NUREG/IA-0007

Intemational

Agreement Report

Assessment of RELAP5/MOD 2

Against Critical Flow Data From

Marviken Tests JIT 11 and CFT 21

.Prepared by

0. Rosdahl, D. Caraher

Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate

P.O. Box 27106

S102 #52 Stockholm, Sweden

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555

September 1986

Prepared as part of

The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange

under the International Thermal-Hydraulic Code Assessment

and Application Program (ICAP)

Published by

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NOTICE

This report was prepared under an international cooperative

agreement for the exchange of technical information.- Neither

the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of

their employees, 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 report, or represents that its use

by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights.

Available from

Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

P.O. Box 37082

Washington, D.C. 20013-7082

and

National Technical Information Service

Springfield, VA 22161
NUREG/IA-0007

International

Agreement Report

Assessment of RELAP5/MOD 2

Against Critical Flow Data From

Marviken Tests JIT 11 and CFT 21

Prepared by

6. Rosdahl, D. Caraher

Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate

P.O. Box 27106

S102 #52 Stockholm, Sweden

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555

September 1986

Prepared as part of The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange under the International Thermal-Hydraulic Code Assessment and Application Program (ICAP)

Published by

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NOTICE

This report documents work performed under the sponsorship of the SKI/STUDSVIK

of Sweden. The information in this report has been provided to the USNRC

under the terms of an information exchange agreement between the United States

and Sweden (Technical Exchange and Cooperation Arrangement Between the United

States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Swedish Nuclear Power

Inspectorate and Studsvik Enerigiteknik AB of Sweden in the field of reactor

safety research and development, February 1985). Sweden has consented to the

publication of this report as a USNRC document in order that it may receive

the widest possible circulation among the reactor safety community. Neither

the United States Government nor Sweden or any agency thereof, or any of their

employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal

liability of responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such

use, or any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed in this

report, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe

privately owned rights.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 iii

1986-07-25

Project 85026, 13.3-917/84

bsten Rosdahl

David Caraher*

Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate

ICAP

Assessment of RELAP5/MOD Against Critical

Flow Data from Marviken Tests JIT 11 and

CFT 21

ABSTRACT

RELAP5/ MOD2 simulations of the critical flow

of saturated steam are reported together with

simulations of the critical flow of subcooled

liquid and a low quality two-phase mixture. The

experiments which were simulated used nozzle

diameters of 0.3 m and 0.5 m. RELAP5 overpredicted the experimental flow rates by 10 to 25

percent unless discharge coefficients were

applied.

* Software Engineering Consulting

/•Approved by

rXC

STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 v

1986-07-25

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

RELAP5/MOD2 simulations have been conducted to

assess the critical flow model in RELAP5. The

experiments chosen for the simulations were

Marviken Jet Impingement Test (JIT) 11 (saturated

steam flow) and Marviken Critical Flow Test

(CFT) 21 (subcooled and two-phase flow).

The experimental facility consisted of a large

vessel 5.2 m in diameter and 22 m high having a

total volume of 420 mi3 . A discharge pipe containing a valve, a nozzle, rupture discs and assorted

transducers was attached to the bottom of the

vessel. For JIT 11 a standpipe, 1 m in diameter

and 18 m tall, was mounted within the vessel to

prevent any liquid from entering the discharge

pipe. The nozzle used for the saturated steam

flow test (JIT 11) had a diameter of 0.3 m and a

length of 1.18 m. The nozzle used for the subcooled critical flow test (CFT 21) had a 0.5 m

diameter and was 0.96 m in length.

For all the RELAP5 simulations the experimentally measured fluid conditions in the vessel

were used as boundary conditions. This technique

allowed the simulations to focus on the flow in

the discharge pipe.

The simulations of saturated steam flow overpredicted the experimental discharge flow rate by

20 to 25 percent. Explicity representing the

nozzle region by up to five computational cells

had little effect on computed results. It was

concluded that, when simulating saturated steam

critical flow with RELAP5, a discharge coefficient

of - 0.8 needs to be applied. Furthermore, short

lengths of pipe (L/D < 4) at the discharge should

not be explicitly modeled.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 vi

1986-07-25

Numerical discontinuities in calculated critical

flow rate were found to occur in some of the

saturated steam flow simulations. The cause of

the discontinuities was traced to an approximation

made in the equation used for determining the

internal energy at a juncticn -.n svtroutine

JCHOKE.

