2
condensation in a way it does not do in a tube.
3
wouldn't think that this model that you're developing
4
for the tube would apply to these big air, big volumes
5
and walls and surfaces.
6
MR. KELLY:
7
DR. WALLIS:
8
So I
Well Is it the same model, or do
you have a completely different model?
9
MR. KELLY:
It's the same model except for
10
how the Sherwood number is calculated.
11
the
12
convection
13
basically reproduces Uchida when you compare it to the
14
conditions Uchida is for.
Sherwood
15
16
number
is
correlation,
DR. WALLIS:
In that case,
calculated
and
it
by
turns
a
out
natural
that
it
Are you going to get to that
later?
17
MR. KELLY:
18
DR. WALLIS:
Okay.
19
MR. KELLY:
So in summary, we developed
Yes.
20
the model.
21
advantage of the solution and conservation equations,
22
and the accuracy is as good as empirical correlations
23
when
24
correlations came from and it's superior to empirical
25
models when you go to other databases.
it's
It's consistent with two-fluid.
compared
against
the
We take
database
those
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
40
1
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
2
fluid
3
noncondensables,
4
concentration?
model
carrier
concentration
you
just
5
MR. KELLY:
6
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
7
fields
get
for
the
the
average
Yes.
So somehow you have to
change that.
8
9
Now, within the two-
MR.
interface.
KELLY:
Into
a
concentration
And I will show you how we do that.
Not
10
in great detail, but I think in enough.
11
mentioned, we had to make changes to five different
12
constitutive models.
13
friction, a noncondensable gas effect.
14
say, why would you worry about wall friction?
15
I'll show you.
16
the film thickness, but I'll show why I worried about
17
it.
18
assessment results, and these are the ones that I did
19
as part of the developmental assessment.
20
will show you the ESBWR-specific ones.
21
Then
I'm going to talk about wall
And you may
And
You know, obviously it's important to
I'll
DR.
So as I
give
you
WALLIS:
a
Now,
22
essentially rather than gravity?
23
much effect in these tubes.
24
MR. KELLY:
25
DR. WALLIS:
sample
does
of
the
TRACE
Other people
shear
govern
Gravity doesn't have
For PCCS tubes it's gravity.
It is?
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
41
1
MR.
KELLY:
Because
the
gas
mixture
2
velocity
3
important than interfacial drag.
4
conditions where you have high-speed velocities, then
5
you're back more to the traditional tube condensation
6
stuff where it's a highly sheared film.
is
relatively
7
DR. WALLIS:
8
MR. KELLY:
9
slow,
so
gravity
is
more
But if you go to ICS
Thank you.
And I'll show you a slide
later which will kind of show that some.
So, this is
10
what I talked about earlier.
11
literature for a condensation heat transfer model, you
12
get
13
coefficient times t-wall minus t-sat.
14
course if there are noncondensables in here there's
15
going to be some extra term for the effect of the
16
noncondensables.
17
representation, we have a wall, a liquid and a vapor,
18
co-current downflow from PCCS tubes, and we have three
19
different heat transfer processes.
20
remove heat from the liquid to the wall.
21
removing heat from the interface to the liquid, and
22
this is really the primary heat removal that causes
23
the condensation at the interface.
24
vapor would have to be super-heated, you can also be
25
transferring some heat to this interface which could
heat
flux
is
equal
If you look in the
to
the
heat
transfer
And then of
But when you look at the two-fluid
First you have to
You're also
If for example the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
42
1
be causing evaporation so you end up taking the net.
2
So
3
actually the wall to liquid heat transfer coefficient
4
times
5
temperature.
6
two interfacial processes divided by the latent heat.
7
And this is something that Professor Banerjee asked
in
the
two-fluid
wall
model
temperature
the
wall
minus
heat
the
flux
is
condensate
Condensation rate is the sum of those
8
earlier.
9
t-sat at the partial pressure of the steam, and it
10
should be the partial pressure of the steam at the
11
interface.
12
framework it's assuming that it's at the bulk vapor
13
partial pressure.
14
that, and I make that adjustment explicitly and then
15
add in a heat transfer resistance here to account for
16
that.
17
18
This interface temperature which is really
But
within
two-fluid
numerical
So I have to make an adjustment for
And I'll show you how that's done.
DR.
WALLIS:
TNI
is
the
saturation
temperature at the bulk partial pressure?
19
MR. KELLY:
20
DR. WALLIS:
21
the
In reality, no.
Shouldn't it be at the actual
-
22
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
23
MR. KELLY:
That is the issue.
That's exactly what I just
24
said.
25
mass transfer conductance model and locally calculate
And so to account for that I'm going to use a
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
43
1
what it really is.
2
3
DR. WALLIS:
So you're going to do it
right.
4
MR. KELLY:
5
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Yes.
The only way you can
6
do that is to get the concentration of the interface
7
normal.
8
MR. KELLY:
9
CHAIRMAN
10
And that's exactly BANERJEE:
And
then
you
can
always calculate.
11
MR. KELLY:
So with this framework, the
12
first thing we're going to do, you know, the model
13
first.
14
noncondensable gas mixtures.
15
to both falling and sheared films.
16
worry about both gravity and interfacial, and that's
17
what
18
literature
19
together a model that would handle all of this.
20
film
21
gravity, wall friction, and interfacial shear.
22
we've discussed for PCCS conditions, it's primarily
23
wall friction.
24
needed.
25
And here we're going to talk first about what happens
It had to be for both pure steam and steam-
makes
just
kind
thickness,
picking
of
It had to be applicable
one
correlation
difficult.
that's
a
So now I have to
So
I
function
from
tried
to
obviously
the
put
For
of
As
And these are the other models we
I'm going to talk about the wall drag now.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
44
1
with the legacy code version which in some of the
2
slides
3
TRACE.
4
phase velocity in meters per second versus the axial
5
position.
6
you'll
see
with
Original
You come into the tube, the blue curve is the vapor
8
condense
9
velocity decreases.
10
what
11
velocity.
Comes in at 6 meters per second.
the
TRACE
vapor,
was
the
mass
flow
rate
Okay, well and good.
calculating
It's not right.
for
the
As you
hence
the
Look at
liquid
film
It's actually unphysical.
You don't have a thin film along the wall falling at
5 meter a second.
14
15
labeled
This is for a pure steam condensation run.
velocity.
13
plots
So, the plot on the left-hand slide is the
7
12
the
You know, it just doesn't happen.
DR. WALLIS:
How did TRACE ever predict
that?
16
MR. KELLY:
Well, it predicts it because
17
this is the legacy TRACE model.
18
the wall drag between liquid and vapor.
19
uses the void fraction to do that.
20
high void fractions, which you are with thin liquid
21
films, there's basically no wall drag on the liquid.
22
DR. WALLIS:
23
MR. KELLY:
Because it partitions
So - and it
When you have very
Pretty cool.
Yes.
And it was the same
24
thing in RELAP when we started doing RELAP for the
25
8600
and
the
SPWR
back
13
years
ago.
This
was
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
45
1
something we had to look at in RELAP too.
2
something that I expected to stumble on in TRACE as
3
well.
4
5
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
So it was
The history of this
goes back to Solberg who partitioned these things.
6
MR. KELLY:
You know you're right at the
7
limits, you know, and it's - and they weren't thinking
8
of trying to calculate a film thickness.
9
what they were worried about.
That wasn't
They were worried about
10
blowing down a plant, large break LOCA, what's the
11
PCT.
12
did 30 years ago because from their focus they were
13
doing
14
reasonable when it's applied to this.
You know, not going to criticize what someone
something
15
DR.
that
was
reasonable,
WALLIS:
It
just
but
it's
not
shows
why
you
16
shouldn't use a code without understanding what's in
17
it.
18
MR. KELLY:
I agree with that.
The plot
19
on
20
millimeters versus the axial position for the same
21
calculation.
the
right-hand
side
is
the
film
thickness
in
The legacy TRACE one is the blue curve.
22
This red one is a hand calculation where what I did
23
is just simply took the liquid condensate flow rate,
24
divide - you know, and solved gravity versus - so it's
25
a Nusselt thing in effect.
So there's no interfacial
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
46
1
drag
2
between 100 and 150 microns, which is kind of what
3
you'd expect.
on
this.
4
You
notice
the
film
thickness
is
So, the revised model which is what's now
5
the default model in TRACE.
6
the parallel plate formula for smooth laminar film and
7
as Professor Banerjee stated, that will slightly over-
8
predict the film thickness because it's neglecting the
9
effect of ripples.
Parameter film is just
Rather than put that into the wall
10
drag, I'm going to make that up when I go to the wall
11
heat transfer model.
12
delta, it'll be K over delta times 1 plus Reynolds
13
number
14
rippling on the film, where that Reynolds number is
15
the film Reynolds number.
to
16
17
a
power,
So rather than it being K over
you
DR. WALLIS:
MR. KELLY:
19
DR. WALLIS:
make
up
for
the
So this is restricted to down
This wall drag model Well, it assumes a sort of
linear profile.
21
22
to
flow?
18
20
know,
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
This is just a laminar
prediction.
23
MR. KELLY:
That's where this comes from,
24
but this model is used everywhere except as long as
25
you have a film.
When the film grows large enough so
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
47
1
that we're getting to void fractions greater than 0.9
2
and we're starting to look more like pipe flow, then
3
the laminar goes to 60 and over Reynolds number.
4
DR. WALLIS:
But I'm just saying in up
5
flow, or in the sort of low velocity region you can
6
get the liquid going down at the wall and up in the
7
middle.
So then this wouldn't make any sense.
8
9
MR. KELLY:
No, that's true.
the PCCS - co-current down flow.
Fortunately
And just, you know,
10
an explicit approximation, the Colebrook-White for the
11
turbulent film, and in a power wall combination.
12
know, pretty standard stuff.
13
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Why did you have to
14
get such a - go back to the previous slide.
15
there are simpler ways to make things turbulent.
16
did you have to go through?
17
18
MR. KELLY:
Lazius.
I mean,
Why
Oh, I could have used the
That would work equally well.
19
20
You
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Lazius or something
like that.
21
MR. KELLY:
But I was - what I was trying
22
to do was remove uncertainty where I could, you know,
23
and that's not that - it's an explicit approximation.
24
It's not that hard for the computer to evaluate it,
25
and I can also start using the same models across the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
48
1
board, rather than have a turbulent wall drag model
2
that we only use for liquid film and PCCS tubes.
3
can use that for two-phase flow once we get to, you
4
know, two-phase flow in the pipe.
5
CHAIRMAN
6
BANERJEE:
that's
why
the
epsilon is there.
7
MR. KELLY:
8
DR. WALLIS:
9
So
I
Right.
Does epsilon over D have any
effect in PCCS tubes?
10
MR. KELLY:
11
DR. WALLIS:
12
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
13
make it more universal.
14
MR. KELLY:
We - no.
None whatsoever.
Why did you put it there?
Well, as I said, to
Right.
So, this is a non-
15
dimensional
16
divided by the Nusselt parameter, you know, the little
17
viscosity squared over G delta rho, all over one-third
18
power.
19
found all the data that at least when I was looking at
20
that time I could, and I had to digitize a lot of old
21
-
22
23
film
thickness
plus
the
film
thickness
Plot against the film Reynolds number.
DR. WALLIS:
I
This is with no vapor doing
anything, right?
24
MR. KELLY:
25
Because that's the first thing.
Right.
This is falling films.
I mean, I want to
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
49
1
make sure I can at least get the film thickness for
2
the falling film.
3
of
4
parameter to rippling films to highly turbulent films,
5
okay?
the
literature
6
7
10
I
could
go
from
very
low
I'm just looking to see if
the best data isn't the old data.
MR. KELLY:
more time.
In some cases.
People took
There's some old data that is a little
suspicious.
11
12
so
DR. WALLIS:
8
9
So I pulled as much as I could out
DR. WALLIS:
It was out on the West Coast,
wasn't it?
13
MR.
KELLY:
Well,
maybe
they
were
14
measuring the wave crests, you know, I don't remember.
15
So that's the same data, but I took away the legend
16
so I could easily overlay the TRACE calculation.
17
it's a TRACE calculation with the interfacial drag set
18
to zero and you see it matches very well.
19
have a reasonably good approximation for what the film
20
thickness is going to be and I think I can now do say
21
laminar film condensation equally as well as Nusselt
22
model without some of the restrictions that are built
23
into
24
temperature.
Nusselt
25
model
like,
you
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
know,
So
So now I
uniform
plate
So this is on a mock
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
50
1
scale, of course.
2
MR. KELLY:
Right.
That's why I used the
3
word "reasonable."
4
data is smaller than the scatter in the data.
5
hard to get better than that.
6
wall friction section.
7
about is the noncondensable gas effect, and that's
8
where we're going to calculate the -
9
DR. WALLIS:
10
But it's - the error versus the
It's
So, that finishes the
Now what I'm going to talk
I have a question for you.
These tubes are vertical?
11
MR. KELLY:
12
DR. WALLIS:
In the - yes.
They're vertical?
13
the tube is not quite vertical.
14
effect.
15
MR. KELLY:
Because
There's quite a big
There's a section - I'm trying
16
to think because this is open session.
17
header above and below.
18
down.
19
coming out from the header, but for most of their
20
length they're vertical, and they're inclined going
21
back into the other header.
22
23
Some of the tubes go straight
There are tubes that have an incline section
DR. WALLIS:
Because all of this assumes
uniform film around the tube.
24
25
There is a
MR. KELLY:
Exactly.
So it would mis-
predict if the film thickness is the limiting heat
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
51
1
transfer resistance, which it would be for pure steam
2
condensation.
3
incline section, that's correct.
4
Then
you
would
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
mis-predict
in
that
I guess the concern in
5
a
6
noncondensables towards the exits, and if it's not
7
completely vertical, how does this clear?
8
now it has to somehow get pushed out.
9
of a sporadically occurring phenomena, or is it sort
10
of continuous drag sporadically happening where you
11
clear it, and you accumulate it, and you clear it.
very
12
macroscopic
MR.
KELLY:
way
I
is
don't
accumulation
of
You know,
Is this a sort
remember
all
the
13
details.
14
ago the last time I did like a calculation for PUMA,
15
but when we did you see it in the test data and you
16
see it in the code calculations.
17
you're saying.
18
build up, condensation rate will slow down, pressure
19
will go up a tick until you get just enough to purge
20
it all, and so it's a very oscillatory phenomenon.
21
22
I know from - because this has been years
It does just what
You know, the noncondensables will
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
And the code predicts
that?
23
MR. KELLY:
With a reasonable, you know,
24
guess as to the amplitude and frequency.
25
don't start at the same time, they're not in a locked
Now, they
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
52
1
phase, that's not going to happen, but yes.
2
3
CHAIRMAN
Authoritatively
it
gets the reality.
4
5
BANERJEE:
MR. KELLY:
earlier.
Because of just what was said
It's a self-regulating system.
6
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
7
MR. KELLY:
Right.
All right.
So now we'll talk about the
8
noncondensable
9
calculating the mole concentration of the gas at the
gas
effect
and
how
we
end
up
10
interface which then gives us that.
11
to do is take a mechanistic approach similar, very
12
similar I might add to the mass transfer conductance
13
model
14
Peterson, and it actually came from Kuhn's PhD thesis.
15
So if you go and get a copy of his thesis you'll see
16
that it's almost exactly this model inside it, and
17
then he makes the point that this model describes his
18
data more accurately than his empirical correlation.
19
I kind of thought, well that sounds like a good idea.
which
was
described
by
So what I'm going
Kuhn,
Schrock
and
20
These are the same assessment things I've
21
talked about before, except with the containment wall
22
condensation.
23
Uchida formula and the MIT-Dehbi test.
24
this was all compared to the Wisconsin Flat Plate
25
Test.
I will later show a comparison to the
They were -
When I was preparing the presentation I didn't
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
53
1
have those plots, but I can at least talk about it.
2
So, you start out - we need the liquid interface heat
3
transfer
4
remove
5
controlling this.
6
transfer coefficient, t-interface minus t-liquid.
because
from
7
8
that's
that
-
the
interface
amount
is
of
what
heat
you
really
is
As the liquid to interface heat
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
You're going to show
us what you used there?
9
MR. KELLY:
Yes.
Because you will notice
10
that's what it says.
11
the heat flux from the gas mixture to the interface it
12
has two components, one is condensation and one is
13
sensible heat transfer.
14
- heat flux is obviously the condensation mass flux
15
times the latent heat, and the sensible heat just
16
looks
17
typically negligible.
18
you could leave it out and you wouldn't see it.
19
what you're going to do is equate -
like
20
21
your
That's the unknown here.
The condensation is obviously
normal
CHAIRMAN
For
heat
transfer.
This
is
It's built into the model but
BANERJEE:
That's
on
the
So
gas
side, obviously.
22
MR. KELLY:
Yes.
You're going to equate
23
the
24
provided to the interface, and that gives you a system
25
of
heat
removed
equations
from
that
the
you
interface
solve
to
with
the
heat
interface
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
54
1
temperature.
2
those equations?
3
here.
4
potential and these are just the mole fractions.
5
is the vapor in the bulk and this is the vapor at the
6
interface, and this is why you have to iterate because
7
the
8
concentration
9
straightforward.
So what are the models that go into
The condensation mass flux is given
The letter B here is the mass transfer driving
temperature
is
and
a
function
you
know,
of
This
the
mole
that's
not
The mass transfer, you know, this is
10
the Sherwood number and this ratio of the molecular
11
weights - this is molecular weight of the mixture at
12
the interface to the molecular weight of the mixture,
13
and in this case it's to the 0.4 power.
14
what I'm talking about now is for the tube model.
15
going to make a change to this when I get to the wall.
16
17
DR. WALLIS:
I should say,
I'm
That must be a small effect
of molecular weight.
18
MR. KELLY:
It's - what this takes account
19
of is the change in the properties as you go from the
20
bulk across the boundary layer.
So it's, you know, a
21
10-20 percent kind of effect.
It's not major, but
22
it's not negligible.
23
24
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Steam to air, or steam
to whatever.
25
DR. WALLIS:
The big thing is beta, isn't
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
55
1
it?
2
concentration-polarization effect.
3
MR. KELLY:
4
Isn't
CHAIRMAN
MR.
deal?
Beta
is
the
Well, it's not as large as you
BANERJEE:
I
would
say
that
KELLY:
Well,
that's
actually
my
backup slides, okay?
9
10
big
somewhere you have to tell us what HLI is.
7
8
the
expect.
5
6
beta
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Because that it seems
to me is where people get things wrong.
11
MR. KELLY:
We'll talk about that.
Let me
12
finish that - this part and bring that back up.
13
most
14
limited by the mass transfer driving potential, and
15
what happens in the liquid film is inconsequential.
16
For other things, it's different.
of
17
these
conditions
in
the
