NUREG/IA-0420 

International 

 Agreement Report

Analysis with TRACE Code of Rosa Test 1.2:

Small LOCA in the Hot-Leg with HPI and 

Accumulator Actuation 

 

 Prepared by:

J.L. Munoz-Cobo, A. Romero, S. Chiva

 

 Instituto de Ingeniería Energética

 Universitat Politècnica de Valencia

 Camí de Vera s/n

 46022 Valencia, Spain

 

A. Calvo, NRC Project Manager

Division of Systems Analysis

 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Manuscript Completed: Decmeber 2012

Date Published: April 2013

Prepared as part of 

The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange

Under the Thermal-Hydraulic Code Applications and Maintenance Program (CAMP)

Published by

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NRC Reference Material 

As of November 1999, you may electronically access 

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at 

NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Publicly released 

records include, to name a few, NUREG-series 

publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, 

licensee, and vendor documents and correspondence; 

NRC correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins 

and information notices; inspection and investigative 

reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers 

and their attachments. 

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC 

regulations, and Title 10, “Energy,” in the Code of

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one 

of these two sources. 

1. The Superintendent of Documents

 U.S. Government Printing Office

Mail Stop SSOP

Washington, DC 20402–0001

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

Telephone: 202-512-1800

Fax: 202-512-2250 

2. The National Technical Information Service 

Springfield, VA 22161–0002

www.ntis.gov

1–800–553–6847 or, locally, 703–605–6000 

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is 

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written 

request as follows:

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

 Office of Administration 

Publications Branch

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION.RESOURCE@NRC.GOV

Facsimile: 301–415–2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC’s Web site address 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs 

are updated periodically and may differ from the last 

printed version. Although references to material found on 

a Web site bear the date the material was accessed, the 

material available on the date cited may subsequently be 

removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material 

Documents available from public and special technical 

libraries include all open literature items, such as books, 

journal articles, transactions, Federal Register notices, 

Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports. 

Such documents as theses, dissertations, foreign reports 

and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings 

may be purchased from their sponsoring organization. 

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a 

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are 

maintained at—

The NRC Technical Library

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852–2738 

These standards are available in the library for reference 

use by the public. Codes and standards are usually 

copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating 

organization or, if they are American National Standards, 

from—

American National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036–8002

www.ansi.org

212–642–4900 

AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only 

in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical 

specifications; or orders, not in NUREG-series 

publications. The views expressed in contractorprepared publications in this series are not necessarily 

those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and 

administrative reports and books prepared by the staff 

(NUREG-XXXX) or agency contractors

(NUREG/CR-XXXX), (2) proceedings of conferences 

(NUREG/CP-XXXX), (3) reports resulting from 

international agreements (NUREG/IA-XXXX), (4) 

brochures (NUREG/BR-XXXX), and (5) compilations of 

legal decisions and orders of the Commission and 

Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors’

decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC’s regulations 

(NUREG-0750).

DISCLAIMER: This report was prepared under an 

international cooperative agreement for the exchange of 

technical information. Neither the U.S. Government nor 

any agency thereof, nor any employee, makes any 

warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal 

liability or responsibility for any third party’s use, or the 

results of such use, of any information, apparatus, 

product or process disclosed in this publication, or 

represents that its use by such third party would not 

infringe privately owned rights. 
NUREG/IA-0420 

International 

 Agreement Report

Analysis with TRACE Code of Rosa Test 1.2:

Small LOCA in the Hot-Leg with HPI and 

Accumulator Actuation 

 

 Prepared by:

J.L. Munoz-Cobo, A. Romero, S. Chiva

 

 Instituto de Ingeniería Energética

 Universitat Politècnica de Valencia

 Camí de Vera s/n

 46022 Valencia, Spain

 

A. Calvo, NRC Project Manager

Division of Systems Analysis

 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Manuscript Completed: Decmeber 2012

Date Published: April 2013

Prepared as part of 

The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange

Under the Thermal-Hydraulic Code Applications and Maintenance Program (CAMP)

Published by

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

iii

ABSTRACT

The goal of this report is to explain the main results obtained in the simulations performed with 

the consolidated code TRACE for the OCDE stratification test ROSA 1.2. The transient was 

produced by a small break in the hot leg of the loop B of the LSTF facility in Japan. In the 

experiment, the small break was simulated by a small diameter fissure located at the bottom of 

the hot-leg. The goal of this report is to analyze the capabilities of the TRACE code to cope with 

cases where thermal stratifications in the cold and hot legs take place. For this transient is very 

important the ability of TRACE to predict correctly the fluid regime in the hot leg. At the 

beginning of the transient the fluid discharged through the bottom of the hot leg is at liquid state 

and the mass flow rate discharged through the break is very high, and as a consequence the 

pressure drop very fast during the first seconds of the transient until the beginning of the HPI 

injection. This behaviour is predicted very well by TRACE code. Later, the flow at the hot leg 

becomes two-phase with low void fraction, and the mass flow rate discharged through the break 

is still high because the TRACE off-take model considers the fact that at the bottom of the hot 

leg we have liquid. Finally, the flow in the hot leg becomes biphasic with high void fraction and 

we discharge mainly steam through the break. In this test, the contraction of the fluid vein during 

the steam discharge has an important influence on the depressurization rate during the steam 

regime. The injection of the HPI in the cold leg produces a significant thermal stratification in the 

cold leg that attains the value of 100 oC, but the TRACE code predicts well the average 

temperature in the cold leg.

v

FOREWORD

Extensive knowledge and techniques have been produced and made available in the field of thermalhydraulic responses during reactor transients and accidents, and major system computer codes have 

achieved a high degree of maturity through extensive qualification, assessment and validation processes. 

Best-estimate analysis methods are increasingly used in licensing, replacing the traditional conservative 

approaches. Such methods include an assessment of the uncertainty of their results that must be taken 

into account when the safety acceptance criteria for the licensing analysis are verified. 