When simulating CFT 21 RELAP5 was found to

overpredict critical flow rates of subcooled

liquid by 18 to 20 percent when the nozzle was

not explicitly included in the RELAP5 model

(only its flow area was included). Good agreement

with experimental results was attained by using

a discharge coefficient of 0.85.

When the nozzle was included in the RELAP5 model

RELAP5 underpredicted the measured flow rates.

Applying discharge coefficients greater than

unity did little to improve computed results but

greatly increased computational times. It was

concluded that when modeling discharge regions

using RELAP5 explicit representation of short

lengths of piping near the discharge location

should be avoided.

For low quality two phase flow RELAP5 was in

good agreement with experimental data when the

vessel fluid state (RELAP5 boundary condition)

was based upon gamma densitometer measurements.

When the fluid state was based upon dP measurements RELAP5 overpredicted the measured flow

rate by up to 30 percent. Since the actual fluid

state in the vessel probably lies between those

used as boundary conditions it was concluded

that RELAP5 would generally need a discharge

coefficient of between 0.80 and 0.95 when used

to simulate low quality critical flow.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 vii

1986-07-25

Application of a discharge coefficient to the

RELAP5 simulation of low quality two-phase flow

did not achieve an expected result. Using a

discharge coefficient of 0.85 instead of 1.0

resulted in only a 8 percent reduction in flow

rate rather than the 15 percent expected.

It was discovered that, because of the logic

used in subroutine JCHOKE to select between the

subcooled and saturated flow calculations and

because of an apparent dependency of local equilibrium quality on discharge coefficient, the

sonic velocities used in the RELAP5 choking criterion could increase when a discharge coefficient was applied, thus partially offsetting the

velocity reduction represented by the discharge

coefficient.

STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 ix

1986-07-25

LIST OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 FACILITY AND TEST DESCRIPTION 3

3 CODE AND MODEL DESCRIPTION 8

3.1 Input description - JIT 11

simulations 8

3.2 Input description - CFT 21

simulations 9

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 11

4.1 Critical flow of saturated

steam - JIT 11 11

4.2 Subcooled critical flow - CFT 21 15

4.2.1 Nodalization study 17

4.3 Low quality critical

flow - CFT 21 18

5 COMPUTATIONAL EFFICIENCY AND NUMERICAL

PROBLEMS 30

5.1 Critical flow model numerical

problems 32

6 CONCLUSIONS 33

REFERENCES 35

APPENDIX A - Input for RELAP5 for JIT 11 simulation

APPENDIX B - Listing of input data for case CFT01

APPENDIX C - Listing of input data for case CFT04

STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 1

1986-07-25

1 INTRODUCTION

The International Thermal-Hydraulic Code Assessment and Applications Program (ICAP) is being conducted by several countries and coordinated by

the USNRC. The goal of ICAP is to make quantitative statements regarding the accuracy of the

current state-of-the-art thermal-hydraulic computer programs developed under th~e auspices of

the USNRC.

Sweden's contributions to ICAP relate both to

TRAC-PWR (1) and RELAPS (2). The assessment

calculations are being conducted by Studsvik

Energiteknik AB for the Swedish Nuclear Power

Inspectorate. The assessment matrix is shown in

Table 1.

In this report the results of an assessment of

the RELAP5's critical flow model is presented.

The ability of RELAP5 to simulate the critical

flow of saturated steam is assessed by comparison

to data from Marviken Jet Impingement Test (JIT)

number 11 (5). The subcooled critical flow model

is assessed by comparison to data from Marviken

Critical Flow Test (CFT) number 21 (6).

This report is organized as follows: Section 2

describes the experimental facility and section 3

describes the RELAP5 model used to simulate the

experiments. In section 4 results from the simulations are presented and discussed. Computational

efficiency of RELAP5 and numerical problems encountered during the simulations are given in

section 5. Conclusions are presented in section 6.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99

1986-07-25

2

Table 1

ICAP Assessment Matrix - Sweden.