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
PCCS
tube
For
you're
I can believe that
18
because you're getting a fairly thick noncondensable
19
there.
20
MR. KELLY:
Yes, because we're up at, you
21
know, mass fractions 20-30 percent, you know, so the
22
noncondensable is the major potential.
23
24
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
So that correction is
just a correction for properties?
25
MR.
KELLY:
Correct.
It's
like
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
a
56
1
viscosity ratio and a Nusselt number, you know, or if
2
you're doing a Nusselt number for gas-heat transfer
3
you do a temperature ratio.
4
from, if you write down, you know, everything in the
5
Sherwood number, all the property groups and then you
6
look at how they are - how they change as a function
7
of the gas concentration as you go from the bulk to
8
the interface, you can do a first order correlation of
9
that property group as a function of the molecular
Where it really comes
10
weight.
11
weight to be 0.4 power.
12
believe it was Eckert, and I just pulled it out.
And the - it comes out in the molecular
This was in a textbook by, I
13
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
14
DR. WALLIS:
Yes, I think -
I'm just puzzled here because
15
I see beta and B, but beta is log 1 plus B over B, so
16
doesn't the B cancel out and you just get log 1 plus
17
B?
Is that true?
18
MEMBER CORRADINI:
19
about the suction effect?
20
through?
21
DR. WALLIS:
Are you guys talking
Is that what you're going
We're talking about the mass
22
transfer and the polarization.
23
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
24
MEMBER CORRADINI:
25
think it cancels out, Graham.
Suction and blowing.
Yes, yes, yes.
I don't
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
57
1
DR. WALLIS:
2
MEMBER CORRADINI:
3
DR. WALLIS:
4
No.
It does in the equations he's
presenting on the board.
5
6
Well, it does.
MEMBER
CORRADINI:
Well,
then
the
equations are wrong.
7
DR. WALLIS:
That's what puzzles me.
I
8
expected to see an exponential, because once it builds
9
up in the wall it has a huge effect.
10
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
11
- maybe within the log.
12
outside the log?
13
14
MR. KELLY:
Is that B within the log or
Well, it's a natural log of 1
plus B divided by -
15
16
DR. WALLIS:
It's within the log.
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
18
MR. KELLY:
DR. WALLIS:
MR. KELLY:
The
So it cancels out when you
Yes.
And then this ends up
being times the natural log of 1 plus B.
24
25
The denominator is not.
put it in the -
22
23
No.
numerator is.
20
21
It's
inside the log?
17
19
I think that B may be
DR. WALLIS:
So that's a very weak effect
of B.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
58
1
MEMBER CORRADINI:
That's what he said at
2
the beginning, yes.
3
is about a 10 percent effect.
4
than just a few percent as the pressure rises.
5
atmospheric pressure is about 2 percent effect at a
6
few bars, it's a 10-ish percent effect or something of
7
that order if I remember this from the experiment.
8
9
10
It's about a - the suction effect
MR. KELLY:
what
you're
saying,
It tends to get bigger
So
And you know, I understand
but
these
are
WALLIS:
So
literature
type
things and it works.
11
DR.
12
calculations
13
where
14
transfer operations.
the
in
Sherwood
effect
could
15
be
I
like
very
MEMBER CORRADINI:
remember
homework
big
in
doing
problems
some
mass
Right, but I think - I
16
think
17
concentrations of a large amount of noncondensable and
18
at these pressures, we're talking, you know, 5 to 15
19
percent effect, of that order.
Joe's
point
at
this
juncture
20
MR. KELLY:
21
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
is
with
these
That's correct.
Now, one of the things
22
of B is really the driving force for mass transfer,
23
right?
24
MR. KELLY:
25
CHAIRMAN
That's correct.
BANERJEE:
And
the
Sherwood
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
59
1
number is basically the mass transfer coefficient.
2
MR. KELLY:
3
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
4
MR.
5
KELLY:
Yes.
Corrected for -
Once
you
bring
in
the
diffusivity and the density over the 2.
6
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Right.
7
really the mass flux in some sense.
8
MR. KELLY:
9
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
10
MR. KELLY:
And gamma is
That's correct.
Okay.
So what we're doing is solving
11
for the diffusion of steam molecules - the interface
12
and in effect the air molecules back away from the
13
interface.
14
you this effect.
It's that equilibrium situation that gives
15
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
16
counter diffusion, if you wish?
17
MR. KELLY:
18
DR. WALLIS:
19
20
Yes, so it's sort of
Exactly.
Something doesn't make sense.
Without any beta, gamma is proportional to B which
makes sense.
21
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
22
DR. WALLIS:
What makes sense?
When you put in the beta, the
23
B's cancel, you get log 1 plus B.
24
B has less effect because it's a mock.
25
MR. KELLY:
Yes.
It looks as if the
There's also one other
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
60
1
thing that's dependent upon the mole concentration:
2
mixture gas density.
3
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
It's true, but where
4
I'm losing this is that without all these complexities
5
gamma would be proportional to the Sherwood number row
6
D divided by D into B.
7
MR. KELLY:
8
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
9
Yes.
Okay.
So why does
this blowing effect cancel B which is your driving
10
potential?
11
Imagine that it was very, very slow, the process, so
12
there's no blowing.
13
would expect in a fairly thick gas layer.
14
thing is a small effect.
15
16
Somehow I'm not understanding something.
I mean, this is exactly what you
DR. WALLIS:
The flowing
But if you expand log plus B
you get B as the first term, don't you?
17
MR. KELLY:
18
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Exactly.
Exactly, thank you.
So, the empiricism is
19
hidden, so the reality of that physics is obscured by
20
the blowing factor.
21
because as you go to very low condensation rate, that
22
blowing factor is 1 basically.
23
MR. KELLY:
Which is that B is really -
It's nothing.
So you know, I took this kind
24
of as the - and I never looked into it.
25
the empirical parts of it here, but the other part I
I looked into
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
61
1
just -
2
3
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
becomes 1 as you blow slowly.
4
5
DR. WALLIS:
it?
Beta becomes zero, doesn't
Or 1.
6
7
What happens is beta
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
No, if it comes here
it would be -
8
MR. KELLY:
9
DR. WALLIS:
It becomes - do I find this beta?
10
MR. KELLY:
11
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
12
MR. KELLY:
Yes.
And what -
Calculated, you know, for a
13
very specific situation, and I'm sure it's exactly the
14
same formulation.
15
16
17
CHAIRMAN
BANERJEE:
So
the
classical
formulation for the Sherwood number is of course 3.66.
What is this Gnielinski or something?
18
MR. KELLY:
Okay.
Remember, we have to go
19
laminar to turbulent conditions in the gas mixture.
20
So what you're seeing is 3.66 for laminar flow in the
21
tube.
22
transfer
23
analogy.
24
Reynolds number and the SPT number instead of Reynolds
25
and Prandtl.
Gnielinski, this is actually a turbulent heat
flow
that
I'm
using
as
a
mass
transfer
So I'm evaluating it as a function of the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
62
1
Yes.
Actually,
this
is
the
one
that
2
everyone recommends nowadays because it's much more
3
accurate.
4
Reynolds
5
know, it's the series of those Russian ones that start
6
out as, you know, functions of the friction factor.
7
This one has a Reynolds number -1000 stuck into it so
8
it - no, it's good because it fares into the laminar
9
region better.
You know, it's more accurate at higher
numbers,
but
in
particular
there's
-
you
Because if you just take the defaulter
10
and this laminar Nusselt number and plot them like
11
this, in this region you over-predict significantly,
12
whereas the Gnielinski fares in and matches the data
13
in that transition region better.
14
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
The reality is that
15
that transition rate region, the reason none of these
16
really work very well is even the data has a huge
17
scatter because you get slugs of turbulence, slugs of
18
- it's a complicated business.
19
20
MR. KELLY:
Yes, and if you can't measure,
you can't correlate it.
21
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Yes.
So this is sort
22
of
23
nevertheless it helps the core which is what matters.
a
24
25
fake
correlation
MR. KELLY:
to
make
it
work.
But
So this is really the meat of
it, is how do you calculate the condensation mass flux
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
63
1
to sensible heat flux.
2
thing.
3
Prandtl.
4
because it's inconsequential.
5
6
You
notice
It just looks like the same
some
-
here
it's
Reynolds
and
And I'm not going to spend time on this
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
But eventually I do
want to get back to the HLI or whatever.
7
MR. KELLY:
I'm almost finished.
After I
8
show the data comparisons I have some backup slides
9
and we'll go into that.
10
CHAIRMAN
BANERJEE:
Because
that
will
11
become important in some cases where you have high
12
shear.
13
the gas resistance will be relatively small.
14
15
If the gas is very turbulent, you see, then
MR. KELLY:
I'll go you one better.
I'm
going to go to pure steam condensation.
16
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
17
MR. KELLY:
Oh, pure steam, yes.
Then all you've got is that,
18
the HLI and the H-wall liquid.
19
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
20
MR. KELLY:
Right.
And it's those two resistances
21
that govern it.
22
We don't do it perfectly, but it's not horrible.
23
And you'll see an example of that.
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Yes, what worried me
24
is say I remember the condensation of steam bubbles.
25
If you don't get that HLI right you get a completely
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
64
1
wrong condensation rate.
2
in a slide.
3
MR. KELLY:
I think you showed this once
And fortunately in this case -
4
the interfacial heat transfer is pretty - typically if
5
you get it to the right order of magnitude you're
6
pretty happy.
7
driving the resistance, the finite resistance, so we
8
can model this better.
9
10
But fortunately in this case that's not
CHAIRMAN
BANERJEE:
Well,
what
you're
saying it doesn't matter in this.
11
MR. KELLY:
12
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Okay.
13
MR.
you
Right.
KELLY:
Once
go
above
half
a
14
percent weight fraction in noncondensable gas, that
15
takes over.
16
for a vertical wall.
17
Sherwood
18
molecular weights has changed.
19
for
20
correlation natural convection on a simple vertical
21
wall.
22
This
So this is how I modified this to work
number
natural
and
Same formula, except now the
the
convection,
exponent
this
on
the
ratio
of
The Sherwood number
is
just
the
standard
Function of the Grashof number, the link scale.
is
for
turbulent
film
having
turbulent
23
conditions, so the link scale doesn't really matter,
24
it ends up getting canceled out.
25
DR. WALLIS:
And -
I'm sorry.
This XV, is it
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
65
1
null fraction of the vapor?
2
MR. KELLY:
3
DR. WALLIS:
4
MR.
And XVI is at the interface
KELLY:
That's
correct.
That's
DR. WALLIS:
8
MR. KELLY:
So B is negative?
Let's see, that's positive and
that's negative, yes.
10
DR. WALLIS:
B is not negative.
You don't
11
- there's a minus up there in the gamma too.
12
funny way to do it.
13
14
I agree, it's a funny way to
do it.
DR. WALLIS:
So log 1 plus B is log 1
minus something?
17
18
It's a
Okay.
MR. KELLY:
15
16
a
vapor, yes.
7
9
That's correct.
where it's less?
5
6
In the bulk.
MR. KELLY:
1 minus a number that's less
than 1.
19
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
But the gamma is the
20
mass flux out of the phase, is it?
21
extended, or is it the mass flux into the phase?
22
mean, physically when you do these equations it's the
23
N dot row K into BK minus VI, so it's out of the
24
phase, but you reverse the sign I think.
25
MR. KELLY:
Yes.
The wave is
So negative means you're
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
I
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
66
1
condensing, and gamma will be negative here because as
2
we discussed earlier the B's cancel.
3
and you've got 1 minus a small number, and so -
4
DR. WALLIS:
The B's cancel
When you're evaporating is
5
not a problem.
6
build up more condensables.
When you're condensing you really
It's okay.
7
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
8
be right, or if not it's just an oversight.
9
MR. KELLY:
I think the signs must
Or it's a typo on my slide,
10
but
11
wouldn't work.
12
from the vertical wall, you know, using again the heat
13
transfer, mass transfer analogy.
14
calculated and I explained how I did that before.
15
looked at the property groups in this and I correlated
16
this function of the molecular weight, and as you'll
17
see this tends to work out great.
I
know
18
it's
right
in
the
code,
otherwise
it
So, this is simple natural convection
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
This exponent C I
I
So the length scale
19
cancels - the Grashof, that has to be the vertical
20
length scale, right?
21
L.
MR. KELLY:
Right, in which case you then
22
turn that into a vertical length scale.
23
is cubed to the one-third power.
24
it
25
turbulent convection.
cancels.
That's
one
of
This length
It's first power and
the
nice
things
about
Otherwise -
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
67
1
2
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
The inner scale in
this problem.
3
MR. KELLY:
That isn't a code where you do
4
is it a vertical length scale, when you have a node is
5
it the node length, you know.
6
and I don't have to worry about that.
7
do in the model is we just simply take the maximum of
8
a natural convection Sherwood number and the force
9
convection, and that way it works either for the wall
10
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
12
that, please?
13
in the code?
14
DR. WALLIS:
you know what XVI is?
18
do you know what XVI is?
19
MR. KELLY:
Did I miss something?
How do
Is it written somewhere?
How
Well, I can't - it's right
here.
21
DR. WALLIS:
That's temperature.
That's
not concentration.
23
24
And the switch is by taking a
maximum, because that's nice and continuous.
17
22
Can you go back to
So you have some sort of a switch here
MR. KELLY:
16
20
And so what we
or for the tube.
11
15
Fortunately they cancel
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Well, it is related
through TI and some sort of Henry's law -
25
DR. WALLIS:
Oh, I see.
This is another
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
68
1
equation which you have to tell us -
2
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
3
MR. KELLY:
There's an equation.
This is the equation I solve,
4
but
5
procedure to find the temperature which is a partial
6
pressure of the steam at the interface which is the
7
mole fracture.
the
guts
8
9
of
this
equation
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
an
iterative
We're running slightly
behind schedule, so let's -
10
DR. WALLIS:
11
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
12
are
Okay, let's move on.
I think we understand
the procedure.
13
MR. KELLY:
So I've already shown this.
14
This just tells you the average RMS error again.
15
is the steam air.
16
steam helium.
17
does very well except again for those cases I told you
18
about in very low gas to mixture Reynolds numbers.
19
Now,
20
calculated
21
spreadsheet, checking the model out before I put it
22
into TRACE.
23
happens when we actually put the model into TRACE and
24
run it.
25
steam only, NASA Goodykoontz, that's steam only, and
This
This you haven't seen, which is
This is calculated versus measured.
everything
I've
basically
shown
by
so
far
was
hand,
you
know,
It
actually
in
Now I'm going to show a sample of what
I'm going to show presets.
This is UCB-Kuhn
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
a
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
69
1
for noncondensable gas effect the air steam or Kuhn.
2
So you notice here I go from a pressure of 1 to 5
3
atmospheres.
4
just because you get higher, more condensation.
5
you have warmed up the flow at the bottom.
6
turbulent
film,
7
piercing.
For noncondensable gas I picked a pressure
8
of 4 bar because I had a very nice parametric on that,
9
on a noncondensable gas mass fraction.
10
The film Reynolds number, that changes
you
know,
highly
So
That's the
sheared
flows,
I'm going to
show you results from 1 to 40 percent mass fraction.
11
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
12
model
13
simulating the test facility?
for
14
these
When you say a TRACE
experiments,
MR. KELLY:
are
you
actually
Yes, which is just in this
15
case
16
laminar
17
Calculated heat transfer versus measured.
18
original model.
19
from 1 to 5 atmospheres.
20
is fairly miserable, except for a few points where
21
we'll assume the code got lucky.
With the revised
22
model
model
23
variable PCCS condensation model here, you see a very,
24
very close calculation just for a couple of points.
a
25
single
film,
which
tube.
so
is
So,
these
this
are
is
the
the
Kuhn
pure
steam
steam
tests.
This is the
I've got all five tests here going
what
the
You can see the comparison
default
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
now,
it's
Which is what you saw
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
70
1
in the film thickness.
2
MR. KELLY:
Well, it's also nice to know
3
that when you stick it in the code you get the same
4
answers you got in the spreadsheet.
5
DR. WALLIS:
6
So the higher noncondensable
fraction is way down on the left.
7
MR. KELLY:
8
DR. WALLIS:
Haven't gotten to that.
9
MR. KELLY:
That was a pure steam.
10
We haven't gotten to that yet.
On
Page 27 this is pure steam.
11
DR. WALLIS:
Okay.
12
MR. KELLY:
And this is pure steam also,
13
showing
14
axial trend.
15
new.
16
the very large effect at the inlet.
17
liquid film thickness.
18
that's the old model.
19
ignoring interfacial drag.
20
was calculated by TRACE which has both the wall drag
21
and interfacial shear in it.
22
23
you
the
heat
transfer
coefficient
and
its
This was the old model and this is the
The TRACE calculation is the red curve, notice
DR. WALLIS:
This is the
The plot I showed before,
This is the hand calculation,
The yellow curve is what
Well apparently if you used
this one you'd do about as well.
24
MR. KELLY:
25
DR. WALLIS:
Exactly.
So you don't need all that
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
71
1
stuff.
2
MR. KELLY:
3
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
4
Well, this is pure steam.
But he wants to keep
things that he could drag in.
5
MR. KELLY:
You need it for this.
This is
6
the highly sheared turbulent film and these are two
7
different tests that an orange line is the original
8
TRACE model, blue line is the beta, yellow line is the
9
new
10
model.
You
notice
the
new
model
does
not
reproduce -
11
DR. WALLIS:
That's interesting because I
12
think Goodykoontz had such high velocities that he
13
probably entrained some liquid.
14
MR. KELLY:
Could be because I think we
15
got about 100 meters a second or something.
16
what you'll see is we under-predict near the inlet of
17
the two where the film is laminar, and once it becomes
18
turbulent we do pretty well.
19
MEMBER
ABDEL-KHALIK:
If
I
go
And so
back
to
20
slide
21
comparison made by the model developer in his own
22
thesis?
28,
why
is
this
any
different
23
DR. WALLIS:
24
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
25
MR.
KELLY:
than
the
You mean Kuhn?
In
Why would it be?
this
particular
case
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
72
1
there's a difference because the model developer had
2
an empirical correlation for the heat transfer, okay?
3
Just wall to t-sat.
4
numerical
5
calculated
6
dimension.
7
framework
film
In this case, this is within the
of
TRACE
thickness
and
as
it's
the
using
the
characteristic
So you've got MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
I'm just trying to
8
understand
9
You're using a set of external data, a model based on
10
a set of external data, you put in the code, you go