Traditional agreements between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of the United States of America 

(USNRC) and the Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear of Spain (CSN) in the area of nuclear safety research 

have given access to CSN to the NRC-developed best estimate thermalhydraulic codes RELAP5, TRACP, TRAC-B, and currently TRACE. These complex tools, suitable state-of-the-art application of current 

two-phase flow fluid mechanics techniques to light water nuclear power plants, allow a realistic 

representation and simulation of thermalhydraulic phenomena at normal and incidental operation of NPP. 

Owe to the huge required resources, qualification of these codes have been performed through 

international cooperation programs. USNRC CAMP program (Code Applications and Maintenance 

Program) represents the international framework for verification and validation of NRC TH codes, allowing 

to:

• Share experience on code errors and inadequacies, cooperating in resolution of deficiencies and 

maintaining a single, internationally recognized code version.

• Share user experience on code scaling, applicability, and uncertainty studies.

• Share a well documented code assessment data base.

• Share experience on full scale power plant safety-related analyses performed with codes 

(analyses of operating reactors, advanced light water reactors, transients, risk-dominant 

sequences, and accident management and operator procedures-related studies).

• Maintain and improve user expertise and guidelines for code applications.

Since 1984, when the first LOFT agreement was settled down, CSN has been promoting coordinated joint 

efforts with Spanish organizations, such as UNESA (the association of Spanish electric energy industry) 

as well as universities and engineering companies, in the aim of assimilating, applying, improving and 

helping the international community in the validation of these TH simulation codes1, within different 

periods of the associated national programs (e.g., CAMP-España). As a result of these actions, there is 

currently in Spain a good collection of productive plant models as well as a good selection of national 

experts in the application of TH simulation tools, with adequate TH knowledge and suitable experience on 

their use.

Many experimental facilities have contributed to the today’s availability of a large thermal-hydraulic 

database (both separated and integral effect tests). However there is continued need for additional 

experimental work and code development and verification, in areas where no emphasis have been made 

along the past. On the basis of the SESAR/FAP2 reports “Nuclear Safety Research in OECD 

Countries:Major Facilities and Programmes at Risk” (SESAR/FAP, 2001) and its 2007 updated version 

“Support Facilities for Existing and Advanced Reactors (SFEAR) NEA/CSNI/R(2007)6”, CSNI is 

promoting since 2001 several collaborative international actions in the area of experimental TH research. 

These reports presented some findings and recommendations to the CSNI, to sustain an adequate level 

of research, identifying a number of experimental facilities and programmes of potential interest for 

present or future international collaboration within the safety community during the coming decade. 

CSN, as Spanish representative in CSNI, is involved in some of these research activities, helping in this 

international support of facilities and in the establishment of a large network of international

 1 It’s worth to note the emphasis made in the application to actual NPP incidents.

2 SESAR/FAP is the Senior Group of Experts on Nuclear Safety Research Facilities and Programmes of NEA Committee 

on the Safety of Nuclear Installations (CSNI).
vi

collaborations. In the TH framework, most of these actions are either covering not enough investigated 

safety issues and phenomena (e.g., boron dilution, low power and shutdown conditions), or enlarging 

code validation and qualification data bases incorporating new information (e.g., multi-dimensional 

aspects, non-condensable gas effects). In particular, CSN is currently participating in the PKL and ROSA 

programmes.

The PKL is an important integral test facility operated by of AREVA-NP in Erlangen (Germany), and 

designed to investigate thermal-hydraulic response of a four-loop Siemens designed PWR. Experiments 

performed during the PKL/OECD program have been focused on the issues:

• Boron dilution events after small-break loss of coolant accidents.

• Loss of residual heat removal during mid-loop operation (both with closed and open reactor 

coolant system.

ROSA/LSTF of Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI) is an integral test facility designed to 

simulate a 1100 MWe four-loop Westinghouse-type PWR, by two loops at full-height and 1/48 volumetric 

scaling to better simulate thermal-hydraulic responses in large-scale components. The ROSA/OECD 

project has investigated issues in thermal-hydraulics analyses relevant to water reactor safety, focusing 

on the verification of models and simulation methods for complex phenomena that can occur during 

reactor transients and accidents such as:

• Temperature stratification and coolant mixing during ECCS coolant injection

• Water hammer-like phenomena

• ATWS

• Natural circulation with super-heated steam

• Primary cooling through SG depressurization

• Pressure vessel upper-head and bottom break LOCA

This overall CSN involvement in different international TH programmes has outlined the scope of the new 

period of CAMP-España activities focused on:

• Analysis, simulation and investigation of specific safety aspects of PKL/OECD and ROSA/OECD 

experiments.

• Analysis of applicability and/or extension of the results and knowledge acquired in these projects 

to the safety, operation or availability of the Spanish nuclear power plants.

Both objectives are carried out by simulating experiments and plant application with the last available 

versions of NRC TH codes (RELAP5 and TRACE). A CAMP in-kind contribution is aimed as end result of 

both types of studies.

Development of these activities, technically and financially supported by CSN, is being carried out by 5 

different national research groups (Technical Universities of Madrid, Valencia and Cataluña). On the 

whole, CSN is seeking to assure and to maintain the capability of the national groups with experience in 

the thermal hydraulics analysis of accidents of the Spanish nuclear power plants.

________________________________

Francisco Fernández Moreno, Commissioner

Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear (CSN)
vii

CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................. iii

FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................v

FIGURES....................................................................................................................................viii

TABLES......................................................................................................................................viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ xi

ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................................................xiii

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................1-1

2. INITIAL AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS.......................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Description of the LSTF facility......................................................................................2-1

2.2 Stationary initial conditions for ROSA 1.2 test and results of TRACE code....................2-2

2.3 Test conditions and set points .......................................................................................2-3

3. TEST RESULTS AND COMPARISON WITH TRACE.........................................................3-1

3.1 Beginning of the transient..............................................................................................3-1

3.2 Evolution of the transient after the injection of the ECCS system: thermal 

stratification effects in the cold leg................................................................................3-2

3.3 Long term evolution of the transient after the injection of the HPIS +

Accumulator: Effect on the liquid level, void fraction of the primary loop, and 

mass flow rate through the break .................................................................................3-3

4. CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................4-1

5. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................5-1
viii

FIGURES

Page

2.1 Large Scale Test Facility (LSTF) used to perform the ROSA test 1.2. Figure (a), 

at the left side, displays the points of injection of the emergency core cooling 

system and the location of the break in the hot leg of loop B. Figure (b) shows 

the different components of the facility ..............................................................................2-1

2.2 Decay Power versus time at the LSTF facility for test case ROSA 1.2 ..............................2-4

2.3 Pump rotation speed in radians/s implemented in the TRACE code to simulate 

the coast down..................................................................................................................2-5

3.1 Time evolution of the pressure for the Test 1.2 in red colour and prediction of 

TRACE in black.................................................................................................................3-5

3.2 Experimental (continuous red line) and computed (black line) mass flow rates 

versus time through the hot leg break ...............................................................................3-5

3.3 Void fraction versus time computed with the TRACE code at the hot leg position 

where the break occurs.....................................................................................................3-6

3.4 Mass flow rate (kg/s) injected by the HPIS system versus time. The continuous 

line (red) are the results of TRACE, while the black line that displays small high 

frequency oscillations are the experimental ones ..............................................................3-6

3.5 Experimental and computed with TRACE (continuous black line) mass flow 

rates through the loop A. The measures denoted by FE2 and FE3 where 

performed in the pump seal...............................................................................................3-7

3.6 Experimental and computed with TRACE (continuous black line) mass flow 

rates through the loop B. The measures denoted by FE5 and FE6 where 

performed in the pump seal...............................................................................................3-7

3.7 Experimental (red) and computed with TRACE (black) secondary pressure 

versus time .......................................................................................................................3-8

3.8. Experimental and calculated with TRACE mass flow rates through the safety 

and relief valves ................................................................................................................3-8

3.9 Temperature evolution of the liquid phase in the cold leg at the section where 

the injection takes place. The black curve is the experimental one, and the 

green the computed with the TRACE code .......................................................................3-9

3.10 Temperatures from the thermocouple located in the upper and lower part of the 

pipe of the pump seal (green and red curves), and prediction of the TRACE 

code (black) ......................................................................................................................3-9

3.11 Safety injection (kg/s) versus time of the accumulator (black) and prediction of 

TRACE code (red)...........................................................................................................3-10

3.12 Liquid temperatures (TRACE results) versus time inside the vessel at nodes 

(15, 4, 3), (15,1,3), (6,1,3) and the experimental ones measured in the 

downcomer .....................................................................................................................3-10

TABLES

Page

2.1 Comparison of measured and calculated ROSA stationary initial conditions .....................2-2

2.2 Mass flow rates versus the pressure for the HPIS system pumps .....................................2-3

2.3 Operational set points and conditions for test ROSA 1.2.................................................. 2-4

3.1 Experimental and TRACE sequence of events for test 1.2................................................3-4
ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the main results obtained with the NRC consolidated code TRACE for the 

simulation of the OCDE stratification test ROSA 1.2 with a model of the LSTF test facility.

The LSTF facility represents a PWR reactor scaled 1/48 in volume and power. The facility has 

two loops, A and B, with one steam generators per loop, one coolant pump per loop and one 

pressurizer located in loop A. The emergency core cooling system (ECCS) is formed by the 

accumulator tanks and the high pressure injection system (HPIS). The amount of water injected 

by the ECCS system depends on pressure. Both systems i.e. the HPIS and the accumulators 

actuate when the primary pressure drops below specified pressure set points. In test ROSA 1.2 

a single failure is assumed for the HPIS of the reference PWR, and the mass flow rate injected 

into the cold legs of both loops was one half of the scaled one. The ratio of injected water in the 

A and B loops was 1:1.

The objective of this assessment is to improve the available LSTF TRACE model, and to 

compare code predictions with facility experimental data obtained during the 1.2 test in order to 

be able to asses the code capability to predict complex transients with thermal stratification.

A reference steady state situation was first obtained with the TRACE code using the same initial 

boundary condition of the LSTF facility for this experiment. Some improvement in the 

nodalization of the plant model has been performed in order to account the LSTF plant 

specifications. 

The transient was produced by a small break in the hot leg of the loop B of the LSTF facility. In 

the experiment the small break was simulated by a small diameter flash type break orifice

located at the bottom of the hot-leg. One of the goals of this report is to analyze the capabilities 

of the TRACE code to cope with cases where thermal stratifications in the cold and hot legs 

take place. For this transient is very important the ability of TRACE to predict correctly the fluid 

regime in the hot leg. At the beginning of the transient the fluid discharged through the bottom of 

the hot leg is at liquid state and the mass flow rate discharged through the break is very high, 

and as a consequence the primary pressure drops very fast during the first seconds of the 

transient until the beginning of the HPIS injection. This behaviour is predicted very well by 

TRACE code. Later, the flow at the hot leg becomes biphasic with low void fraction, and the 

mass flow rate discharged through the break is still high because the TRACE off-take model 

considers the fact that at the bottom of the hot leg we have liquid. Finally the flow in the hot leg 

becomes biphasic with high void fraction and steam is mainly discharged through the break. In 

this test the contraction of the fluid vein during the steam discharge has an important influence 

on the depressurization rate during the steam regime. A contraction factor of 0.6 has been used 

only during the steam regime.

The injection of the HPI in the cold leg produces a significant thermal stratification in this pipe

that attains the value of 100 oC. The TRACE code predicts well the average temperature in the 

cold leg especially in the loop seal. However some of the complex 3D thermal stratification 

phenomena that take place in the cold leg during the HPIS injection cannot be reproduced with 

a 1D model as the one used to represent the cold leg in the TRACE code. As a consequence 

the liquid temperature predicted by TRACE in the downcomer that match well the experimental

data during the first 900 seconds, starts to separate from the experimental one at this time. 