Code Facility Type Description

Sep. effect Integral

RELAP5 Marviken2l X Subcooled Critical Flow

RELAPS Marvikenli X Critical Flow, level swell

RELAP5 FIX-II X Recirculation Line (10 %) break

RELAP5 FIX-II X Recirculation Line (31 %) break

RELAP5 FIX-II X Recirculation Line (200 %) break

RELAP5 LOFT X Cold Leg Break (4") pumps off

RELAP5 LOFT X Cold Leg Break (4") pumps on

RELAP5 FRIGG X Subcooled Void Distribution

RELAP5 FRIGG X Critical Heat Flux

RELAP5 RIT X Post Dryout Heat Transfer

TRAC/PFI Ringhals X Loss of Load
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 3

1986-07-25

2. FACILITY AND TEST DESCRIPTION

The Marviken Power plant was built as a boiling

heavy water direct cycle nuclear reactor but was

never commissioned. The nuclear steam supply

system was left intact and an oil fired boiler

was built to provide steam for the turbine.

During 1978 and 1979 Marviken was the site of

the Critical Flow Test (CFT) program. This test

program generated full scale critical flow data

for subcooled liquid and low quality two-phase

mixtures.

Subsequent to the CFT program, Marviken became

the site of the Jet Impingement Test (JIT) program. This program, which focused on measuring

loads due to a fluid jet impinging upon a flat

plate, also generated full scale critical flow

data. One of the tests, JIT 11, allowed only

saturated steam to be discharged.

Figure 2-1 depicts the Marviken pressure vessel

and the location of the differential pressure

measurements. For JIT 11 a standpipe (dotted

line) was inserted into the vessel to ensure

that only steam flowed out of the vessel. In

other tests no standpipe was used; the fluid

entered the discharge pipe at the bottom of the

vessel directly. The nozzle was located beneath

the pressure vessel. The piping leading to the

nozzle and the nozzle are depicted in Figures 2-2

and 2-3. Initial and boundary condition for JIT

11 and CFT 21 are summarized in Table 2-1. Complete descriptions of the experimental facility

for the JIT program and for the CFT program are

given in References 3 and 4 respectively. A description of JIT 11 is presented along with test

results in Reference 5 and a description of CFT 21
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB

is given

standard

pressure

the 99 %

STUDSVIK/NP-86/99

1986-07-25

4

in Reference 6. The probable error (one

deviation) in the measured differential

values shown in this report is 0.6 kPa;

confidence error is 1.5 kPa.

parameters for Marviken JIT 11 and CFT 21

Table 2-1

Important p

JIT 11 CFT 21

3 3

Vessel volume (net internal) 420 m 420 m

Vessel inside diameter 5.22 m 5.22

Standpipe: height 18 m -

outside diameter 1.04 m

wall thickness 8.8 mm -

Disharge nozzle: diameter 0.299 m 0.500 m

area 702 x 10- 4m2 0.1963 m2

length 1.18 m 1.5 m

Initial pressure 5.0 MPa 4.9 MPa

Final pressure 1.88 MPa 2.5 MPa

Initial water level 10.2 m 19.9 m

Final water level 8.0 m <0.8 m

Initial inventory: water 145 x 103 kg 330 x 103 kg

steam 5 x 103 kg 6 x 102 kg

Maximum subcooling < 3 K 33 K
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99

1986-07-25

5

22

420

I8 .- STAND PIPE

LEVEL

16

14

12

I0

',,

8 wI6

LaJ >

4 _

2

-J0

Figure 2-1

Marviken test vessel.

transducers A through

Differential pressure

J.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99

1986-07-25

6

System

Reierence Connection piece

Instrumentation ring I

pipe spool

Instrumentation ring II

Ball valve

Rupture discs

Downstream pipe spool

Note: 1) All dimensions are in millimeters at room temperature.

2) Not to scale

(JET)

Figure 2-2

Arrangement of components in the discharge pipe for Jet Impingement Test 11.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 TDVKN-/97 7

1986-07-25

Note: All dimensions are in millimeters at room

temperature.

1 300

0

O IInlet

L .L 1740 Connection pipe

1310

Instrumentation ring I

Upstream pipe spool

-13 - Gamma densitometer

__0_ .Instrumentation ring II

I DBall valve

I Downstream pipe spool

STest nozzle

Rupture discs

Figure 2-3

Arrangement of components in the discharge pipe

for Critical Flow Test 21.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB

3

STUDSVIK/NP-86/99

1986-07-25

8

CODE AND MODEL DESCRIPTION

The critical flow simulations of JIT 11 and CFT 21

were performed with RELAP5/MOD2, cycle 36.02.