11
back
12
experiment, then you get good comparison.
13
voila, this is great.
14
15
and
if
use
this
is
the
simply
same
MR. KELLY:
a
code
circular
to
model
argument.
the
same
You say
Well, that's the reason why
you should also look at other databases.
16
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Are you actually doing
17
that, or you're putting in the wall friction and the
18
interfacial friction, calculating the film thickness
19
as a part of the process?
20
MR. KELLY:
21
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
That's exactly what we do.
And then using a wall
22
heat
23
transfer coefficient which you haven't shown us yet.
transfer
coefficient
24
MR. KELLY:
25
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
and
interfacial
heat
Right.
But, so it's not, he's
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
73
1
not using that correlation.
2
right.
He's actually doing it
3
DR. WALLIS:
4
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
5
MR. KELLY:
6
CHAIRMAN
Doing it from fundamentals.
Yes, correctly.
To the best that I can, yes.
BANERJEE:
I
don't
see
that
7
you're
8
He's putting in wall friction, interfacial friction.
using
9
anything
MR. KELLY:
wrong,
other
than
the
data.
Yes, there's one thing you
10
haven't seen and that's the heat transfer coefficient
11
used between the wall to the liquid and the liquid to
12
the interface.
13
14
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
He's asking for that,
of course.
15
MR. KELLY:
For the laminar - and for the
16
laminar film I use a correlation recommended by Kuhn
17
in his data.
18
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
19
MR. KELLY:
20
what we use for the film thickness.
21
kind of film thickness with a multiplier on it for the
22
effects of interfacial shear.
23
way of calculating the film thickness that he used.
24
used
25
models for wall drag and interfacial shear to get me
a
solution
of
That's -
But, there's a difference in
TRACE
He used a Nusselt
So he had a separate
equations
with
different
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
I
www.nealrgross.com
74
1
my film thickness.
2
film
3
condensation, the films are laminar, they're a little
4
wavy, but the waviness is a 20 percent kind of thing.
thickness
5
is
And in this particular case, the
it.
You
know,
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
it's
pure
steam
So if I understand
6
you, the heat transfer coefficients that you're using,
7
we haven't seen them so we don't know what you're
8
using,
9
coefficients are based on some form of heat transfer
10
enhanced due to the ripples or whatever which comes
11
from Kuhn's work.
but
12
one
MR.
set
is
KELLY:
based
And
-
all
I'll
heat
show
transfer
you
that
13
compared to other models very quickly, as soon as I
14
finish going through this.
15
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Okay, so let's defer
16
that till we come to that then, and we take up Said's
17
question as to whether it's circular or not at that
18
point.
19
20
MR. KELLY:
So this is compared to the air
steam data -
21
DR. WALLIS:
Excuse me.
Can you do the
22
Goodykoontz measure pressure drop too?
23
compared that?
24
because you're doing wall shear.
25
heat transfer?
What if you
That's another check on your model
You just focused on
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
75
1
2
MR. KELLY:
I
- now we're going back six years.
3
4
I focused on heat transfer.
DR. WALLIS:
Yes.
With Goodykoontz you're
going back 40.
5
MR. KELLY:
Yes, well six years in my
6
memory might be 40 to some.
7
looked at it, but you also - it's not just heat.
It's
8
hard
also
9
decelerating the vapor because you're condensing it
to
think
up
here,
I, you know I think I
but
remember
10
all.
11
of that, because of the acceleration.
you're
So you have a very large pressure drop because
12
DR. WALLIS:
13
MR. KELLY:
Pressure rise.
Right, excuse me.
So it makes
14
getting the wall drag kind of.
15
steam results going with mass fractions of air from 1
16
percent to 40 percent, and you can see it looks very
17
good.
18
that
19
results from the wall condensation.
20
transfer
21
fraction.
22
Uchida correlation and Uchida is kind of the base for
23
containment analysis.
24
calculation.
So this is the air
These are TRACE calculations solving the model
I
25
just
showed.
coefficient
Now,
I'm
versus
just
-
some
quick
This is heat
noncondensable
mass
The blue diamonds are evaluated using the
CHAIRMAN
And the red line is the TRACE
BANERJEE:
That's
using
the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
76
1
Grashof?
2
MR. KELLY:
It looks - yes, that's using
3
the Grashof.
There's a really good paper, I don't
4
remember
author's
5
something like - because the Uchida correlation is a
6
very simple empirical thing.
7
ever work.
8
like The Physical Basis Behind the Uchida Correlation.
9
And what he did, he started with a model that looks
10
just like mine, does some simplifications like ignore
11
the
12
turning it into just a mass transfer model, makes a
13
couple of simplifications in that, comes up with a
14
property group and shows how that property group is
15
like a coefficient in Uchida to a certain power -
16
under certain pressure, excuse me.
17
the point is he has a fundamental basis, even though
18
the original author didn't make that point, but it's
19
only valid over a fairly narrow pressure range.
heat
20
the
name,
but
the
title
You wonder how it can
And the title of the paper was something
transfer
DR.
resistance
WALLIS:
of
This
is
the
liquid
if
there
drafts in the rule.
22
convection
23
something else going on that stirs things up.
25
things
film,
So what he makes
21
24
was
are
no
Fill in with all these natural
is
MR. KELLY:
in
reality
almost
always
And I don't have it to show
you, but I'll comment on that in just a second.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
77
1
MEMBER CORRADINI:
If I might just break
2
in.
3
sure if Joe, but I seem to remember this was Whitley
4
from UCLA or Denny Mills, or Mills or Denny from UCLA,
5
but I think the point is because it's so simple and
6
because it's natural circulation, this minimizes the
7
heat
8
pressure, and that's why Uchida has always been the
9
default heat transfer coefficient that's used in all
Graham, I think in this regard I think - I'm not
transfer
10
containment
11
pressure.
12
to
heat
the
wall
which
transfer.
MR. KELLY:
It
maximizes
tends
to
the
maximize
I think that's exactly right,
13
Mike, because it's - I think it's most correct at low
14
pressure -
15
MEMBER CORRADINI:
16
MR. KELLY:
17
Yes.
- and as you go to a higher
pressure it underestimates.
18
MEMBER
CORRADINI:
And
the
if
there
reason
it
19
underestimates,
20
circulation is back to your point about the suction
21
effect.
22
from a few percent effect to 10 or 20 percent effect
23
and
24
pressures.
it
25
Graham,
even
was
no
At higher pressures the suction effect goes
starts
deviating
from
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
what
is
measured
So Mike, this comment
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
78
1
of yours, if you carry through to the containment
2
over-pressure calculations, what would you say then?
3
MEMBER
CORRADINI:
I
hesitated
talking
4
about this because I had this bad feeling you were
5
going to go in another direction.
6
forcing
7
Tagami-Uchida and all their stuff.
8
to check with Almeida and Francesca to make sure I'm
9
not misstating this, but that is historically what
10
all
the
applicants
I think staff is
to
use
traditionally
I mean, you have
staff requires the applicant to do.
11
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
So if you have a few
12
drafts around does this mean that we get sort of a
13
conservatively high containment over-pressure?
14
MEMBER CORRADINI:
For calculations where
15
you are purposely trying to get a high containment
16
pressure -
17
CHAIRMAN
BANERJEE:
This
is
fine,
but
18
where you're trying to get a purposely low containment
19
pressure.
20
MEMBER CORRADINI:
I don't want to even
21
dare to say that.
22
staff and have them explain that.
23
24
I think we should bring in the
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
All right.
Carry on.
And that's another subject which doesn't -
25
MEMBER CORRADINI:
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
79
1
MR. KELLY:
So this is the condensation
2
heat transfer coefficient versus air mass fraction for
3
the MIT-Dehbi test data.
4
said, this is a relatively short heat transfer surface
5
to spend in a large containment volume where they vary
6
the pressure from 1.5 atmospheres to 4.5 and a very
7
wide range of air mass fraction.
8
are the three different pressures.
9
curved fit to the data, because he had a lot of data
10
11
points.
You
And as Professor Corradini
And the blue symbols
That's a fit, a
And the red lines are the TRACE calculation.
notice
there
is
an
under-prediction
at
low
12
pressure, but it matches very well at the 3.0 and 4.5
13
atmospheres.
14
is the University of Wisconsin Flat Plate Test.
15
apologies, Professor Corradini.
The plot I don't have in comparison to
16
MEMBER CORRADINI:
17
MR.
KELLY:
And
My
No, don't apologize.
so
we
looked
at
the
18
vertical ones.
19
forced
20
different velocities, or at least two that we looked
21
at.
22
The model I've shown you compares very well with the 1
23
meter per second test.
24
percent for the 3 meter per second test.
25
of that, we built in a sensitivity parameter so that -
And so here the air vapor mixture is
convection,
not
natural,
and
they
use
two
One was 1 meter a second and the other was 3.
It under-predicts by about 40
And because
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
80
1
to make it easy for people to do sensitivity studies
2
on the wall condensation so that they could quantify
3
the effect should, you know, if they want to.
4
CHAIRMAN
BANERJEE:
the
which
5
understand
6
interesting.
7
3
8
turbulence in the -
meters
second?
MR. KELLY:
10
you
now,
didn't
let
show
me
sounds
Why do you physically under-predict the
per
9
data
So,
Is
there
some
aspect
like
In the gas vapor mixture?
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
- gas, yes.
Which you
11
don't really account for except through - so you don't
12
have a free plus force convection sort of expression
13
for the heat transfer?
14
MR.
KELLY:
Well,
we
do,
but
in
this
15
particular case because of the way the Reynolds number
16
came out - let me back up.
17
stages.
18
model and there was the wall model, and at that time
19
the wall model only had the Grashof number in it.
20
it
21
convection, so it kind of has reinforced.
has
At one point in history there was the PCCS
the
22
23
maximum
of
that
and
a
turbulent
Now
force
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
We don't have mixed
MR.
Only
convection.
24
25
The model was done in two
KELLY:
No.
by
taking
the
maximum of those two.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
81
1
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
2
MR. KELLY:
I see.
But at the time of the data
3
comparison that I'm remembering, I think a model was
4
only a function of the Grashof number, in which case
5
you would expect it to under-predict.
6
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
7
you'd get a better prediction?
8
9
MR.
prediction.
KELLY:
So if you redid it now
Well,
not
as
poor
a
I don't know, you know, I'm not going to
10
speculate on how good it would be.
11
that
12
calculations
13
report were with the final version of the code, but I
14
don't remember.
15
model
change
that
was.
are
I
in
mean,
the
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
I don't know when
ESBWR
I
think
the
applicability
Are there scenarios in
16
the ESBWR where you might have combined free force
17
convection sort of scenarios?
18
to be pre-convection?
19
MR. KELLY:
Or is it always going
I think when it's important
20
it's primarily free.
21
into these containments, so obviously you, you know,
22
there are periods where you -
23
DR. WALLIS:
I mean, you are boiling down
Well, the thermal transient
24
in the wall governs after awhile and this doesn't
25
matter at all.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
82
1
2
MR. KELLY:
That's true as
well.
3
4
That's true.
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
So Mike, why did you
do these experiments?
5
MEMBER CORRADINI:
6
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Yes.
7
MEMBER CORRADINI:
Well, do you want the
8
Why did I?
honest answer or do you want an answer for the record?
9
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
I want an answer -
10
well, honest answer you can tell me over dinner, so
11
give us an answer for the record.
12
MEMBER CORRADINI:
Well, these experiments
13
- the experiments that I think Joe is referring to
14
were sponsored by Westinghouse for the AP600.
15
MR. KELLY:
16
MEMBER
Exactly.
CORRADINI:
Giving
a
series
of
17
experiments to look at flow over inclined plates both
18
facing downward and up to 90 degrees vertical to try
19
to
20
experiments,
21
experimental devices that were built, all focused on
22
AP600 heat transfer from the cooled dome to the steam
23
air atmosphere.
24
think the ones you're referring to are the original
25
experiments done 20 years ago by Jim Barry.
get
an
estimate
there
-
were
there
was
actually
a
four
series
of
different
And I think the ones he's - I mean, I
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
83
1
2
MR. KELLY:
Yes, the ones on the vertical
plate.
3
MEMBER CORRADINI:
4
CHAIRMAN
5
Yes.
BANERJEE:
Okay.
So
that
explains it.
6
MR. KELLY:
This is the summary slide.
I
7
have said some of this so many times I'm simply not
8
going to repeat it.
9
note is that everything I've shown has been against
But the one thing I want to most
10
single tube or simple wall tests.
11
extensive ESBWR-specific testing, including multi-tube
12
heat exchangers, for example, the full height PANTHERS
13
facility, and I believe you'll see some of that later
14
today in the closed session.
15
liquid to interface heat transfer.
16
17
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
could show us both.
18
There has been more
You asked about the
And the wall, if you
What was that?
MR. KELLY:
Okay, this is a section on the
19
descriptions of the wall heat transfer.
20
legacy data.
21
averaged over the heat transfer surface, that's what
22
the brackets are for.
23
the length scale in it is the Nusselt parameter, you
24
know, the velocity squared over g delta rho thing,
25
plotted against the film Reynolds number.
This is old
This is a non-dimensional Nusselt number
The non-dimensional means that
I mean,
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
84
1
some of this data is people like Kutateladze, okay?
2
This is a simple Nusselt correlation.
3
under-predicts and that's the rippling effect.
4
this levels out it starts to turn around, and for this
5
data which is FREON data, you notice it starts going
6
back up.
7
falling films.
This is turbulent film.
So it always
When
These are just
8
Whole lot of different models.
9
at a couple of them against the data, you know, it's,
10
depending on what, you know, here's Nusselt, the green
11
one is Kutateladze and that's Labuntzov which seems to
12
be a little bit better fit.
13
against the UCB-Kuhn pure steam test and so that's
14
that data.
15
large
16
correction for interfacial shears.
17
interfacial shear in the test, a fairly small effect,
18
but what I've done now is I've actually calculated the
19
film
20
plotted a Nusselt number versus film Reynolds number.
21
When you do that all of these old equations over-
thickness
predict.
23
to use.
24
25
This
based
on
is
the
That's the UCB fit.
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
is
the
Then I plotted them
And you see the models, that's a pretty
uncertainty.
22
Just look
Reynolds
number
that
data
with
no
There was some
local
conditions
and
So that's what I chose
So what you're seeing
effect
which
takes
some
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
85
1
turbulence into account.
2
actually start to go higher.
Because the Reynolds numbers
3
MR. KELLY:
4
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
5
MR. KELLY:
You notice this is 1.
Yes.
That's k over delta.
As a
6
film Reynolds number comes up you start to increase.
7
And this is a log scale here, so.
8
CHAIRMAN
9
BANERJEE:
Yes,
I
think
what
you're seeing is the rippling effect actually starts
10
around
11
solution for the problem.
20.
12
You
know,
MR. KELLY:
if
you
look
at
Benjamin's
And that's what these models
13
are supposed to be doing is taking into account the
14
rippling.
15
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
16
MR. KELLY:
17
CHAIRMAN
BANERJEE:
What
you've
shown
there is Kuhn's database.
20
21
Well, they do against their
database, but they don't against the one from Kuhn.
18
19
They don't.
MR.
KELLY:
Which
I
figured
was
most
applicable to PCCS conditions.
22
DR. WALLIS:
What's really surprising is
23
that a lot of the data below 1, so it's worse than k
24
over delta?
25
delta?
How can you ever get worse than k over
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
86
1
2
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
scatter in the experimental data.
3
4
MR. KELLY:
Yes.
There's experimental
data and I'm also calculating that film thickness.
5
6
That shows you the
DR.
WALLIS:
You
must
have
calculated
delta wrong.
7
MR. KELLY:
That's possible.
We're also
8
doing - you know, I didn't want - Mike, how easy are
9
condensation heat transfer tests to do?
10
MEMBER CORRADINI:
11
MR.
12
DR. WALLIS:
we're
talking
about
I don't think you have to
figure that.
15
16
No,
experimental error in condensation tests and -
13
14
KELLY:
I'm sorry, Joe?
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
They didn't measure
the film thickness directly.
17
MEMBER
CORRADINI:
Well,
I
think
-
I
18
guess, I don't know what Graham - I apologize that I
19
don't have anything laid up on my screen as you guys
20
are talking, but I think in most of the containment
21
work, as you drive the noncondensable gas fraction to
22
zero, your heat transfer coefficients get so large
23
your error starts really becoming large because most
24
of these facilities were not built to remove that
25
amount of heat.
So instead of getting 5, 10, 15
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
87
1
percent error, you're going to get a much larger error
2
in your measurement.
3
steam, I would not believe many of these experimental
4
data because your error rate, your scatter gets very
5
big.
6
And so as I drive it to pure
DR. WALLIS:
I think we might sort of
7
establish that once the heat transfer coefficient is
8
above some value you don't really care what it is.
9
10
MEMBER CORRADINI:
Right.
Well, I think
that's the practical conclusion Graham, I agree.
11
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Well, but there is
12
actually if you really look at this equation, it is
13
fundamentally wrong up there, and the reason for it is
14
as soon as you start to get some stirring there's a
15
Prandtl number effect that comes in and turbulence,
16
it's clearly Prandtl to the two-thirds that has to be
17
there.
18
sort
19
principles as soon as it goes turbulent.
20
Prandtl number in that.
So, I mean, it is trying to fit it without a
of
21
22
analogy
is
MEMBER CORRADINI:
good point.
23
24
Reynolds
wrong
from
first
You have no
But - I think that's a
You're absolutely right.
CHAIRMAN
BANERJEE:
So
let's
move
on
anyway.
25
MR. KELLY:
That was for the laminar film
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
88
1
turbulent
2
correlations, now the spread is much worse.
3
chose to do was look at heating correlations, models
4
where you heat a film, a fallen film.
5
you can control the wall heat flux instead of having
6
to try to back calculate it from whatever happened on
7
the secondary side.
8
close
9
correlation which is in four different parts pieced
channel.
together.
If
you
look
at
condensation
So what I
Because here
Here, the models are very, very
There's
the
Wilke
Film
heating
10
together,
11
Gnielinski correlation which we used throughout TRACE
12
code for forced convection turbulent heat transfer, if
13
you divide it by four you reproduce this.
14
the fourth come from?
15
hydraulic diameter.
16
thickness as a characteristic link -
the
Gimbutis,
and
turns
out
the
Where does
Think of how you calculate a
You know, now I'm using a film
17
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
18
MR. KELLY:
19
it
This is the gas side.
No, this is for the liquid
film.
20
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
On the interface?