The evolution with time of the rest of variables as pressure in the primary system, mass flow 

rate through the break, pressure in the secondary, and mass flow rate through the primary are 

all them well predicted by the TRACE code along all the transient.

xi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The thermal-hydraulic and nuclear engineering group of the UPV is indebted to the 

Management Board of the ROSA project and to the people of the Thermal-Hydraulics Safety 

Research Group.

of JAEA. The CSN financed this work, and help to develop this report we are indebted to Miguel 

Sanchez Perea that reviews the manuscript. Also we are indebted to Cesar Queral that provides 

a model of the LSTF facility for the TRACE code and many interesting suggestion on 

improvement of the model.

xiii

ABBREVIATIONS

CSN Spanish Nuclear Regulatory Commission

CRGT Control Rod Guide Tubes

ECCS Emergency Core Cooling System

HPIS High Pressure Injection System

LOCA Loss of coolant accident

LSTF Large Scale Test Facility

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

PH High-Pressure Injection Pump

PJ Charging Pump

PRZ Pressurizer

PTS Pressurized Thermal Shock

PWR Pressurized Power Reactor

ROSA Rig of Safety Assessment 

SG Steam Generator

SRV Safety and Relief Valves

UNESA Spanish Electricity Producers Association

TRACE TRAC/RELAP Advanced Computational Engine

1-1

1. INTRODUCTION

The present work was performed as a contribution to the OECD international collaborative 

research project ROSA. The Spanish contribution was coordinated by the Spanish Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (CSN). A consortium formed by the CSN and several Spanish 

Technical Universities developed the Spanish participation in the project that was coordinated 

by the CSN and a steering committee.

The analysis of the experiment ROSA 1.2 with the TRACE code was assigned to the “thermalhydraulics and nuclear engineering group” of the Polytechnic University of Valencia. This test 

was performed in the nuclear safety research centre of the Japan Atomic Energy Agency in the 

large scale test facility (LSTF) on May 17, 2007 [1, 2].

The Test ROSA 1.2 consists in 1% small break LOCA in the hot leg B of the LSTF facility, the 

orifice has a hydraulic diameter of 10.1 mm, and is located in the bottom of the pipe. The orifice 

is connected to the blow-down system through a pipe of higher hydraulic diameter [3, 4]. The 

actuation of the high pressure injection system (HPIS) is activated automatically with a delay of 

12 seconds when the pressure falls below 12.27 MPa. The accumulator injection is activated 

when the pressure falls below 4.51 MPa. The cold water injected into the cold legs by the ECCS 

system mixes with the hot primary coolant and stratifies in the pipe flowing toward the 

downcomer of the pressure vessel. Because the injected water is colder does not mix 

completely with the fluid of the cold leg and accumulates in the bottom of the pipe forming a cold 

layer that moves toward the downcomer, however the upper part contains fluid at higher 

temperature that is normally in form of steam when the transient progress. This steam partially 

condenses on the lower boundary layer interface, and some local pressure variations can occur 

that can cause unstable flow oscillations that in turn promote thermal mixing. Such 

multidimensional and non-equilibrium flow phenomena are of concern for pressurized thermal 

shock (PTS) [5, 6].

The goal of test series 1 was to obtain the multidimensional temperature distribution in the cold 

legs and the vessel downcomer during the ECCS injection for verification of computer codes 

and models. In test 1.2 the break was located in the bottom of the hot leg B, in such a way that 

the break does not disturb the stratification in the cold leg. During this transient, the HPIS 

actuates from practically the beginning of the transient, and later at 2537 seconds when the 

pressure falls below 4.51 MPA starts the accumulator injection.

The goal of this work is to compare the experimental results with the predictions of the TRACE 

code and to analyze the set of phenomena that take place at the primary and secondary loops. 

Special emphasis is devoted to the comparison between the code results and the experimental 

data.

The work has been organized as follows: Section 2 is devoted to study the facility model and the 

boundary conditions. Section 3 studies the transient sequence and compares the TRACE 

results for the main physical magnitudes with the experimental data. Finally, Section four 

summarizes the main conclusions obtained in this report.

2-1

2. INITIAL AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

2.1 Description of the LSTF facility

The LSTF facility as displayed in figure 2.1 reproduces a PWR scaled with a factor of 1/48 in 

volume, and power. The flow areas are scaled with a factor of 1/48 in the vessel, and 1/24 in the 

steam generator. As displayed in figure 2.1 the facility has two primary loops denoted by A, and 

B respectively. The hot and cold legs, with an inner diameter of 207 mm, have been 

dimensioned to conserve the volumetric scaling 2/48 and the ratio of the length to the square 

root of the diameter i.e. L / D , in order to simulate properly the flow regime transitions in the 

horizontal legs.

Figure 2.1 Large Scale Test Facility (LSTF) used to perform the ROSA test 1.2. Figure (a), 

at the left side, displays the points of injection of the emergency core cooling 

system and the location of the break in the hot leg of loop B. Figure (b) shows 

the different components of the facility.

The LSTF represents the reference PWR bypasses by including eight upper-head spray nozzles 

(inner-diameter of 3.4 mm each) and the hot leg nozzle leakage. The spray nozzles allow 

bypass flow that amounts to 0.3% of the total core flow rate during the initial steady-state, while 

bypass area of the hot-leg nozzle is set to allow 0.2% bypass flow for each loop.

Control rod guide tubes (CRGT) form the flow paths between the upper-head and the upper 

plenum. Eight CRGTs are attached to the upper core plate and pass through the upper core 

support plate to simulate the CRGT in the reference PWR.

The accumulator tanks have an initial gas volume of 0.46 m3 for both loops. The initial water 

level and volume above the standpipe are 1.58 m3 and 1.12 m3 respectively for both loops. The 
2-2

volume of the accumulator injection lines with and without PRZ are 0.2 and 0.14 m3

respectively.

2.2 Stationary initial conditions for ROSA 1.2 test and results of TRACE code

In table 2.1 the specified stationary initial conditions for test 1.2 are displayed in the third 

column. Also in this same table second and fourth columns show the measured conditions in 

loops A and B and the results of the TRACE code respectively. These initial conditions were the 

operating ones prior to the Test 1.2, and are practically identical to the ones used in other LOCA 

experiments with LSTF.