3.1 Input description - JIT 11 simulations

In order to focus on the critical flow model in

RELAPS it was decided to drive RELAP5 with vessel

boundary conditions determined from the experimental data. A TMDPVOL component was used to

represent the vessel for all the simulations of

JIT 11. The containment was also represented by

a TMDPVOL component (with constant P = 0.1 MPa).

The piping between the vessel and the containment

(see Figures 2-1, 2-2) was represented several

different ways, as described in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1

Description of the JIT 11 simulation cases

Case Description

0 node Vessel modeled as time dependent

volume. Standpipe and discharge

pipe not modeled. A single junction component used to represent

the discharge area.

7 node Vessel model as time dependent

volume. Standpipe modeled as

pipe component (4 cells). Discharge pipe modeled as pipe component (3 cells). Single junction

component used to represent the

discharge area.

9 node Same as 7 node model except nozzle

included. Nozzle modeled by pipe

component (2 cells).

12 node Same as 9 node model except nozzle

now represented with 5 cells.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 9

1986-07-25

3.2 Input description - CFT 21 simulations

For the simulations of CFT 21 a TMDPVOL component

was used to represent the fluid conditions at the

bottom of the vessel. For the simulations of subcooled flow the pressure and temperature measured

at the vessel bottom were fed to RELAP5. For the

simulations of saturated li.quid or two-phase flow

the pressure and fluid quality at the vessel bottom

were fed to RELAP5. The fluid quality history was

determined from experimental measurements of density, pressure, and differential pressure combined with the assumption of adiabatic flow between

the vessel bottom and the gamma densitometer

location (refer to Figure 2-3).

The RELAP5 simulations are described in Table 3-2.

For simulations CFT01 to CFT06 the discharge pipe

was modeled by a PIPE component with three cells.

The discharge area was represented by a SNGLJUN

component but the nozzle was not explicitly modeled. For simulations CFT07 and CFT08 the nozzle

was modeled as a PIPE component having one cell.

The saturated flow simulations (CFT04, CFT05,

CFT06) all began at 26.7 seconds into the blowdown. Each of these simulations was initiated by

restarting case CFT03 and inputting a new (saturated conditions) set of boundary conditions representing the experimental measurements made

between 26.7 and 60 seconds.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 10

1986-07-25

Table 3-2

Description of the CFT 21 simulation cases.

RELAP5 case Description

FTO0 Subcooled boundary conditions.

No discharge coefficients.

Nozzle not modeled.

FT02 Subcoooled boundary conditions.

Subcooled discharge coefficient

(CD) = 0.85. Nozzle not modeled.

CFT03 Subcooled boundary conditions.

C = 0.85. Boundary condition

t~mperature reduced 2K for

t>18 s. Nozzle not modeled.

CFT04 Saturated boundary conditions.

Restarted from CFT03 at 26.5 s.

No discharge coefficient for

two-phase flow.

FT05 Saturated boundary conditions.

Restarted from CFT03 at 26.5 s.

No discharge coefficient. Boundary condition quality limited

to upper value of 0.003.

FT06 Same as CFTO5 except CD = 0.85.

CFT07 Subcooled boundary conditions.

No discharge coefficient. Nozzle

modeled with one node.

CFT08 Same as CFT07 except CD = 1.09

for subcooled flow and 1.13 for

two-phase flow.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 11

1986-07-25

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

RELAP5 simulations of the critical flow of saturated steam (JIT 11) are reported in section 4.1.

Simulations of the subcooled critical flow and the

low quality two-phase critical flow of CFT 21 are

discussed in sections 4.2 and 4.3, respectively.

4.1 Critical flow of saturated steam - JIT 11

For the RELAP5 simulation of the critical flow in

JIT 11 the experimentally measured pressure in

the vessel was used as a boundary condition. Calculated discharge flow rate was then compared to

the measured flow rate. The pressure history and

the discharge mass flow rate history for JIT i1

are given in Figures 4-1 and 4-2.

The results of all the RELAP5 simulations of

JIT 11 are shown together with the experimental

data in Figure 4-3. Error bounds on the measured

mass flow rate are also indicated.