Or
21
which part of the liquid film are we talking about?
22
The wall or the interface?
23
MR. KELLY:
24
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
25
Wall to film.
Wall to film.
But I
thought you were already using NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
89
1
MR. KELLY:
That's for laminar.
That only
2
goes up.
3
1,200, and the Reynolds number and then starts to not
4
look so good.
Remember it only goes up to about 1,000,
5
CHAIRMAN
BANERJEE:
Okay.
Because
6
turbulent liquid films go turbulent - I mean, liquid
7
films go turbulent about 800.
8
MR. KELLY:
9
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
10
the turbulent region.
11
Right.
So you're well into
So there's an overlap.
MR. KELLY:
Right.
So I have the laminar
12
correlation and a turbulent one, and of course there's
13
going to be a power wall combination.
14
showing the comparison data.
15
the interfacial.
16
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
17
MR.
KELLY:
This is just
Now you also asked about
Yes.
Well,
there's
a
lot
of
18
correlations out, you know, for mass transfer that you
19
can make turn into interfacial ones.
20
diffusivity models, gas diffusivity models.
21
pretty large scatter.
22
23
Again,
So -
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
But gas has a Schmidt
number of 400.
24
25
You know, any
MR. KELLY:
turn it in.
Yes, well you correct it and
You know, this is turned into a Nusselt
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
90
1
number,
2
experimental data to help me choose one of these.
3
it's
4
It's hard to measure.
5
test
6
Banerjee.
7
to the half versus film Reynolds number.
8
five measurement stations and you notice there is a -
9
this
okay?
hard
to
which
I
So
I
find
wanted
to
interfacial
know
go
heat
look
at
transfer
some
And
data.
So I went to the Northwestern
you
know
very
well,
Professor
So this is Nusselt number, Prandtl number
is
horizontal
cocurrent
flow.
There were
There's
an
10
entrance effect.
11
first model he quoted where he uses the liquid film as
12
the
13
number that's really nothing more than a film Reynolds
14
number.
15
change the lead coefficient to correlate the data for
16
these last two stations so that I wouldn't see the
17
larger entrance effect.
18
some more of his data.
19
series
20
counter-current and vertical counter-current.
21
all on here.
22
Reynolds number range from about, you know, 6,000 up
23
to 50.
24
where the UCB-Kuhn data is, is down here.
25
do between those two lines, okay?
Then this is the model, the very
characteristic
link
and
a
turbulent
I modified that correlation.
of
tests,
Reynolds
All I did was
Then I went and looked at
So there were three different
horizontal
cocurrent,
horizontal
That's
You notice it's a fairly limited film
It doesn't hit this transition region.
That's
So what I
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
91
1
2
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
The Kuhn data is wall
heat transfer, right?
3
MR. KELLY:
4
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
5
MR. KELLY:
6
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Okay.
7
MR. KELLY:
If you do the Nusselt
No.
Some of it is -
It's both.
Okay?
8
solution, you know, where you're assuming it's laminar
9
film
10
flow,
across
the
film,
I
can't
With
the
remember which is which.
11
12
conduction
CHAIRMAN
BANERJEE:
noncondensables it would be -
13
MR. KELLY:
That's - we're just talking
14
pure steam here.
15
resistance inside the film it's a three-eighths, five-
16
eighths, distribution.
17
one is interfacial.
18
21
One is one the wall side and
I don't remember which is which.
That's just pure Nusselt.
19
20
But if you look at the thermal
DR. WALLIS:
How do you do a horizontal
counter-current fluid test?
What's driving the film?
It's slightly tilted, is it?
22
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
23
yes.
24
experiments.
25
It's slightly tilted,
George did these a long time ago.
MR. KELLY:
Beautiful
So what I did here was I just
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
92
1
simply
2
between wall liquid and liquid interface.
divided
3
4
the
heat
transfer
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
resistance
50/50
So this is sort of an
arbitrary -
5
MR. KELLY:
It's arbitrary, but you know.
6
And I worried about this laminar turbulent transition
7
region, and if I bring in Gnielinski it looks like
8
that.
9
Bankoff I don't.
10
At least it hits this, whereas if I use the
data where the Bankoff model looked good, so that's -
11
12
And it manages to hit the Bankoff
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
wall, right?
13
MR. KELLY:
It's for the wall.
14
using it, splitting it again.
15
wall and for the interface.
16
17
19
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Right.
Yes.
Gnielinski, can you
show me the form of the correlation again?
21
MR. KELLY:
I don't - did I have it?
I
don't remember.
23
24
You're using it for
both now.
MR. KELLY:
22
Now I'm
I'm using it for the
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
18
20
Gnielinski is for the
CHAIRMAN
BANERJEE:
I
don't
think
you
showed it.
25
MR. KELLY:
Yes, I didn't show it.
It's
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
93
1
one of those complicated, you know, friction factor
2
and natural log things.
3
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
The worry about all
4
these correlations is that they are for the liquid -
5
vapor-liquid interface any form of Reynolds analogy
6
breaks
7
dependence on Schmidt number and Prandtl number.
8
where -
down
9
10
is
-
and
MEMBER CORRADINI:
you
go
into
different
And
Where they break down,
Sanjoy, is why?
11
12
which
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Because the interface
to the liquid is not a solid boundary.
13
MEMBER CORRADINI:
14
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Okay, sorry.
You can actually move
15
parallel to the interface, but not easily normal to
16
the interface.
17
MEMBER
CORRADINI:
What
you're
really
18
saying is the analogy is modified based on the surface
19
structure.
20
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Yes.
It's completely
21
- any relationship, for example, will vary as Prandtl
22
number to the half rather than Prandtl to the two-
23
thirds just because of this, or Schmidt number.
24
you put in Reynolds analogy which this is trying to do
25
you will get condensation of bubbles, for example, if
So if
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
94
1
you
2
condensation on a stratified layer wrong, which is
3
mainly turbulent-centered, you know.
4
DR. WALLIS:
use
it
universally
wrong.
Or
you'll
get
So what are you doing here,
5
Joe?
6
early work.
7
details don't work very well when examined carefully.
I mean, you showed us in the first 30 pages your
8
9
Now you're showing us that some of the
MR.
KELLY:
And
this
comparisons to the Goodykoontz test.
is
why
the
Well, there's
10
possibly the entrainment like you noted, but I think
11
this is why the Goodykoontz tests don't work as well.
12
DR. WALLIS:
For the PCCS you're in the
13
sort of red region there, aren't you?
14
very well.
15
MR. KELLY:
16
DR. WALLIS:
17
MR. KELLY:
How about the other one, the
That's the NASA Goodykoontz.
And that's where at the tube -
20
21
Yes.
one where you have labels.
18
19
DR. WALLIS:
Then off to the right here
and Bankoff would work.
22
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
23
DR. WALLIS:
24
CHAIRMAN
25
So it works
The ICS would work.
The ICS would work.
BANERJEE:
Well,
you
know,
think - we're going to have to end it, Joe.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
I
95
1
MR. KELLY:
Given the uncertainties in
2
condensation heat transfer data anyway, the model is
3
representative of that.
4
It's not going to be better.
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
So we're running -
5
Joe, thank you very much.
6
and we'd like to have these slides as well if you
7
would give it to me or whatever so that we have access
8
to them.
9
10
Do they have the electronic
copy right here?
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Whatever.
I mean,
just.
13
14
We'd be very grateful.
MR. KELLY:
11
12
This was most illuminating
MR.
KELLY:
It's
right
here.
They're
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Okay.
I think what we
tacked onto the end.
15
16
need
17
appreciate that - is we are running roughly 45 minutes
18
behind schedule.
19
Professor Abdel-Khalik will need to leave around 5:00,
20
we might go over a little bit, is perhaps we should
21
bring
22
Steve Bajorek will do somewhat earlier to make sure
23
that it covers that before he has to take off.
to
the
do
now
TRACE
-
thank
you
very
much;
really
So what we might need to do as
momentum
equation
discussion
which
Okay?
24
But right now what I would suggest is that we take a
25
little break for about 10 minutes say, we reassemble
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
96
1
at 25 to 11:00 and then we go into Joe's talk, Joe,
2
and we'll try to keep that half an hour, hopefully, if
3
not we'll do whatever we can.
4
close the session.
5
session and I'm just going to go for a break now for
6
10 minutes.
And then after that we
So this will still be in open
7
MEMBER CORRADINI:
Sanjoy?
8
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Yes.
9
MEMBER CORRADINI:
I'm going to have to
10
pull away for a couple of hours.
11
12
I will call you.
(Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off
the record at 10:23 a.m. and resumed at 10:37 a.m.)
13
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
All right, we are back
14
in session.
15
session and we'll have Joe tell us about the separate
16
effects test now.
17
On the record.
We are still in open
These are not in color, the slides.
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
No, they're not, and
18
unfortunately when I closed down PowerPoint last night
19
I
20
version of this here, so we're going to have to go
21
from
22
straightforward material.
didn't
23
24
the
save
it
paper
so
I
don't
slides.
have
So
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
the
electronic
fortunately
it's
Is this due to a a
glitch in Windows or a glitch?
25
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
I think a glitch in the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
97
1
operator.
2
separate effects assessment that applies to lots of
3
different reactors and we have assessment for a void
4
fraction, heat transfer, critical flow.
5
two that really matter are voice fraction and critical
6
flow.
7
never get - recovery.
8
critical - a little bit of critical flow covered by
9
Don Fletcher later, but I'm going to go over our void
10
fraction assessments, both in rod bundles and pipes
11
since
12
predicting minimum level inside the reactor system.
So, for TRACE we've done quite a bit of
For ESBWR the
Heat transfer isn't as big a deal because we
the
13
main
parameter
CHAIRMAN
14
interrupt,
15
right?
16
we're
So there is going to be some
we're
BANERJEE:
also
Joe,
interested
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
looking
in
at
just
the
is
to
chimney,
Yes, the chimney is a
17
region
18
looking at the minimum levels is - on top of the four,
19
we end up looking at minimum level up in the chimney
20
above the cooler.
21
to run through a sample of void fraction tests that
22
we've done TRACE assessment against.
23
in our assessment manual.
24
test for rod bundle and some recent Purdue, marked
25
hydraulic diameter data that we've done through our
of
interest
and
that's
where
we'll
Move to the third slide.
end
up
I'm going
Some of them are
Two that aren't are FLECHT
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
98
1
thermal hydraulic institute testing.
2
should be the FRIGG rod bundle.
3
of the FRIGG facility and a cross-section of the rod
4
bundle.
5
FRIGG was a model of a single bundle in a Marviken
6
reactor that was going to be built.
7
circulation BWR.
8
at
9
diameter in the FRIGG bundle is a little larger than
high
Next slide, it
It's just a picture
As you know, FRIGG, at least this version of
It was a natural
The nice thing about FRIGG is it's
pressure
and
full
power.
The
hydraulic
10
what
11
essentially the major distortion between FRIGG and the
12
regular BWR rod bundle, but it does have full power
13
which is - it's hard to get tests with full power.
it
14
15
is
in
a
typical
BWR
rod
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
bundle.
Remind us about the
length here of the bundle.
16
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
17
as long as a BWR rod bundle would be.
18
believe it's about 12 feet.
19
exact dimensions.
20
21
MR. KELLY:
Okay.
The length, it's
So it's, I
I don't remember the
The next slide shows about 4.5
meters.
22
23
That's
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
Okay, so yes a little
bit longer than that.
24
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
25
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
Okay, thanks.
Okay, next slide is -
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
99
1
DR.
WALLIS:
You
don't
even
have
page
2
numbers on the slides so I don't know what the next
3
slide is.
4
5
6
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
It
shows
an
axial
FRIGG rod bundle plot.
void
profile
for
one
test
calculated in an experimental -
7
DR. WALLIS:
So you do better with this
8
complicated geometry than a university does with a
9
straight button?
10
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
I don't know what a
11
university does with a straight button or what you're
12
referring to.
13
DR. WALLIS:
I'm just saying that two-
14
phase
15
geometry does not get - very well.
16
very well with this rather complicated geometry.
17
18
fraction,
DR. WALLIS:
in
a
very
simple
You seem to do
We have really good
You have to - you have to
attune things in the code to that?
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
We use the Bestion -
simple Bestion correlation -
23
DR. WALLIS:
24
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
25
even
predictions in rod bundle -
21
22
void
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
19
20
flow
Which is for - equal to 1 is our rod
bundle void correlation.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
100
1
2
DR. WALLIS:
data.
3
4
So it is based on rod bundle
MR.
STAUDENMEIER:
It's
based
on
rod
bundle data.
5
DR. WALLIS:
6
MR.
That's why it works.
STAUDENMEIER:
But
this
hydraulic
7
diameter for FRIGG is much larger than the database
8
that SDL was based on, so it is not in the same range
9
of
10
conditions
that
the
data
was
based
on,
or
the
correlation.
11
MR.
KELLY:
And
this
is
Joe
Kelly.
12
Remember, you're looking at the bundle average void
13
fraction.
14
any one subchannel or say the subchannel up against
15
the wall which is the subchannel in the center, TRACE
16
isn't going to calculate that difference for you.
If you were to look at the void fraction in
17
CHAIRMAN
BANERJEE:
Remind
18
Dominique correlation.
19
sort of correlation, or what is it?
20
21
of
the
Is this sort of a drift flux
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
Yes, it's a drift flux
correlation.
22
23
me
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
And you back out the
interfacial friction from that then?
24
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
25
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Yes.
So this is different
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
101
1
from that guy in EPRI. And that also is a drift flux
2
type correlation.
3
MR. KELLY:
And like in the RELAP 5 code
4
they do the same kind of thing backing that out into
5
an
6
complicated correlation, it has switches in it so it
7
has discontinuities, and we found we could get the
8
same or better accuracy with the simple model so we
9
went with the simple model.
10
interfacial
correlation.
It's
a
very
We actually compared both
models against the data set before we chose one.
11
12
drag
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Thank you.
All right.
Let's keep on going.
13
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
Okay.
The next slide
14
is just predicted versus experimental void fraction
15
for essentially the whole test series of FRIGG tests
16
that had been measured void fraction.
17
over a wide range of subcoolings.
18
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
And that goes
Do you also - I mean,
19
in these correlations, is it primarily the interfacial
20
shear that is adjusted, or do you also adjust the wall
21
friction
22
friction and back out the interfacial shear from the
23
drift flux correlation?
in
some
way?
Or
24
MR. KELLY:
25
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
do
you
keep
the
wall
Do you want me to answer?
Either.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
102
1
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
Yes, I mean this - the
2
correlation doesn't depend on the wall friction, and
3
we
4
something like the FRIGG rod bundle, or BWR full flow
5
conditions, the wall friction can give a significant
6
pressure drop.
7
FLECHT low pressure thing where you're sitting under
8
decay
9
correlation
assess
over
heat,
a
wide
range
of
flow
rates.
In
In more stagnant conditions like the
wall
wasn't
friction
isn't
developed
so
with
a
big.
wall
So
the
friction
10
component in it, but we have assessed over a range of
11
conditions with different impacts other than the wall
12
friction.
13
MR. KELLY:
This is Joe Kelly again.
What
14
Joe is saying is completely correct.
15
however, getting to the higher void fractions, 0.8 or
16
so, you're going into the annular flow regime and here
17
the wall friction is very important, and here we're
18
actually using the - excuse me, the Wallis interfacial
19
drag model with the two-phase flow wall drag model.
20
And it's the - how those two interact that gives you
21
the void fraction at these highest factors.
22
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
23
MR. KELLY:
When you start,
So -
So wall drag is being computed
24
in all of this.
In some places it's important, in
25
others it isn't.
If I were to develop a drift flux
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
103
1
model from scratch, I would take the data, subtract
2
out the effect of the wall drag, then correlate the
3
interfacial
4
development of the models that we chose to use, but
5
what Joe is showing you is that when you put that
6
interfacial drag model together with the wall drag
7
model, you get this.
8
9
drag.
That
was
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
not
done
in
the
Okay, the next data I'm
going to show assessment against was the THTF rod
10
bundle, the level swell test.
11
powered
range
pressure
12
condition, I think about four megapascals.
You can
13
get
in
14
Appendix B of our assessment manual.
15
mission of this facility was also blow-down cooling
16
for PWRs under large break LOCA but the level swell
17
tests were done for PWR small break LOCA conditions.
all
18
bundle,
the
and
details
it's
of
a
This is also a highmedium
these
assessments
the
I guess the main
Next slide, it shows a plot.
It's giving
19
an example from one test showing comparison of void
20
fraction predictions with both the channel and the
21
vessel component in TRACE versus experimental data.
22
This is fairly representative of our predictions.
23
get good predictions.
24
of some kind of global parameters that are calculated
25
from the test.
We
Next slide shows a comparison
The left plot is experimental collapse
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
104
1
level, and you can see that we're predicting that
2
fairly well.
3
phase mixture level, and TRACE is either predicting it
4
very
5
conservative.
well
6
The right slide is mixture level, two-
or
under-predicting
it
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
7
Chan model and vessel model?
8
MR.
which
would
be
What do you mean by
STAUDENMEIER:
Well,
there's
two
9
places where we can have rod bundle interfacial drag.
10
We can have it in our vessel component and our BWR
11
channel model.
12
also have it in a height component.
13
designate a region where you're using the rod bundle
14
interfacial drag, and these are - when we were testing
15
this we wanted to make sure that both the vessel model
16
and the Chan model were both giving predictions as
17
they should be since -
18
19
Actually, since this was done we can
DR. WALLIS:
You have to
Is the chimney a vessel or a
pipe?
20
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
- in our ESBWR input
21
deck is modeled in the vessel component, so but we've