Table 2.1 Comparison of measured and calculated ROSA stationary initial conditions

Items Measured A/B Specified Calculated (TRACE)

Pressure Vessel

Core Power (MW) 10.1 10.0 10.0

Primary loop

Hot leg fluid 

temperature (K)

598.0 597.2/596.9 590

Cold leg fluid 

temperature (K)

562.0 563.1/563.0 566

Mass flow rate 

kg/s/loop

24.3 25.38/25.37 23.4

Pump rotation speed

(revolutions per s)

13.3 13.9/13.9 13.93

Pressurizer (PZR)

Pressurizer pressure 

(bar)

155 155.4 160

Liquid level (m) 7.2 7.34 7.5

Steam Generator (SG)

Secondary side 

pressure (bar)

73 73.2/73.3 71.6

Secondary side liquid 

level (m)

10.3 10.26/10.23 10.6

Steam mass flow rate 

(kg/s)

2.74 2.68/2.61 2.64

Main Feed-water flow 

rate (kg/s)

2.74 2.75/2.65 3

Main Feed-Water 

Temperature (K)

495.2 496.3/495.5 495.2

Accumulator A water 

temperature (K)

320.0 321.3 ---

Accumulator B water 

temperature (K)

320.0 321.9 ---

HPI water temp. (K) 310.0 309.8 ---
2-3

2.3 Test conditions and set points

The high pressure injection system (HPIS) actuates automatically with a delay of 12 seconds 

when the pressure in the primary system drops below 12.97 MPa. The accumulator actuates 

automatically when the pressure drops below 4.51 MPa. A single failure was assumed for the 

HPIS system of the reference PWR, and the mass flow rate injected during the test 1.2 was one 

half of the scaled one. In the LSTF facility, the high-pressure injection system is operated by

means of two pumps, the charging pump PJ and the high pressure injection pump PH. 

However, the PH pump cannot inject water at pressures higher than 10.5 MPa due to limitations 

in the pump head. Therefore at system pressures higher than 10.5 MPa the water is injected in 

the loops A and B by the pump PJ, when the system pressure drops below 10.5 MPa the water 

is injected in the loops by both pumps. The specified mass flow rates versus the system 

pressure used in test 1.2 are displayed in table 2.2. The ratio of the mass flow rates injected by 

the ECCS system in the loops A and B was 1:1. 

The main operational set points and boundary conditions are displayed in table 2.3. This table 

indicates that the pressurizer proportional heater is off with the reactor scram and the 

pressurizer backup heater (83.0 kW) is on when the pressure in the primary loop drops below 

153.4 bars, and is off when the pressurizer level falls below 2.3 m.

The initial core power is 10 MW. After the scram the core power follows the typical curve 

displayed in figure 2.2, that it is due to the disintegration of the fission products. Figure 2.3 

shows the coast down curve implemented in TRACE for the primary coolant pump after reactor 

scram.

A 1% small break LOCA in the hot leg bottom was simulated in Test 1.2; the hydraulic diameter 

of the break is 10.1 mm, a pipe in downward direction is connected to the blowdown system, to 

transport the fluid from the break.

Table 2.2 Mass flow rates versus the pressure for the HPIS system pumps

Pressure (MPa) PJ (kg/s) PH (kg/s)

0.00 1.16 1.16

0.10 1.16 1.16

0.26 1.15 1.15

2.28 1.05 1.05

5.62 0.86 0.86

8.09 0.68 0.68

9.67 0.52 0.52

10.34 0.37 0.37

10.50 0.74 0.00

11.86 0.67 0.00

12.40 0.65 0.00

14.57 0.52 0.00

17.21 0.26 0.00

20.00 0.00 0.00
2-4

Figure 2.2 Decay Power versus time at the LSTF facility for test case ROSA 1.2.

Table 2.3 Operational set points and conditions for test ROSA 1.2

EVENT CONDITION

Break Time zero

Reactor scram signal 12.97 MPa.

Initiation of core power decay curve 

simulation

With reactor scram

Initiation of primary coolant pump coast-down With reactor scram

Turbine throttle valve closure / MSIV closure With reactor scram

main feedwater termination With reactor scram

Pressurizer proportional heater off With reactor scram

Pressurizer backup heater on (83.0 kW) Primary pressure < 15.34 MPa

Pressurizer backup heater trip (33.0 kW) Primary pressure > 15.40 MPa

Pressurizer backup heater off Pressurizer level 2.3 m

Safety injection (SI) signal 12.27 MPa

High pressure injection SI signal + 12 s

Accumulator injection 4.51 MPa

Pressurizer relief valve on/off 16.20 / 16.07 MPa

Pressurizer safety valve on/off 17.26 / 17.06 MPa

Steam generator relief valve on / off 8.03 MPa / 7.82 MPa

Steam generator safety valve on / off 8.68 MPa / 7.69 MPa

0,000E+00

200E+04

400E+04

600E+04

800E+04

1,000E+04

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Power (W)

Time (s)

MI17
2-5

Figure 2.3 Pump rotation speed in radians/s implemented in the TRACE code to simulate 

the coast down.

-25.0

.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

125.0

150.0

175.0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Pump Rotation Speed (rps)

Time (s)

MI1(PCA)

3-1

3. TEST RESULTS AND COMPARISON WITH TRACE

This section is devoted to review the main experimental results and to discuss the results 

obtained with the TRACE code.

3.1 Beginning of the transient

As indicated in section 2.2 the initial conditions for Test 1.2 prior to the pipe break were the 

steady state ones displayed in table 2.1, as well as the steady state conditions obtained with the 

TRACE code for this same case. The hot leg break orifice opens at time 0.0 s. The chronology 

of the major events observed during the ROSA 1.2 experiments is displayed in table 3.1, where 

also is shown in the last column the chronology of the major events computed with the TRACE 

code for this same experiment. Prediction of the TRACE code for the reactor scram signal 

occurs 12 seconds before that in the test, although apparently and according to figure 3.1 the 

pressure evolution predicted by the TRACE code is practically the same than the experimental. 

However, the depressurization rate is very high at the beginning of the transient and slight 

differences in the depressurization rate can change the time of the reactor scram signal a few 

seconds. The time for the safety injection signal, i.e. when the pressure drops below 12.27 MPa,

is well predicted by TRACE that gives a result of 72 seconds that compares very well with the 

77 seconds for the experiment.