Regardless of the nodalization used, RELAP5

overpredicted the discharge flow rate. Except

for anomalous flow increases in the 0 node, and

9 node cases, the 0 node, 7 node, and 9 node

cases yielded nearly the same flow rate. The 12

node calculation yielded a slightly better prediction of the measured flow rate.

The anomalous (and incorrect) increases in flow

rate for the 0 node and the 7 node cases have

been traced to an approximation made in the calculation of the internal energy at a junction

experiencing choked flow. This is discussed

further in section 5.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 12

1986-07-25

Figure 4-3 indicates that there is little incentive to nodalize discharge piping extensively in

RELAP5. Computational costs rise rapidly as

nodes are added in the nozzle region (due to the

material Courant limit on time step size) yet

little improvement is obtained in computed results.

The computed results shown in Figure 4-3 can be

brought into fairly good agreement with the experimental results by application of a 0.83

multiplier. This suggests that when using RELAP5

for calculating the discharge of saturated steam

through a nozzle having a well rounded entrance,

a discharge coefficient of 0.83 should be applied.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99

1986-07-25

13

C 0O1M101 23.13 M ELEVATION (AVERAGED 20 1)

TIME (S)

Figure 4-1

Measured vessel

RELAPS boundary

pressure for Marviken JIT 11.

condition.

U

U

a

I..

r

r9 MASS FLOW RATE

a - -- - - - - - -

oI.

6V •V

rIIHE (S) 60 ?la so 100

Figure 4-2
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99

1986-07-25

14

CRITICAL FLOW - MARVIKEN JIT 11

550

/

.1-

Li

-Jz

JI

350

300

250

200

data

__•SQ node

r5 9 node.g_

... r .12nd e ....

1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

STAGNATION PRESSURE (MPA)

Figure 4-3

Critical flow of saturated steam.

RELAP5 simulations and JIT 11 data.

4.5 5
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 15

1986-07-25

4.2 Subcooled critical flow - CFT 21

The subcooled critical flow model in RELAP5 was

assessed against Marviken experiment CFT 21 by

driving a RELAP5 model of the discharge piping

with boundary conditions (pressure and temperature) measured near the inlet to the discharge

piping. Calculated values of discharge flow rate,

pressure drop across the discharge pipe inlet,

and fluid quality in the discharge pipe were

compared to measured values.

In CFT 21 the subcooled blowdown lasted for the

first 25-30 seconds of the 60 second test period.

The pressure boundary condition used in RELAP5

was taken from pressure transducer 001M106 (Figure

4-4). The temperature boundary condition was

taken as the average reading from thermocouples

001M521 and 001M402. These thermocouples are

located at the 0.74 m elevation and 0.75 m from

the vessel axis. The amount of subcooling (saturation temperature minus liquid temperature) in

the boundary conditions is shown in Figure 4-5.

Figure 4-6 compares the RELAP5 base case (CFT01)

calculated discharge flow rate history to the

measured one. RELAP5 overpredicted the discharge

flow rate. The gradual decline in the measured

flow rate beginning at 22 s is associated with

vapour formation in the discharge piping. Figure

4-7 shows the experimentally determined fluid

quality in the discharge pipe based upon a gamma

densitometer measurement. RELAP5 calculated only

a brief period of two-phase flow in the discharge

pipe. The calculated flow rate dropped sharply

when bubbles were calculated to exist.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 16

1986-07-25

In Figure 4-8 the differential pressure from the

discharge pipe to the vessel interior is shown.

The calculated pressure loss across the discharge

pipe inlet agrees well with the measured pressure

loss. It is slightly larger than the measured

loss but this may be the result of calculated

velocities in the discharge pipe being higher

than measured ones. The good agreement between

calculated and measured pressure loss rules out

pressure discrepancies in the discharge pipe as

a cause of the flow rate discrepancies seen in

Figure 4-6.

Rerunning the RELAP5 calculation and using a

discharge coefficient of 0.85 (case CFT02) brought

the calculated and measured flow rates into agreement for the first 22 seconds of the transient

(Figure 4-9). For this RELAP5 calculation the

pressure loss across the discharge pipe inlet was

slightly less than the measured loss (Figure 4-10).

The difference between the calculated and measured

loss is probably due to no form loss coefficient

being used in the RELAPS model. A form loss coefficient of 0.15, if used in the RELAP5 model,

would bring the calculated pressure loss into

very good agreement with the measured loss.