22
also done testing with vessel and pipes and get the
23
same void fractions in those in non-rod bundle regions
24
also.
25
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Is there going to be
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
105
1
some discussion of critical flow as a separate effects
2
thing, or are you just focusing on void fractions?
3
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
I'm just focusing on
4
void
5
little bit about critical flow predictions.
6
I have a little bit that's related to critical flow
7
later
8
dependant on vapor critical flow.
fraction.
9
10
in
the
I
GE
think
level
Fletcher
swell
test
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
goes
which
into
a
Actually,
is
partly
And are you going to
also discuss the void fraction for Ontario Hydro data?
11
MR.
STAUDENMEIER:
12
presentation I'm not.
13
his presentation.
14
15
Don
Not
in
this
Don Fletcher has that one in
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
Why is that?
Why
doesn't it belong here?
16
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
Well, I'd rather not
17
talk about why I don't think it belongs here since
18
it's open session.
19
20
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
to it in the closed session?
21
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
22
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
23
Yes.
Okay.
The data - are
these proprietary data, the Hydro data?
24
25
But you'll come back
MR.
STAUDENMEIER:
They
actually
were
presented in an open conference at one time and there
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
106
1
is a conference paper that has it.
2
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
So if that's the
3
case, why aren't they being included in this open
4
discussion?
5
6
MS. UHLE:
specific to ESBWR -
7
8
MEMBER
MS. UHLE:
closed session.
We didn't discover the
data.
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Fine, okay.
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
RBHT rod bundle tests.
Left plot is an example of one prediction of void
19
fraction prediction and measurements.
20
is a summary of all TRACE predictions versus -
21
22
DR.
WALLIS:
These
The right thing
are
local
void
fractions, are they?
23
24
That's
fine.
17
18
Let's defer it to the
That's fine.
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
15
16
nothing
- a particular test to that,
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
13
14
There's
that could create an uncomfortable situation.
11
12
ABDEL-KHALIK:
specific in this comparison.
9
10
Because if there's anything
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
Yes, they're local void
fractions.
25
MR. KELLY:
These are going down to three
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
107
1
inches and there's also grid spacer effects in there.
2
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
And some of the data is
3
noisy.
4
of the experiments also, and nobody has really gone
5
through and sorted out which are the ones you really
6
need to keep and which ones maybe should be discarded
7
since it's drawing all of them together, so.
They had trouble controlling pressure on some
8
9
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
I guess I have a
philosophical question which is in some sense related
10
to the comparison with the Ontario Hydro data.
11
do you do when you compare the code against two sets
12
of data and in one case it says excellent comparison,
13
and in the other case it says inadequate comparison?
14
15
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
What
Well, I guess you try
to -
16
MEMBER
ABDEL-KHALIK:
For
the
same
17
physical phenomenon and the same range of parameters,
18
presumably.
19
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
I guess you try to see,
20
well, is - are both sets of test data valid, and if
21
they are both valid then you have to look into the
22
reasons, or start looking into the reasons why you're
23
not predicting one set of data very well.
24
about that data that may be slightly different, or
25
there may be something in those conditions that you
What is it
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
108
1
didn't consider in the correlations you had built.
2
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
Is that part of the
3
presentation that we will hear later on today?
4
you faced that situation in any of these comparisons
5
at all?
6
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
Have
I don't think we've
7
faced a situation where we think that we're just not
8
getting good answers at all.
9
couple of slides later that large hydraulic diameters,
10
we tend to under-predict void fractions up in the
11
large void fraction range, and that's something we're
12
investigating in the code now is to why we're doing
13
that.
14
why we went out and got this Purdue large hydraulic
15
diameter data to try and look at developing a better
16
correlation that applies to high void fractions and
17
large hydraulic diameters.
Well, I'll show you in a
And we actually went out - that was one reason
18
MEMBER
ABDEL-KHALIK:
So
in
all
the
19
comparisons that you've made in the experimental data,
20
all
21
various sources to be consistent?
22
telling me?
of
23
these
comparisons
had
found
the
data
from
Is that what you're
Vis-a-vis the code predictions?
MR. BAJOREK:
No, I don't think we have
24
found any data to be dichotomous, in that one set is
25
predicting one thing and another one is predicting
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
109
1
something else.
2
RBHT
3
Hopefully in the long run when we develop an uncertain
4
methodology
5
correlations be it drag or heat transfer, and ranging
6
that over that entire set of data to get all of the
7
bad actors, as you will, regardless of whether the
8
code is better for one or the other.
where
9
We do see quite a bit, like on the
there's
we
a
would
lot
be
of
scatter
looking
at
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
in
some
the
of
data.
those
Well, I have two
10
sets of data and that's why I was wondering why you
11
explicitly
12
from
13
comparison here it says the calculated ESBWR Hydro
14
chimney level are judged to be minimal when compared
15
against that set of data.
16
the data against Wilson bubble rods data which you
17
elect to show us, it says the TRACE capabilities for
18
predicting the collapse ESBWR RPD chimney level are
19
judged to be excellent.
20
you're
21
presentation.
22
excluded
this
open
being
the
Ontario
Hydro
presentation.
test
Because
results
in
the
And then when you compare
So I'm just wondering if
intellectually
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
honest
in
this
Well, I think there is
23
a fairly good comparison versus the Wilson data and I
24
won't talk about the other data now, but you'll see
25
hints at the Wilson data high void fractions that we
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
110
1
are starting to under-predict, and I think the Wilson
2
data void fractions don't go quite as high.
3
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
I think what we can
4
say so we can have a free discussion of this, let's
5
table this till we go into closed session and then I
6
think your point is very well taken, because if you
7
look at the Purdue PhD data, it over-predicts that.
8
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
9
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
10
is happening there.
11
point.
Probably, yes.
So we can discuss what
I think, let's do it at that
12
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
13
MS. UHLE:
14
here?
15
ACRS or -
Sure.
Thank you.
Can I just advocate something
I know we're not in the habit of lying to the
16
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
I'm not suggesting
17
that.
18
discussion then you should present the whole story in
19
the open discussion, not part of the story.
I, you know, if you're going to have an open
20
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
Actually, we wanted to
21
close the whole meeting and we were forced to open
22
part of it and so we kept - that was one reason why I
23
kept
24
wanted as much open as they could.
that
25
out
of
this
presentation,
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Right.
because
they
We understand
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
111
1
that.
2
MR. LANDRY:
This is Ralph Landry from the
3
New Reactors office.
4
to as Ontario, while it's been reported in an open
5
paper many years ago, the data were provided to us
6
through proprietary documentation from the applicant.
7
Therefore we are treating the material as proprietary
The data that are being referred
8
so that we can't discuss that in open session.
9
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
I think we'll wait
10
till that closed session then and discuss.
11
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
12
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
13
sure
14
selective.
that
15
whatever
story
MR. LANDRY:
I think we'll just I just want to make
you're
presenting
is
not
No, the Office of Research is
16
trying
17
applicant has provided the material under proprietary
18
documentation, so they're trying to be honest and not
19
present it in open session, even though they are going
20
to present it later.
21
22
to
be
honest
with
the
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
thanks.
Let's move on.
that
the
I think it's fine,
Go ahead.
23
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
24
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
25
applicant,
Okay.
Which slide now?
You
have to tell us.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
112
1
2
MR.
Next
slide
is
the
FLECHT rod bundle slide.
3
4
STAUDENMEIER:
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Now, we have gone over
the RGHT data, right?
5
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
6
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Right.
There is a - I mean,
7
the RGHT data though, there's quite a bit of data that
8
seems to lie below the predictions.
9
correct, or am I seeing it wrong here?
10
Is that sort of
If you look at
the void fraction -
11
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
Well, we over-predict -
12
I think we over-predict void fractions more than we
13
under-predict it.
14
15
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
of the data lies below your prediction.
16
17
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
Right.
And there's a
lot of scatter in this data.
18
19
Yes, well, I say a lot
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Is it the scatter is
coming from the experiment, or is it coming from -
20
MR. KELLY:
Almost exclusively.
There are
21
very small DP cells over about a 4-foot length of the
22
bundle,
23
spacers.
24
grid spacers.
25
the void fraction, go to the very next one and you see
every
three
inches,
and
they
span
grid
They're just upstream, just downstream of
You go from one DP measurement and for
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
113
1
these 10, 20, 30 percent void fraction changes one DP
2
set to the other.
3
scatter.
4
done a systematic qualification of the data as to what
5
should be used in this kind of comparison.
6
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
So most of this is experimental
And as Joe said, we've never sat down and
7
Dominique Bestion's work?
8
you haven't adjusted anything?
9
MR. KELLY:
So you're still using
Everything is consistent,
No.
What he's doing now is
10
showing you the model for void fraction prediction rod
11
bundles.
12
power BWR conditions, transitioning to high pressure
13
low flow DKE, that was the PHDF, that's like a small
14
break
15
pressure EKE so now the ADS flow down is complete and
16
you're just sitting there whole boiling kind of thing
17
the rod bundle.
18
trajectory of the transient that you can postulate.
19
20
And he's showing it for higher pressure, for
LOCA
kind,
and
the
RBHT
and
FLECHT
are
low
So he's covering the whole span, the
CHAIRMAN
BANERJEE:
So
this
is
at
low
pressure now.
21
MR. KELLY:
22
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
Right.
I think if you look at
23
the left plot on the RBHT slide you'll see that's void
24
fraction measurements, across is from one test going
25
up to bundle and you can see just the scatter in that
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
114
1
under supposedly steady conditions.
2
MR. BAJOREK:
If you follow those points
3
you'll see the ones where you start to get a lot of
4
decreases in the voids.
5
spacers.
6
They're right at the grid
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Yes, I see some dark
7
to the extent I can tell from this black and white
8
flow
9
crosses.
10
up
there,
Do
some
they
thicker
have
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
12
MR. KELLY:
thinner
significance,
the
No.
That's two crosses on top of
each other.
14
15
any
and
difference?
11
13
crosses
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
That's just resolution
from the screen grab that I did to paste it in here.
16
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
All right.
17
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
Okay.
Fine.
Next is FLECHT
18
rod bundle.
19
we've done this assessment in looking at selection of
20
Bestion
21
pressures, 20 and 40 PSIs.
22
conditions.
23
predictions for both of those.
24
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
25
It's not in our assessment manual, but
correlations.
This
shows
two
different
This is under decay heat
And you see we get good void fraction
But these FLECHT data,
what sort of rod bundle remind me these were?
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
115
1
MR. KELLY:
2
These
were
reflood
3
reflood
is
complete
4
awhile
just
simply
5
pressure rod bundle.
This is a PWR 17x17 geometry.
tests,
and
but
this
you're
boiling
at
6
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
7
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
is
after
the
sitting
there
for
rate,
low
low
flow
Okay, go ahead.
Okay.
Next, looking at
8
some pipe data, larger graph broad diameter pipe data
9
versus
Wilson
bubble
rods
experiment.
0.46
meter
10
diameter test section, a range of pressures that the
11
data was taken over.
12
summary of TRACE predictions versus measurements.
13
CHAIRMAN
Can see, the next slide shows a
BANERJEE:
So
these
were
14
basically sort of experiments where the level rose and
15
then
16
looking at the relatively low void fraction range with
17
these?
broke
18
-
it
MR.
broke
through
STAUDENMEIER:
and
No,
you're
it
goes
mainly
up
to
19
fairly high void fractions, but yes, it's essentially
20
putting steam up through - a cone of water sitting
21
there which wouldn't apply to ESBWR under steady state
22
conditions,
23
circulation in sitting there, this is kind of the
24
situation we have.
25
but
after
you've
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
broken
natural
So, you have either
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
116
1
very little water flow or no water flow, right?
2
this case.
3
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
4
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
5
MR.
In
Yes.
Okay.
STAUDENMEIER:
If
you
look
at
the
6
slide showing the summary of the test predictions, you
7
see we have reasonable predictions until you get up
8
towards the high void fractions up about 0.7 and above
9
and you see - starts to seem systematically under-
10
predict the data.
11
MR. KELLY:
It's like two data points the
12
void fraction is greater than 70 percent.
13
go is it the code, is it the experiment - because
14
you're using a delta p cell in this column of water,
15
and there's two data points.
16
Allis-Chalmers, so we're going way back in history.
17
Same thing.
18
might be a trend away from it.
19
and we're going is it real?
20
we did was institute a test program at the Thermal
21
Hydraulic Institute at Purdue and that's what Joe is
22
going to show you in just a minute, to investigate
23
just that area.
24
25
And so you
And there was one other,
Right in that point it looks like there
You know, we saw this
We don't know.
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
So what
Now, in this case,
you're still using Bestion's NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
117
1
2
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
drift flux model.
3
This is a Kataoka-Ishii model.
MR. KELLY:
And this is the model that
4
will
5
That's what you're assessing.
be
used
6
in
No, this is a light
the
chimney
region
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
7
rod
8
correlation.
bundle
9
region.
And
MR. KELLY:
of
the
ESBWR.
So you're out of the
you're
using
a
different
And it's for assessment of the
10
chimney region is the reason he's looking at large
11
diameter pipes.
12
pipes anymore.
13
can find.
We're not looking at 1-inch diameter
We're looking at things as large as we
And there's not that much data out there.
14
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
15
DR. WALLIS:
16
Okay.
Is this a correlation they
use is drift flux in the C-0 distribution?
17
MR. KELLY:
18
DR. WALLIS:
Yes.
Because if you have a 1.2c
19
you have difficulty getting high void fractions.
20
cuts everything off.
21
MR. KELLY:
22
DR. WALLIS:
23
Bingo.
You can't get in that region
up there.
24
25
It
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
probably
going
to
be
And that's what we're
looking
at
in
developing
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
118
1
correlations -
2
3
DR. WALLIS:
So you shouldn't use it for
high void fractions.
4
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
I mean, if you look at
5
the dimension-less hydraulic diameter in these things
6
that goes into Kataoka-Ishii, when you get up into
7
ESBWR chimney conditions you're up in the range of 500
8
to 600 I think.
9
that high, but we're probably going to be looking at
10
some way, a dimension-less hydraulic diameter tapering
11
off that CNOP from 1.2 down to 1 as you go up into
12
large hydraulic, dimension-less hydraulic diameter.
13
Our Purdue test data doesn't go up
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
There's one thing that
14
we should also look at and we've been concerned about
15
as a committee, which is the - when you're in this
16
region of turbulent flows and things, you get a sort
17
of chugging phenomenon.
18
systems, you see this and what you see is the time
19
constant of these typically is of the order of two
20
seconds.
21
whether you can actually get significant fluctuations
22
in hydraulic head in this because after all, this is a
23
buoyancy-driven system and would these feedback into
24
the sort of time scales associated with the regional
25
instabilities in the core.
If you ever look at these
Now, the concern has been with the committee
So if you look at that,
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
119
1
that's of the order of a couple of seconds.
2
coupling is of some interest, or potential coupling.
3
So when you do these experiments, it would be very
4
interesting
5
fluctuations are like for a large pipe.
6
that
7
couple
8
actually
9
fluctuations which are correlated between the two, and
shall
of
to
know
remain
gamma
look
what
nameless
the
at
it,
hydraulic
right
densitometers
there
there
11
completely
12
interesting to measure these if you can.
13
MR.
time
KELLY:
and
had
if
a
you
significant
So, but that had a
constant.
My
they
are
the part had an instability.
head
Now, the data
now,
10
different
So, the
So
experience
it's
just
the
time
on
14
constant is it's quite often related to the height of
15
the facility.
16
back down and reforms.
In the Purdue test which he's
17
going
some
18
measurements were in - it's inductance for the void
19
fraction and it's always a continuos signal.
20
see those traces, variations in time, and they put
21
that signal for a neural net to identify which kind of
22
regime
23
response.
24
another time so you can look at that.
25
to
Kind of the slug hits the top, comes
show
they're
you
in.
So
of,
they
the
look
experimental
at
So you
frequency
That's data that they can bring back to you
CHAIRMAN
BANERJEE:
So
this
is
-
the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
120
1
cross-flow in -
2
MR. KELLY:
It's a large pipe, so it's
3
just two, you know, it's an acrylic pipe, but there
4
are sections where you have measurements, and there
5
it's metal.
6
remember the details.
Two metals and it's, you know, I don't
7
8
CHAIRMAN