The main physical variable that explains the depressurization rate is the mass flow rate through 

the hot leg break, this mass flow is mainly single-phase liquid, at the beginning of the transient 

and change from single-phase to biphasic mixture at about 100 seconds. The mass flow rate 

trough the break is very well predicted by the TRACE code in this first stage as it is displayed in 

figure 3.2. It is observed in this figure that there are small differences between the experimental 

and computed mass flow rates through the break at the beginning of the transient during the 

first depressurization step, and at about 900 seconds during the second depressurization step 

when the break flow changes from biphasic to single phase steam. After this time, the flow 

through the hot leg is a biphasic mixture with high void fraction and for practical effects can be 

considered as pure steam transporting some drops of water. The off-take model of the TRACE 

code has been used, assuming that the break is located in the bottom of the pipe; the 

predictions of the TRACE code for the discharged mass flow rate are very good during the 

single-phase and biphasic flow regimes. However, when the flow changes to single-phase 

steam, the mass flow rate through the break is higher than the predicted one, and the pressure 

drops more than expected. This situation is corrected by taking into account in the single phase 

steam regime the effective area contraction coefficient, produced by the contraction of the fluid 

vein when discharging though an orifice or crack of small hydraulic diameter. A coefficient of 

0.6, being a standard value given by many authors, has been considered in this calculation.

TRACE predictions about the change of flow regime can be considered pretty goods. According 

to the experimental results, the flow regime in the hot leg changes from single phase liquid to 

two-phase mixture at about 100 seconds, and from two-phase mixture to biphasic with high void 

fraction at approximately 900 seconds. Figure 3.3 displays the results obtained with TRACE for 

the void fraction in the hot leg, near the point where the break is located. This figure shows that 

at 100 seconds the flow is single phase liquid and at this time starts to change to biphasic 

mixture: This change is very fast and at time t=200 seconds the void fraction is 0.3. Then, at 

time t=900 seconds the void fraction rises again very fast and attains a very high value close to 

0.95, and then at time t=1500 s starts to decrease continuously due to the injection of the ECC 

system that refills the primary system with water.
3-2

The second variable that has a strong influence on the collapsed liquid levels in the reactor 

vessel and in the hot and cold legs, is the mass flow rate injected by the high pressure injection 

system (HPIS) during the first part of the transient. Figure 3.4 displays the experimental and 

computed by TRACE, mass flow rates injected by the HPI system during the entire transient; 

both curves practically match along the entire transient.

Another important magnitude is the mass flow rate circulating through the loops A and B. 

Figures 3.5 and 3.6 display the mass flow rates circulating through the loops A and B, and 

measured in the seal-pump. Two measures were performed with conventional (differential 

pressure) flow meters in each loop. At the beginning of the transient the mass flow rates 

increase suddenly, due to the increase in the pump rotation speed immediately after the break. 

After that, the mass flow rates decrease due to the pump coast down and the loss of coolant 

fluid through the break. Mass flow rates in the seal loop of both loops practically stops at about 

450 seconds as shown in figures 3.5 and 3.6. These facts are very well predicted by the 

TRACE code that reproduces this sequence of events very well.

At time 52 seconds close the main steam isolation valve (MSIV) and the pressure in the 

secondary start to increase until the opening set point for the safety and relief valves is 

reached. Once these valves open, the pressure start to decrease until the set point for closing 

is reached. A set of cycles for opening and closing takes place according with the pressure 

evolution as it is displayed in figure 3.7. The TRACE code reproduces very well the rising in the 

secondary pressure that follows the closing of the MSIV valve and the cycling of the safety and 

relief valves. Figure 3.8 displays the mass flow rate through the safety and relief valves; we 

notice that the experimental values of the mass flow rate though the SR valves show a small 

mass flow rate although it should be zero when the valves are closed. The TRACE prediction of 

the mass flow rates though the break are close to the experimental values, however it exists an 

small delay in time between the TRACE predictions and the measured ones.

The feed-water mass flow rate in the steam generators A and B is 2.8 kg/s per SG and stops at 

55 second after the reactor scram signal and the closing of the main steam line valve.

3.2 Evolution of the transient after the injection of the ECCS system: thermal 

stratification effects in the cold leg

The HPIS injection in the cold legs starts at time 92 seconds (87 seconds in TRACE code). The 

temperature of the water injected by the HPIS is 310 K that is much colder than in the primary 

circuit. This cold water mixes partially in the cold leg with the water at higher temperature that 

remains inside the cold leg and with the steam (if any) coming from the SG and a thermal 

stratification takes place in the experiment due to the non perfect mixing. Due to its higher 

density, injected cold water goes to the bottom part of the cold leg, and then moves mainly 

toward the downcomer. Figure 3.9 displays the evolution with time of the temperature inside the 

cold leg, at the section where HPIS flow is injected. This figure shows that the liquid 

temperature at the beginning of the transient remains constant until the safety injection starts, 

then remains constant for a while because the amount of injected water is small, but at about 

500 seconds the pressure has dropped enough. As consequence of it the safety injection 

supplies more water to the cold leg and the liquid temperature start to drop with a set of 

oscillations as detected by the thermocouples located below the ECCS system. The TRACE 

code also predicts this behaviour and the set of oscillations, but the oscillatory behaviour in the 

liquid temperature start earlier in time in the TRACE prediction as can be noticed in figure 3.9. 

At time 250 second the water level in the downcomer drops below the cold leg, because the 
3-3

mass flow rate through the pump seal is small; some of the water injected by the HPIS system 

can move toward the seal-pump, especially when the cold leg mass flow rate becomes very 

low. This phenomenon takes place at time 500 seconds, when the mass flow rate in the cold 

leg is very small and receives cold water from the HPIS system, which moves to the bottom of 

the pipe. At this time, most of the cold water injected by the HPIS moves toward the 

downcomer and the rest toward the pump seal.