BANERJEE:
So
it's
not
the
Dresden-type -
9
MR. KELLY:
No.
You don't get the local
10
information here.
11
average void fraction from it.
12
time signal of that void fraction which you can then
13
look at.
14
time signal on the pressure traces.
15
we got at the Purdue test, okay, they're in water,
16
they're
17
pressure, so that's not correct.
18
high - they go up to the high void fraction range and
19
they cover everything from zero liquid velocity where
20
they
21
believe it's 2 meters a second.
22
at 2,000 kilograms meter squared.
24
But you also get the
We can provide that to you as well as the
not
look
23
But you get the cross-sectional
high
like
pressure
the
Wilson
steam,
so
they're
low
But, they cover the
bubble
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
And in the film
rise
test
to
I
So that's mass flux
Is that comparable to
-
25
MR.
KELLY:
That's
BWR
operating
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
121
1
conditions.
2
3
I think it's actually CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
And the diameter, is
it comparable?
4
MR. KELLY:
Well, I'm trying to - the
5
diameters are not comparable.
6
chimney region.
7
across and we can't build a facility that large.
8
what we did, the testing was done I believe in a 6-
9
inch and a 10-inch pipe.
I mean, we're in the
Something like this almost a meter
So
And so you're getting big
10
enough that you no longer can have slugs anymore, but
11
we did it at two different diameters so we could see.
12
You know, one of the problems with going to larger
13
diameters is you can't put that much air through it
14
anymore.
15
The cross-sectional area goes as a square.
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
You're aware of course
16
that there are major facilities in the world which -
17
in the oil and gas industry, which have as large or
18
larger diameters and can put through the appropriate
19
mass fluxes, and have incredible instrumentation.
20
21
MR. KELLY:
Actually, I'm not aware of,
but that would be -
22
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Yes.
SINTEF has it.
23
If you ever go, they have 100-meter long and 50 meters
24
high or something.
25
This is a different ball game.
MR. KELLY:
SINTEF?
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
122
1
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
2
MR. KELLY:
3
CHAIRMAN
Yes.
T-E-F?
BANERJEE:
In
Norway.
Their
4
facilities, their incredible facility is available to
5
do this stuff, except of course the oil industry can
6
afford it, not the nuclear.
7
aside, the reason I'm saying you get this.
8
in
9
risers, the slug catchers you design have to be, you
the
oil
business
But anyway, leaving that
that
when
you
go
You see it
into
these
10
know,
11
exactly this regime, which give you big fluctuations
12
in hydraulic head.
13
get
14
question we are asking.
they
this
get
is
15
very
long
slugs
coming
through
in
Now, whether in GE's case you'll
hard
to
know,
MR. KELLY:
but
that's
what
-
the
When you - when you get - I've
16
looked
17
different pipes.
18
pipe and you go to these kind of void fractions, and
19
the
20
operate 60, 70, 75 percent void, something like that.
a
chimney
21
22
at
lot
of
like
air-water
experiments
in
When you start getting to the larger
region
if
CHAIRMAN
I
remember
BANERJEE:
is
designed
Turbulent,
to
exactly,
the wrong region.
23
MR.
KELLY:
The
wrong
region,
except
24
you're not going to have intact slugs anymore.
And if
25
you - because of the void fraction.
And when you talk
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
123
1
about having the liquid film bridging.
2
3
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
sense.
It's not slugs in that
What you get are - actual void weight.
4
MR. KELLY:
5
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Okay, that You see, what you get
6
in these, it's very well known, at least my impression
7
is, that you get an agglomeration of liquid into large
8
regions, and you get regions of low liquid.
9
has multiple sources coming in, so it's not an oil-gas
Now, GE
10
pipeline.
11
these.
12
flow at the inlet.
13
develop within the length of the chimney which is a
14
relatively
15
don't know.
16
You know, you've got many channels feeding
So you've got a relatively different dispersed
short
So whether these void waves can
length
compared
to
a
pipeline,
I
So it's like an entrance region problem.
But it's a significant problem for pipelines.
So I
17
think we need to take cognizance of this and TRACE's
18
capability to capture these void waves.
19
density waves in the sense that density waves - these
20
are flow regime waves.
21
They're not
They're not density waves.
MR. KELLY:
Of course, the constitutive
22
models in TRACE were designed to provide the correct
23
time
24
averaged over volume and time.
25
you the kind of local density waves you're talking
average
response,
not
-
you
know,
they're
So they're not to give
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
124
1
about.
2
condensation-induced
3
things we should have a chance of getting, but not
4
what you're talking about.
Ones that come from a system effect, like a
5
instability.
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Those
kind
of
Well, the multi-field
6
model is known to be able, with high enough resolution
7
and
8
capture some of these effects.
9
Jeffrey
10
low
aspects.
enough
won't
numerical
agree
to
diffusion
to
be
able
to
Because there - well,
this,
but
there
are
many
But some -
11
MR. KELLY:
12
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
The first order.
Yes, the first order,
13
you can get them.
14
mode
15
resolution, you probably will see some of this stuff
16
at some point.
with
low
So, if you ran it in an explicit
numerical
diffusion
with
a
high
Anyway, that's a separate discussion.
17
All we're saying is not only average voids, but void
18
waves could be of interest in this problem from an
19
ESBWR point of view.
20
several times.
21
the ACRS he raised that question and it's never really
22
been adequately answered I think up till now.
23
there's some coupling between the chimney and the core
24
instability.
25
And that question has come up
I think when Graham was chairman of
MR. KELLY:
Whether
You know, I don't think the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
125
1
data that we have can answer that, but we can show you
2
some of the data that we have, not here today, but
3
another time.
4
air water, but also the PUMA facility.
5
a chimney region sitting over the top of a pool.
6
again it's not exactly prototypic, it's shorter, but
7
they have pressure taps and they have optical void
8
fraction probes inside the chimney region.
9
look at a temporal trace of void fraction and see what
10
the oscillations are.
11
12
There is the pipe test we talked about,
CHAIRMAN
It does model
Now
So you can
I don't remember what the BANERJEE:
Were
they
at
full
pressure in these?
13
MR. KELLY:
14
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Of course not.
What are we talking
15
about really is a normal operations issue.
16
drift, you know, into regions where we are more likely
17
to have instabilities.
18
As you
But let's go around that now.
DR. WALLIS:
I think we should move on.
I
19
think that this business of building up these regions,
20
concentrations of bubbles in this sort of geometry
21
involves
22
isn't in the model at all.
23
one
24
they're big ones, and that's not I think in TRACE at
25
all.
the
bubble
attraction
pulls
in
between
other
the
bubbles
which
In fact, so the wake of
ones,
particularly
if
So I think we should move on.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
126
1
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
Okay.
As I said, you
2
can see at the upper end of the Wilson data that TRACE
3
is starting to it looks like under-predict the void
4
fraction.
5
to the predicted values.
6
to roll over up near the high void fractions.
You can see there was kind of a curvature
7
Next
slide,
8
large
9
transient conditions.
hydraulic
It looks like it's starting
GE
diameter
level
pipe
swell
void
experiment,
fraction
under
Also has some steam critical
10
flow in it.
11
in it, look at the level swell in the tank and as it
12
boils down.
13
couple runs that were done.
14
the discharged coefficient at the nozzle to try to get
15
a better estimate of the depressurization.
16
was just using discharged coefficient of 1.
17
You have a large vessel, open up a hole
Next slide.
CHAIRMAN
experiments,
19
coefficient, is that it?
20
TRACE best was adjusting
BANERJEE:
18
you
You can see there were a
didn't
So
adjust
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
the
the
We did.
Base run
nozzle
discharge
The plots that
21
are going to be shown are with the adjusted discharge
22
coefficient.
23
estimate of the depressurization rate.
24
the
25
estimate for discharge coefficient.
void
We try to match deeper, get a better
fraction
thing
will
be
So it'll be -
using
the
best
First plot is up
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
127
1
near the top of the tank.
2
good
3
firm.
4
down there.
5
the level swell.
prediction
void
fraction
versus
It's also getting a decent prediction of
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
What are those bars
there?
8
9
transient
Next plot is further down in the tank, so also
6
7
of
You can see it gets fairly
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
Bars are uncertainty in
the test data.
10
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
And if you ran TRACE
11
with the base model, did you get this particularly
12
different, or?
13
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
Well, it wouldn't be -
14
I
15
depressurizing at too fast a rate, so you'd get more
16
level swell in the calculation compared to the test
17
data.
mean,
18
you'd
get
CHAIRMAN
the
right
shape,
BANERJEE:
So
but
basically
you're
what
19
you're saying is that if you enclose some sort of
20
correct pressure transient you get more or less the
21
right?
22
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
Right.
And like in
23
something like ESBWR they'll have specifications on
24
nozzles like SRVs or DTV valves saying that you're
25
going to get this flow rate and at this pressure, and
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
128
1
that's part of essentially the design basis of the
2
plant.
3
you're going to get this flow rate at this pressure.
4
So in a plant calculation you're really - you don't
5
care what the actual area is, you put an area that's
6
nominal, put a discharge coefficient on that's going
7
to give you that flow rate at that pressure.
8
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
9
information for this experiment?
Their exiting calculations are done assuming
10
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
You didn't have that
There was - it wasn't
11
good characterization of the discharge coefficient in
12
that documentation we had for the experiment.
13
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
I'm just trying to -
14
if that is the case, then what do we learn from these
15
comparisons?
16
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
Well, if you're looking
17
at
18
depressurization rate, then you're looking at seeing
19
what the level swell is at that depressurization rate
20
which is prototypical of what happens in a BWR.
21
you
22
down, hit a level trip, then you start the automatic
23
depressurization system which depressurizes the system
24
at some rate which is close to what this test is
25
showing.
what
know,
happens
the
inside
BWR
safety
the
vessel
systems,
at
the
you're
right
As
draining
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
129
1
2
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
understand.
3
4
I'm just trying to
You sort of tweak the loss coefficient.
MR.
STAUDENMEIER:
A
discharge
coefficient, not a loss coefficient.
5
MEMBER
ABDEL-KHALIK:
A
discharge
6
coefficient, excuse me.
7
the pressure history and therefore were able to match
8
the level swell.
9
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
10
Right.
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
11
another
12
coefficient?
13
14
And you were able to match
experiment.
MR.
You
Then we move on, get
tweak
STAUDENMEIER:
No.
a
discharge
Once
you
characterize a discharge coefficient for a facility -
15
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
So you're telling me
16
that this sort of process of tweaking the discharge
17
coefficient happened only in this set of data because
18
you didn't have that information?
19
MR.
STAUDENMEIER:
That's
right.
In
20
pretty much any test or any integral test we have,
21
hopefully
22
discharge coefficient and will give it to you and say
23
if you use this formula for steam critical flow and
24
this discharge coefficient with this area, this will
25
give you the right flow rate like something like ETSI
the
experimenters
characterized
the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
130
1
tests with steam generator blow-downs.
2
information is given in other test facilities.
3
characterize discharge coefficients or data that you
4
can come up with a discharge coefficient for your
5
code, but all nozzles are different.
6
you need to know what the hardware is.
I know this
You
I mean really,
7
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
Okay.
8
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
What was - this is
9
still Ishii-Kataoka for the interfacial drag?
10
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
11
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Let's go on.
12
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
Okay.
Yes.
The next thing
13
is
14
diameter test data.
15
Andrew Ireland has started doing TRACE assessment of
16
it recently.
17
inch pipe at this time.
18
water tests, large hydraulic diameter, void fractions
19
up to about 80 percent.
going
over
20
some
of
the
hydraulic
One of our junior staff members
As Joe said, there are air-
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
the
22
flows, right?
Wilson
large
All we have is assessment against the 6-
21
bubble
rods?
Or
23
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
24
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
25
Purdue
Are these similar to
you
also
have
liquid
Yes.
But Wilson bubble rods
were steam water and went up to high pressure?
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
131
1
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
Right.
2
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Okay.
3
MR.
STAUDENMEIER:
Very
high
pressure.
4
These,
5
pressure slide, but both of them are relatively low
6
pressures.
7
kilopascals.
8
taken at different axial locations along the pipe.
9
You can see generally TRACE is over-predicting this
10
set of test data, although we don't go up to - you can
11
look at the maximum void fraction and it's up around
12
0.7.
13
TRACE assessments up at high elevations you'll get
14
oscillations in the predicted void fraction in the
15
TRACE calculations.
16
for the facility to see if there's oscillations in the
17
data.
18
although we don't really have models built in for
19
transient flow regime changes like that, we want to
20
see at least are our oscillations consistent with the
21
facility, or is that just another sort of bug in the
22
code that we have to deal with to get the oscillation.
23
I
mean,
there's
a
high
pressure
and
a
low
The low pressure data was done at 180
You
can
see
there
were
measurements
One thing I'll also say is in some of these
We want to look at time traces
We haven't done that yet.
And see if it's -
Next slide is the high pressure data which
24
is at 280 kilopascals.
25
generally over-predicting but you can kind of see that
You can see, again, TRACE is
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
132
1
effect in there.
2
the data you can see the predictions are starting to
3
roll over a little bit at the high void fractions
4
again, where the higher void fraction you get, the
5
less
6
assessments.
7
assessment performed on TRACE and we have reasonable
8
agreement with data that we think is important to
9
ESBWR calculations.
it's
10
If you drew the best line through
over-predicting.
BANERJEE:
11
subcommittee members on this?
12
to the closed session?
14
of
the
We've done a lot, an extensive amount of
CHAIRMAN
13
Summary
DR. WALLIS:
Any
comments
from
Or should we defer them
I would like to get on to the
ESBWR.
15
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
One more comment before
16
the session closes.
17
that came up in the first presentation.
Has there
18
been any assessment done for containment?
We do have
19
some
20
predictions
21
predictions.
22
the
23
providing for conservative pressure predictions for
24
heat
25
pressure is low pressure for ECCS calculations, both
integral
heat
This has to do with some things
tests
in
for
ESBWR,
-
related
both
the
to
PUMA
containment
and
PANDA
And one comment was made about some of
transfer
pressure
correlations
calculations.
In
in
ECCS
containments
the
worst
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
133
1
for large-break LOCA and for BWRs.
2
some calculations where we've looked at making the
3
pressure
4
ESBWR.
5
done
6
atmospheric pressure during the calculations, so it
7
has to boil down further and that - both for BWRs and
8
PWRs it's - large-break LOCA, it's conservative to
9
have low pressures in containment for the in-vessel
10
artificially
low
in
And we have done
the
containment
for
You'll get to see a calculation where that was
where
the
suppression
pool
was
kept
at
ECCS response.
11
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
Are we going to - I
12
mean, talk about what the staff actually are using for
13
calculations?
14
TRACE
15
MELCOR is being used for calculating the containment.
16
Because I know that this is related to
applicability,
but
the
hearsay
is
that
the
Is that true?
17
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
Well, I don't think
18
it's hearsay.
19
before
20
containment
21
calculations, MELCOR is the code that the staff is
22
using
23
assessment in that period for TRACE for some long-term
24
cooling, but I mean, the things that are going on in
25
those
the
for
I think it's actually been presented
ACRS
already,
cooling
calculations
confirmatory
experiments
so.
aren't
But
for
and
peak
calculations.
really
what's
long-term
pressure
We
driving
have
the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
134
1
long-term pressure in ESBWR in these calculations.
2
think
3
noncondensable
4
You
5
system, the pressure's going to keep rising.
6
assessment cases and the test data don't cover that
7
situation
8
noncondensable gas to the system over three days.
it's
keep
the
that
9
-
addition
or
and
of
radiolysis
the
where
you're
electrolysis
noncondensable
noncondensable
gas
to
a
gas.
closed
Our test
constantly
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
I
adding
Now, TRACE has the
10
capability to do this long-term containment pressure
11
calculations, it seems.
12
MR. STAUDENMEIER:
13
CHAIRMAN BANERJEE:
It does.
So I guess this is to
14
be presented to NRO at some point, but why is NRO
15
using MELCOR rather than TRACE?
16
MR. LANDRY:
We can do that at some point
17
when we are up supposed to be talking about this BWR.
18
and the Chapter 21 which I think are in August?
19
can talk about that a little bit then.
20
MR. BAJOREK:
We
Ralph, I think part of it
21
though
22
higher pressures with ESBWR are going to mean hours,
23
days in the transient, and MELCOR is better suited to
24
look at those very long-running transients.
25
could get there, but it would take an exceedingly
was
the
assessment
and
the
run
time.
The
TRACE
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
135
1
large amount of CP time.
2
MR. LANDRY:
But this is involving our
3
containment branch.
4
that we have the right people here to address any
5
questions that come up.
6
I think I'd prefer to make sure
CHAIRMAN
BANERJEE:
Well,
one
of
the
7
things that we understand is that GE is using TRACG to
8
do other things.
9
MR. LANDRY:
10
CHAIRMAN
Right.
BANERJEE:
So.
Slightly
11
different approach.
12
thanks Joe, and I think we should probably go into
13
closed session now.
14
15
Anyway, let's continue with -
(Whereupon,
the
foregoing
concluded
at
11:28 a.m.)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
TRACE Condensation Model
Development for the ESBWR
Presented to the ACRS Subcommittee on
Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena
by
Joseph M. Kelly
Feb. 27, 2009
1
TRACE Condensation Model
Development for ESBWR

CONTENTS

Introduction




Background
Modeling Approach
Model Accuracy
New Model Description





Wall Friction
Interfacial Shear
Wall-Fluid Heat Transfer
Interfacial Heat Transfer
Non-Condensible Gas Effect

Sample of TRACE Assessment Results

Summary
2
Background

Proposed ESBWR design:

Tube Condensation

Passive Containment Cooling System (PCCS)


Isolation Condenser System (ICS)


Highly sheared turbulent film condensation.
Wall Condensation

Containment volumes such as the dry well.


Condensation in the presence of non-condensible gases.
Falling films with non-condensible gas effect.
A model review and assessment was performed:

Significant deficiencies identified in both the modeling approach
and predictive capability of legacy TRACE model.
3
Introduction
Model Development Effort

Objective

Implement a model in TRACE for



In-tube condensation that is applicable to the ICS and PCCS systems,
Modify tube model for wall condensation in large containment volumes.
Approach

Model should be compatible with two-fluid numerical framework.

Model should take advantage of quantities computed by TRACE
through the solution of the conservation equations:

(e.g.) axial distribution of the condensate flow rate and film thickness

then, the Nusselt formula becomes:
h = kl !

instead of:
14
% !l " g " #! " h fg " kl3 (
h = '
*
4
"
µ
"
z
"
T
$
T
(
)
l
sat
w )
&
4
Introduction
Model Accuracy
Condensation Data Base
Experiment
Tube
Diameter
(mm)
Pressure
(MPa)
Gas
Reynolds
No.
Film
Reynolds
No.
NC Mass
Fraction
(%)
Pure Steam Condensation Tests
UCB-Kuhn
47.5
0.11 - 0.52
4000 - 34,800
43 - 2000
-
NASA
7.44
0.02 - 0.26
3300 - 237,000
83 - 8400
-
Air-Steam Condensation Tests
UCB-Kuhn
47.5
0.11 - 0.52
3300 - 46,900
36 - 1800
1 - 56
MIT-Siddique
46
0.11 - 0.49
310 - 23,400
40 - 700
8 - 87
Helium-Steam Condensation Tests
UCB-Kuhn
47.5
0.39 - 0.43
3100 - 31,200
50 - 1400
0.3 - 26
MIT-Siddique
46
0.11 - 0.47
650 - 9300
73 - 450
2.8 - 46
MIT-Hasanein
46
0.12 - 0.60
1100 - 21,500
50 - 650
2.5 - 66
5
Introduction
Model Accuracy
Experiment
No. of
Data
Points
VierowSchrock
Avg.
RMS
KuhnSchrockPeterson
Avg.
RMS
Shah
Correlation
TRACE
Model
Avg.
RMS
Avg.
RMS
Pure Steam Condensation Tests
UCB-Kuhn
252
2.652
2.975
0.031
0.083
-0.675
0.683
0.018
0.102
NASA
299
-0.021
0.668
-0.468
0.510
0.003
0.244
-0.121
0.300
Air-Steam Condensation Tests
UCB-Kuhn
571
1.944
2.131
0.067
0.248
-
-
0.077
0.161
MIT-Siddique
255
0.878
1.210
0.770
1.277
-
-
-0.394
0.446
Helium-Steam Condensation Tests
UCB-Kuhn
192
-
-
0.063
0.162
-
-
-0.026
0.158
MIT-Siddique
68
-
-
0.406
0.788
-
-
-0.481
0.506
MIT-Hasanein
198
-
-
0.755
1.491
-
-
-0.123
0.474
6
Introduction
Model Accuracy

UCB-Kuhn Pure Steam Tests

Over-prediction occurs for points at higher film Reynolds no. and is related to the
laminar-turbulent transition for the film.
7
Introduction
Model Accuracy

UCB-Kuhn Air-Steam Tests

Under-prediction for points at low values of the gas/vapor Reynolds no.


due to persistence of turbulence (history effect), or
neglecting mixed convection in mass transfer.
8
Introduction

Summary:

A model has been developed and implemented in TRACE for in-tube
condensation that is applicable to the ICS and PCCS systems of the
ESBWR design.


compatible with two-fluid numerical framework.
takes advantage of quantities computed by TRACE through the solution of the
conservation equations.

Tube model was extended for condensation on the walls of containment
volumes.

Accuracy of the new model:

Pure steam condensation:


nearly as accurate as empirical correlations when compared to the correlation’s
database.
Condensation with non-condensible gases:

accuracy is as good or better than empirical models when compared to the
correlation’s database and superior when compared to other data sources.
9
TRACE Condensation Model
Development for ESBWR

CONTENTS

Introduction




Background
Modeling Approach
Model Accuracy
New Model Description





Wall Friction
Interfacial Shear
Wall-Fluid Heat Transfer
Interfacial Heat Transfer
Non-Condensible Gas Effect

Sample of TRACE Assessment Results

Summary
10
Model Description

Film Condensation

Normal Representation
q!w!

= hcond " (Tw # Tsat )
Two-Fluid Model
qw!! = hwl " (Tw # Tl )
$ =

qli + qvi
h fg
where
qli = hli ! Ai ! (Tl " Ti )
qvi = hvi ! Ai ! (Tv " Ti )

and Ti is the saturation temperature at
the bulk vapor partial pressure.
11
Model Description

Film Condensation

Model Requirements



Condensation with pure steam and
steam-NC gas mixtures
Applicable to both falling and sheared
films
Models Needed

Film Thickness



Wall Heat Transfer


Wall Friction
Interfacial Shear
Wall-Liquid HTC
Interfacial Heat Transfer



Liquid-Interface HTC
Vapor-Interface HTC
Non-Condensible Gas Effect
12
Model Description
Wall Friction

Legacy TRACE Model

Partitions wall drag between liquid and vapor:


Unphysical behavior for liquid film velocity.
Film thickness is an order of magnitude too small.
13
Model Description
Wall Friction

Revised Model

Laminar

Parallel plate formula for a smooth laminar film
fl
=
24
Re l
» Note: will slightly over-predict film thickness due to neglecting effect of ripples,
this effect will be taken into account in the wall heat transfer model.