The thermal stratification effect is obviously 3D and cannot be predicted with the 1D PIPE 

component of TRACE used to simulate this experiment. Therefore some differences between 

the temperatures calculated with TRACE and the experimental ones, are expected beyond the 

time t=1000 seconds, as it is noticed in figure 3.9. In figure 3.10 the temperatures in the upper 

and lower parts of the pipe of the pump seal are displayed, as well as the TRACE calculations 

located between both curves due to the 1D character of TRACE calculations in this pipe. At the 

beginning of the safety injection the TRACE calculation is closer to the upper temperature, this 

is due to the fact that at the beginning of the transient the cold leg is full of fluid at an uniform 

temperature of 562 K. When the transient starts the saturation temperature Tsat decreases due 

to the pressure drop but the fluid in the cold leg is full with subcooled fluid with a temperature 

close to 562 K, and the fluid in the seal of the pump comes mainly from the steam generator. 

Only when the mass flow rate through the cold leg becomes smaller some colder fluid from the 

HPIS starts to move to the bottom of the pump seal at time 500 s. At time 1000 s, the pump 

seal starts to be refilled fundamentally with cold water from the HPIS system and the 

temperature differences between the thermocouples located in the lower and upper part of the 

pump seal becomes higher. TRACE predictions are clearly located between both curves as 

displayed in figure 3.10.

According to the experimental data a liquid level is formed in the cold legs. The prediction of 

TRACE code with the 1D model for the cold leg, shows only liquid level in the pump seal but 

not in the pipe that connects the pump seal with the downcomer.

3.3 Long term evolution of the transient after the injection of the HPIS +

Accumulator: Effect on the liquid level, void fraction of the primary loop, and 

mass flow rate through the break

This section describes the long term evolution of the different magnitudes due to the safety 

injection produced by the HPIS plus the accumulator. The accumulator injection starts to inject 

cold water at time 2400 seconds. Figure 3.11 displays the mass flow rate injected by the 

accumulator (black curve) and the results of the TRACE code (red curve). The prediction of the 

TRACE code is pretty good. Figure 3.3 shows that the accumulator injection diminishes the 

void fraction in the hot leg from 0.7 before the injection at time 2350, to 0.1 at time 4000 

seconds. As a consequence of it the break mass flow rate increases and attains a maximum at 

3100 seconds. This behaviour is well predicted by the TRACE code that slightly over-predicts 

the mass flow rate through the break as it is displayed in figure 3.2.

The reduction in the pressure of the primary system in the long term due to the reduction with 

time of the decay power, the loss of enthalpy through the break, and the injection of water with 

very low enthalpy by the safety system are displayed in figure 3.1. The effect of the 

accumulator injection that starts at 2400 seconds is to contribute to the pressure reduction, this 

reduction is a little bigger in the TRACE prediction that in the experiment.

Secondary pressure diminishes in the long term due to several factors. First heat transfer from 
3-4

primary to secondary side is smaller in time, because core power is lower and primary fluid is 

colder due to safety injection flow and the loss of pressure in the primary system. Pressure 

reduction rate with time is well predicted by TRACE that matches the same slope from 1000 to 

3000 seconds than in the experiment (see figure 3.7).

At short term between t=0 and 900 seconds the temperature computed by TRACE in the 

downcomer (black line or bottom line) matches the experimental one. However beyond this 

time, the temperatures computed by TRACE in the downcomer drop faster than the 

experimental ones and approach the temperatures of the safety injection in the long term, as it 

is displayed in figure 3.12. Figure 3.12 also displays the evolution of the temperatures at the 

core exit and inside the core. 

Table 3.1 Experimental and TRACE sequence of events for test 1.2

Event Time in Test 1.2 (s) Time computed with TRACE

Hot leg break 0.0 0.0

Reactor Scram Signal (12.97 MPa) 49.0 37.0

Closing of the main steam line 52.0 37.0

Feedwater stop 55.0 45.0

Closing of the main steam isolation 

valve A/B

72.0/74.0

Safety injection signal (12.27 MPa) 77.0 72.0

Starting time of the high pressure 

injection 

92.0 85.0

Stop of the primary coolant pumps A/B 303/303 285/285

Starting time of the accumulator 

injection (4.51MPa)

2537 2338

Closing of the accumulator injection A/B 4696/4697 4950
3-5

Figure 3.1 Time evolution of the pressure for the Test 1.2 in red colour and prediction of 

TRACE in black.

Figure 3.2 Experimental (continuous red line) and computed (black line) mass flow rates 

versus time through the hot leg break.

0,000E+00

200E+04

400E+04

600E+04

800E+04

1,000E+04

1,200E+04

1,400E+04

1,600E+04

1,800E+04

2,000E+04

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Pressure (Pa)

Time (s)

sv6

PE13 (Pressurizer)

-2.00

-1.00

.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Mass Flow Rate (kg/s)

Time (s)

bxmass-2520

RC194
3-6

Figure 3.3 Void fraction versus time computed with the TRACE code at the hot leg 

position where the break occurs.

Figure 3.4 Mass flow rate (kg/s) injected by the HPIS system versus time. The continuous 

line (red) are the results of TRACE, while the black line that displays small 

high frequency oscillations is the experimental ones.

.00

.100

.200

.300

.400

.500

.600

.700

.800

.900

1.00

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Gas Volume Fraction

Time (s)

alpn-205A02

.00

.200

.400

.600

.800

1.00

1.200

1.400

1.600

1.800

2.00

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Mass Flow Rate (kg/s)

Time (s)

fxmass-214

FE42 (CLA)
3-7

Figure 3.5 Experimental and computed with TRACE (continuous black line) mass flow 

rates through the loop A. The measures denoted by FE2 and FE3 where 

performed in the pump seal. 

Figure 3.6 Experimental and computed with TRACE (continuous black line) mass flow 

rates through the loop B. The measures denoted by FE5 and FE6 where 

performed in the pump seal.

-5.00

.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Mass Flow Rate (kg/s)

Time (s)

rmvm-15A02

FE2 (High)

FE3 (Low)

-5.00

.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Mass Flow Rate (kg/s)

Time (s)

rmvm-25A02

FE5 (High)

FE6 (Low)
3-8

Figure 3.7 Experimental (red) and computed with TRACE (black) secondary pressure 

versus time.

Figure 3.8 Experimental and calculated with TRACE mass flow rates through the safety 

and relief valves

650E+04

675E+04

700E+04

725E+04

750E+04

775E+04

800E+04

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Pressure (Pa)

Time (s)

pn-51A12

PE19 (SGA)

.00

.500

1.00

1.500

2.00

2.500

3.00

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Mass Flow Rate (kg/s)

Time (s)

bxmass-174

FE19 (SGA)
3-9

Figure 3.9 Temperature evolution of the liquid phase in the cold leg at the section where 

the injection takes place. The black curve is the experimental one, and the 

green the computed with the TRACE code.

Figure 3.10 Temperatures from the thermocouple located in the upper and lower part of 

the pipe of the pump seal (green and red curves), and prediction of the 

TRACE code (black).

300.00

350.00

400.00

450.00

500.00

550.00

600.00

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Temperature (K)

Time (s)

tln-16A02

TE1174

300.00

350.00

400.00

450.00

500.00

550.00

600.00

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Temperature (K)

Time (s)

tln-13A12

TE1184

TE1188
3-10

Figure 3.11 Safety injection (kg/s) versus time of the accumulator (black) and prediction 

of TRACE code (red).

Figure 3.12 Liquid temperatures (TRACE results) versus time inside the vessel at nodes 

(15, 4, 3), (15,1,3), (6,1,3) and the experimental one measured in the 

downcomer.

-.500

.00

.500

1.00

1.500

2.00

2.500

3.00

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Mass Flow Rate (kg/s)

Time (s)

rlmf-217A06

RC192 (CLA)

300.00

350.00

400.00

450.00

500.00

550.00

600.00

650.00

700.00

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Temperature (K)

Time (s)

tln-1A15R04T03

tln-1A15R01T03

tln-1A16R01T03

TE1222
4-1

4. CONCLUSIONS

This report analyzes with TRACE code ROSA test 1.2. This experiment corresponds to a small 

break at the bottom of the hot-leg of the loop B. 

The reference steady state situation was first obtained with the TRACE code using the same 

initial boundary condition of the LSTF facility for this experiment. Some improvement in the 

nodalization of the plant model has been performed in order to consider some LSTF 

specifications. The TRACE results are close to the experimental ones at steady state.

For this transient is very important the ability of TRACE to predict correctly the fluid regime in 

the hot leg. At the beginning of the transient the fluid is discharged through the break located at

the bottom of the hot leg, this fluid is at liquid state and as a consequence the mass flow rate 

discharged through the break is very high, and the pressure drop very fast during the first 

seconds of the transient until the beginning of the HPI injection. This behaviour is predicted very 

well by TRACE code. Later, the flow at the hot leg becomes biphasic with low void fraction, and 

the mass flow rate discharged through the break is still high because the TRACE off-take model 

considers the fact that at the bottom of the hot leg we have liquid. Finally the flow in the hot leg

becomes biphasic with high void fraction and we discharge mainly steam through the break. In 

this test the contraction of the fluid vein during the steam discharge has an important influence 

on the depressurization rate during the steam regime. A contraction factor of 0.6 has been 

considered only during the steam regime to take on account this fact. The TRACE code predicts 

very well the change of regime from biphasic to practically single-phase steam that takes place 

between time 900 seconds and 1000 seconds, as it is displayed in figures 3.2 and 3.3 of this 

report.

The injection of the HPIS in the cold leg produces a significant thermal stratification in this pipe

that attains the value of 100 oC. TRACE code predicts well the average temperature in the cold 

leg especially in the loop seal. However, some of the complex 3D thermal stratification 

phenomena that take place in the cold leg during the HPIS injection cannot be reproduced with 

a 1D model as the one used to represent the cold leg in the TRACE code. As a consequence 

the liquid temperatures predicted by TRACE in the downcomer that match well the experimental 

data during the first 900 seconds start to separate from the experimental ones at this point in 

time. 

The evolution with time of the rest of variables as pressure in the primary system, mass flow 

rate through the break, pressure in the secondary, and mass flow rate through the primary are 

all them well predicted by the TRACE code through all the transient. The pressure in the 

secondary is well predicted, for instance the maximum pressure attained in the secondary and 

the cycling of the safety and relief valves are well predicted by the TRACE code, also is well 

predicted by TRACE the depressurization rate in the secondary as it is displayed in figure 3.7.

The mass flow rates through the safety and relief valves are a little bit smaller about 0.25 kg/s 

than in the experiment, but figure 3.8 shows that when the safety and relief valves are closed 

the experimental values have a small mass flow rate through the valves, equal to 0.25 kg/s. So 

the 2.5 kg/s predicted by TRACE for the mass flow rate through the SR valves seems to be 

correct. The opening and closing times of the SR valves are a little bit displaced with respect to 

the experimental ones 

5-1

5. REFERENCES

1. Thermal-hydraulic Safety Research Group, “Quick-loop Data Report of OECD/NEA ROSA 

project test 1-2”, Japan Atomic Energy Agency (2007).

2. Thermal-Hydraulic Safety Research Group, “Final Data Report of OECD/NEA ROSA Project 

Test 1-2 (1% hot leg break LOC experiment with HPI; SB-HL-17 in JAEA), Nuclear Safety 

Research Centre, Japan Atomic Energy Agency, July 3 (2008).

3. The ROSA-V Group, “ROSA-V Large Scale Test Facility (LSTF) System Description for the 

Third and Fourth Simulated Fuel Assemblies”, JAERI-Tech 2003-037, Japan Atomic Energy 

Agency (2007).

4. Thermal-Hydraulic Safety Research Group, “Final Data Report of ROSA/LSTF Test 6-1, 

Japan Atomic Energy Agency, December 1 (2006)

5. Reyes, J.N., “Flow stagnation and thermal stratification in single and two phase natural 

circulation loops”, IAEA-TECDOC-1474, Appendix-12 (2005)

6. Lele, A.L., Gupta, S.K., Kushawaha, H.S., Venkat, R., “Modelling of thermal and flow 

stratification for reactor pressure vessel pressurized thermal shock”. Nuclear Engineering and 

Design, Vol 212, pp 75-84 (2002).




UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

--------------------

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
NUREG/IA

-0420 Analysis with TRACE Code of Rosa Test 1.2: Small LOCA in the

Hot-Leg with HPI and Accumulator Actuation