Turbulent

Haaland explicit approximation of Colebrook-White
/2
ft

#
) 6.9
#" D&1.11 ,&
= %3.6 ! log10 ++
+ %
(' ..(
$
Re
3.7
%$
*
l
-('
Power-Law Combination
fw
=
[ f l3 + f t3 ] 3
1
14
Model Description
Wall Friction

Film Thickness: Falling Film Data Base
15
Model Description
Wall Friction

Film Thickness: Falling Film

TRACE Results
16
Model Description

Film Condensation

Model Requirements



Condensation with pure steam and
steam-NC gas mixtures
Applicable to both falling and sheared
films
Models Needed

Film Thickness



Wall Heat Transfer


Wall Friction
Interfacial Shear
Wall-Liquid HTC
Interfacial Heat Transfer



Liquid-Interface HTC
Vapor-Interface HTC
Non-Condensible Gas Effect
17
Model Description
Non-Condensible Gas Effect

Non-Condensible Gas Effect

Approach:


Use a mechanistic approach similar to the mass transfer conductance
model described by Kuhn, Schrock & Peterson (1994).
Assessment:

In-Tube:






UCB-Kuhn Steam-Air Tests
UCB-Kuhn Steam-Helium Tests
MIT-Siddique Steam-Air Tests
MIT-Siddique Steam-Helium Tests
MIT-Hasanein Steam-Helium Tests
Containment Wall Condensation:



Comparison to Uchida formula
MIT-Dehbi Tests
UWisc Flat Plate Tests
18
Model Description
Non-Condensible Gas Effect

Mass Transfer Conductance Model

Liquid-Interface Heat Flux:
qli!! = hli " (Ti # Tl )

Gas Mixture-Interface Heat Flux:
! = q!cond
! + q!sens
!
q!mix
!
q!cond
= "!! # h fg
!
q!sens
= hsens # (Tmix $ Ti )

Iteration Required to Find Interface Temperature (Concentration)
qli!! = qcond
!! + qsens
!!
19
Model Description
Non-Condensible Gas Effect

Mass Transfer Conductance: Tube Model

Condensation Mass Flux:
& M w,i )
& $ % D)
" !! = # ( m
%
,
%
Sh
%
(' M +*
' d +*
w

0.4
%b
Mass Transfer Driving Potential
b =
( x v ! x v,i ) ( x v,i ! 1)

Sherwood No.
3 13
3
!
Sh = ( 3.66 ) + ( Gnielinski ( Re, Sc )) #
"
$

“Blowing” Factor
! = ln (1 + b) b
20
Model Description
Non-Condensible Gas Effect

Mass Transfer Conductance: Tube Model

Sensible Heat Flux:
!
q!sens
=

#k &
f fog " % m ( " ) " Nu " (Tm * Ti )
$d'
Nusselt No.
Nu = Max [ 4, Gnielinski(Re,Pr )]

“Blowing” Factor
! = ln (1 + b) b

Fog Factor
f fog = 2
21
Model Description
Non-Condensible Gas Effect

Mass Transfer Conductance: Modifications for Wall Model

Condensation Mass Flux:
c
& M w,i )
& $ % D)
" !! = # ( m
%
,
%
Sh
%
(' M +* % b
' d +*
w

Sherwood No.

Natural Convection
ShNC
= 0.13 ! ( GrL ! Sc )
13
c = 0.57

Model
"M %
Sh ! $ w,i '
# M &
w
c
=
0.57
0.4
(*
" M w,i %
" M w,i % ,*
Max )ShNC ! $
, ShFC ! $
'
'& M
M
#
&
#
w
w
*+
*.
22
Model Description
Non-Condensible Gas Effect

Comparison to UCB-Kuhn Experiment

Steam-Air Data: (72 tests, 571 data points)


Average Error = 7.7%
RMS Error = 16.1%
23
Model Description
Non-Condensible Gas Effect

Comparison to UCB-Kuhn Experiment

Steam-Helium Data: (25 tests, 192 data points)


Average Error = -2.6%
RMS Error = 15.8%
24
TRACE Condensation Model
Development for ESBWR

CONTENTS

Introduction




Background and Status
Modeling Approach
Model Accuracy
New Model Description





Wall Friction
Interfacial Shear
Wall-Fluid Heat Transfer
Interfacial Heat Transfer
Non-Condensible Gas Effect

Sample of TRACE Assessment Results

Summary
25
Sample of TRACE
Assessment Results

Test Matrix: Tube Condensation
Laminar Film
UCB - Kuhn
(Steam Only)
Turbulent Film
NASA Goodykoontz
NC Gas Effect
UCB – Kuhn
(Air-Steam)
Film
Reynolds
No.
NC Gas
Mass
Fraction
(%)
Run
No.
Pressure
(bar)
Gas
Reynolds
No.
1.1-1
1.16
35,400
450
-
1.1-2
2.02
33,900
720
-
1.1-3R
3.20
30,160
1270
-
1.1-4R1
4.10
29,800
1820
-
1.1-5R1
5.04
28,930
1970
-
172
1.77
85,980
3020
-
174
1.78
105,240
3800
-
2.1-1
4.20
23,960
1360
1
2.1-4
3.93
25,590
1010
4.2
2.1-7
4.00
26,960
750
10
2.1-9
4.05
29,280
610
20
2.1-13
4.15
36,620
440
40
26
Sample of TRACE
Assessment Results

Laminar Film Condensation:


Calculation dramatically improved, good prediction over entire pressure range.
Few values over-predicted due to laminar-turbulent transition.
27
Sample of TRACE
Assessment Results

Laminar Film Condensation:

Excellent prediction of the heat transfer coefficient both in
magnitude and axial trend.
28
Sample of TRACE
Assessment Results

Laminar Film Condensation

Realistic calculation of liquid film thickness.
29
Sample of TRACE
Assessment Results

Turbulent Film Condensation:


Significantly improved prediction of heat transfer coefficient, but
Under-prediction in laminar regime with good prediction once film
becomes turbulent.
30
Sample of TRACE
Assessment Results

Non-Condensible Gas Effect:

Excellent prediction for a range of inlet non-condensible mass fraction
from 1% to 40%.
31
Sample of TRACE
Assessment Results

Wall Condensation Model:

Excellent comparison to empirical model of Uchida.
32
Sample of TRACE
Assessment Results

Wall Condensation Model:

Good comparison to MIT-Dehbi test data.
33
TRACE Condensation Model
Development for ESBWR

Summary:

A new condensation model has been developed and implemented in TRACE.




Applicable to the ICS and PCCS systems of the ESBWR design.
Extended to wall condensation in large containment volumes.
Compatible with two-fluid numerical framework.
Takes advantage of quantities computed by TRACE:


Accuracy of the new model



e.g., axial distribution of the condensate flow rate and film thickness
For pure steam condensation, nearly as accurate as empirical correlations when compared to the
database of the empirical model.
With non-condensible gases, accuracy is as good or better than empirical models developed from
that data and superior when compared to other data sources.
Assessment

Developmental assessment of TRACE has been performed against single-tube experiments.




Excellent predictions of UCB-Kuhn pure steam and air-steam tests.
Reasonable prediction of NASA pure steam tests.
Very good comparisons to containment wall condensation data & empirical models.
More extensive ESBWR specific testing has been conducted, including multi-tube exchangers (e.g.,
PANTHERS).
34
Model Description
Interfacial Friction

Selection of Interfacial Friction Model

Use data of Andreussi-Zanelli for co-current downflow



Measured film thickness, pressure gradient and entrainment fraction.
Reduced data to give values of the interfacial friction coefficient.
Compare interfacial friction models of


Wallis (1969)
Modified Wallis



Henstock-Hanratty (1976)
Bharathan (1979)


developed for counter-current flow
Asali-Hanratty (1985)


uses friction factor as fn(Re)
models with and without entrainment
Jayanti-Hewitt (1997)

ripple & disturbance wave models
35
Model Description
Interfacial Friction

Selection of Interfacial Friction Model
Average
Error
Maximum
Error
RMS
Error
Wallis (fs = 0.005)
-0.176
-2.801
0.517
Wallis (fs = f(Re))
0.400
5.055
1.480
Henstock-Hanratty
2.266
11.13
1.489
Asali-Hanratty
(no entrainment)
-0.165
-0.642
0.049
A sali-Hanra t ty
( en t rainmen t )
-0.07 6
0. 36 4
0. 0 2 26
Bharathan
1.425
6.160
6.612
Jayanti-Hewitt
(ripple wave)
-0.396
-0.8252
0.212
Jayanti-Hewitt
(disturbance wave)
-0.453
0.718
0.302
Model
36
Model Description
Interfacial Friction

Selection of Interfacial Friction Model
37
Model Description
Interfacial Friction

Film Thickness: Sheared Films

TRACE Results for data of Andreussi & Zanelli
38
Model Description

Film Condensation

Model Requirements



Condensation with pure steam and
steam-NC gas mixtures
Applicable to both falling and sheared
films
Models Needed

Film Thickness



Wall Heat Transfer


Wall Friction
Interfacial Shear
Wall-Liquid HTC
Interfacial Heat Transfer



Liquid-Interface HTC
Vapor-Interface HTC
Non-Condensible Gas Effect
39
Model Description
Wall Heat Transfer

Modeling needs

Wall-Film heat transfer coefficient



Laminar/smooth and laminar/wavy films
Turbulent films
Approach

Laminar Films:




Use falling film condensation data to select suitable correlation.
Compare to pure-steam data of UCB-Kuhn.
Split heat transfer resistance between wall and interfacial.
Turbulent Films:


Use falling film heating data to select suitable correlation.
Interfacial heat transfer considered separately.
40
Model Description
Wall Heat Transfer

Film Condensation: Falling Films

Data Base Example:


Heat transfer averaged over surface (no local values).
Significant enhancement over Nusselt due to waves.
41
Model Description
Wall Heat Transfer

Laminar Model Selection

Film Condensation: Falling Films

Nusselt:

Nu0*
3
= 1.47 ! Re "1
f
#
Nu$
= 1
Kutateladze:
Nu0*
4
= 1.23 ! Re "1
f
#
Nu$
= 0.895 ! Re1f 12

Nozhat:
Nu0*
= 1.28 ! Re "0.263
f

Zazuli:
Nu0*
= 0.955 ! Re "0.22
f
#
Nu$
= 0.8 ! Re f 4

Labuntsov:
Nu0*
= 1.346 ! Re "0.293
f
#
Nu$
=
#
Nu$
= 0.921! Re 0.07
f
(
( Re 4 )
)
0.11
0.04
f
42
Model Description
Wall Heat Transfer

Laminar Model Selection

Falling Film Condensation: surface average data
43
Model Description
Wall Heat Transfer

Laminar Model Selection

Sheared Film: local data from UCB-Kuhn pure steam tests
44
Model Description
Wall Heat Transfer

Laminar Model Selection

Sheared Film: local data from UCB-Kuhn pure steam tests
45
Model Description
Wall Heat Transfer

Laminar Model Selection

Use Kuhn-Schrock-Peterson Fit:
Nu!
=
(1 + 1.83x10
"4
# Re f
)
46
Model Description
Wall Heat Transfer

Turbulent Film Model

Difficulty:

Falling film database does not have local heat transfer data, only
values averaged over the entire heat transfer surface.



Sheared film data (e.g., NASA) have large uncertainties.



Data is integrated over both laminar and turbulent regions, and so
Cannot be used in a straightforward model selection process.
Data uncertainty & effect of interfacial shear on film thickness.
Correlations for turbulent condensation vary widely.
Approach:


For the wall-liquid HTC, turbulent falling film heating data will be used
for model selection.
For interfacial heat transfer, considered later, several models will be
selected from the literature and compared to data.
47
Model Description
Wall Heat Transfer

Turbulent Falling Film Condensation:

Large variation between condensation correlations for turbulent
falling films.

Which correlation is “right” ?
48
Model Description
Wall Heat Transfer
Turbulent Falling Films

Example of correlations for film heating:

Gnielinski is a modern correlation for single-phase forced convection
modified for a film.
100
8
7
6
Wilke Film Heating
Gimbutis
Gnielinski/4
5
4
3
2
Nusselt No.

10
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Pr = 1.75
1
3
10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
4
10
Film Reynolds No.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
5
10
49
Model Description
Wall Heat Transfer

Turbulent Falling Films

Use correlation of Gnielinski modified for a film.
50
Model Description:
Wall Heat Transfer

Turbulent Falling Film Condensation:
1
3
= 0.056 ! Re 0.2
f ! Pr f
Colburn (1933)
Nu*

Kirkbride (1934)
Nu* = 0.0084 ! Re 0.4
f

Kutateladze (1949)

0.0429 ! Re f ! Pr f0.4
Nu
=
Labuntsov (1960)
Nu*
2
= 0.023! Re 0.25
f ! Pr f

Soliman et al (1968)
Nu* = 0.0132 ! Re 0.292
! Pr f0.65
f

*
0.4
0.65
Nu
=
0.004
!
Re
!
Pr
f
f
Chen, Gerner & Tien (1987)

*
(
5
Re 6f " 149.2 + 66.7 ! Pr f0.4
)
1
51
Model Description

Film Condensation

Model Requirements



Condensation with pure steam and
steam-NC gas mixtures
Applicable to both falling and sheared
films
Models Needed

Film Thickness



Wall Heat Transfer


Wall Friction
Interfacial Shear
Wall-Liquid HTC
Interfacial Heat Transfer



Liquid-Interface HTC
Vapor-Interface HTC
Non-Condensible Gas Effect
52
Model Description
Interfacial Heat Transfer

Modeling needs

Liquid-Interface heat transfer coefficient



Laminar and laminar/wavy films
Turbulent films
Approach

Laminar Films:



Use Kuhn-Schrock-Peterson correlation.
Split heat transfer resistance between wall and interfacial.
Turbulent Films:


Use NWU co-current flow condensation data to select correlation.
Look at other NWU data and UCB-Kuhn for the transition region.
53
Model Description
Interfacial Heat Transfer
Turbulent Falling Films

Example of Candidate Interfacial HTCs:
2
Water
Pr = 1.75
100
Nusselt No. (Liquid-Interface)

-13
Ka = 3.23x10
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Condensation Correlations
Linehan (??)
Bankoff (1980)
10
Eddy Diffusivity Models
8
7
6
A-T-C (1998)
Sandall et al (1988)
5
Gas Diffusivity Models
4
Lamourelle & Sandall (??)
Banerjee et al (1967)
McCready & Hanratty (1985)
3
2
3
10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Film Reynolds No.
9
4
2
3
4
10
54
Model Description
Interfacial Heat Transfer

NWU Interfacial Condensation Data

Exhibits significant entrance effect.
55
Model Description
Interfacial Heat Transfer

NWU Interfacial Condensation Data

Use Bankoff Turbulence Centered Model

Modify coefficient to match fully developed data.
56
Model Description
Interfacial Heat Transfer

NWU Interfacial Condensation Data

What about transition region?

Look at other NWU data.
57
Model Description
Interfacial Heat Transfer

NWU Interfacial Condensation Data

What about transition region?

Bankoff TCM would significantly over-predict.
58
Model Description
Interfacial Heat Transfer

NWU Interfacial Condensation Data

What about transition region?

Better correlation is needed.

Use Gnielinski modified to match Bankoff (for now).
59
Model Description
Interfacial Heat Transfer

NWU Interfacial Condensation Data

What about effect of interfacial shear on Nusselt no.?


Negligible effect for horizontal co-current (not shown) and for
vertical counter-current flow.
Possible effect for horizontal counter-current flow.
60