The inability of RELAPS to calculate the decline

in flow rate after 22 s is due to the fact that

RELAP5 calculated essentially no vapour formation

in the discharge pipe. The experimental data indicate vapour formation beginning at 22 s.

One possible reason for the discrepancy between

calculated and measured flow rates after 22 s is

that the fluid temperature boundary condition

used in RELAP5 is not a true measure of the tem-
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 17

1986-07-25

perature at the entrance to the discharge piping.

The thermocouples whence the boundary condition

is taken are 0.75 m from the vessel central axis.

Moreover a radial temperature distribution did

exist during the experiment (6).

In order to test the hypothesis that the RELAP5

overprediction of flow rate after 22 seconds was

partly due to uncertainty in the boundary temperature, a RELAP5 simulation (case CFTO3) was

conducted in which the boundary fluid temperature was reduced 2K for t > 18s (the discharge

coefficient was left at a value of 0.85). Two

degrees Kelvin corresponds to the maximum error

associated with the temperature measurements

(the la error is 0.6K) and is believed to be encompass the probable radial temperaure variation.

The good.agreement between calculated and measured

flow rates (Figure 4-11) which resulted when the

boundary temperature was changed proved the hypothesis. The calculation ended at 26.7s when the

boundary condition subcooling vanished.

4.2.1 Nodalization study

In the RELAP5 simulations discussed thus far the

nozzle was not included in the model and a discharge coefficient of 0.85 was required to bring

the calculated flow rate into agreement with the

experimental flow rate. To explore the sensitivity of calculated results to nodalization a

RELAPS simulation (case CFT07) was performed

in which the nozzle was modelled by one computational cell. It was thought that this simulation might yield computed flow rates which

agreed with experimental ones without using any

* discharge coefficient. Choking was allowed only

at the nozzle outlet for this simulation.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 18

1986-07-25

The results of the one-node-nozzle simulation

are depicted in Figures 4-12 and 4-13.

The discharge mass flow was underpredicted by

RELAP5 and the pressure in the nozzle was overpredicted. From these results one concludes

,hat, if a complete description of the experimental geometry is included in the RELAP5

model a discharge coefficient greater than 1.0

is required to bring computed flow rates into

agreement with measured ones.

The one-node-nozzle simulation was rerun (case

CFT 08) using values of 1.09 and 1.13 for the

subcooled and saturated critical flow coefficients. This simulation did not improve calculated discharge flow rate (Figure 4-14). The

computed flow rate exhibited erratic behaviour

generally associated with numerical problems and,

indeed, this RELAP5 simulation was very inefficient, taking 2 947 time steps and repeating

1 416 time steps for the 30s transient. When no

discharge coefficients were used the simulation

required only 1 242 time steps and repeated 620.

4.3 Low quality critical flow - CFT 21

In order to study the RELAP5 critical flow

model's response to low quality two phase flow

the subcooled flow simulation which gave the

best agreement with experimental data (case

CFT 03) was restarted (at 26.7 s) and saturated

boundary conditions were imposed at the discharge

pipe inlet. The boundary condition pressure was

taken from pressure transducer 001M106. The

boundary condition fluid quality was calculated

(6) based upon the gamma densitometer reading

and the assumption of an adiabatic fluid expansion
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 19

1986-07-25

between the vessel bottom and the location of

the densitometer in the discharge pipe. The

boundary conditions as depicted in Figure 4-16

and 4-17.

The flow rate history from the saturated boundary c._idi'ion base simulation (case CFT 04) is

shown together with the measured flow rate in

Figure 4-18. For completeness, the subcooled

portion of the transient (case CFT 03) has also

been included. The computed and measured mass

flow rates agree well with one another. These

results imply that RELAP needs no discharge coefficient when simulating low quality two phase

critical flow through large pipes.

Subsequent to the CFT 04 simulation it was discovered that the experimental data offered conflicting indications of what the boundary condition fluid quality was during the 30 to 60 s

time range. While the gamma densitometer indicated

a fluid quality history as shown in Figure 4-17,

the differential pressure measurement 007M246

indicated that the fluid quality never rose beyond

0.003. Thus, the rapid increase in quality occurring

around 40 s may not have been real.

To explore the effect which the uncertainty in the

boundary condition quality had upon computed results,

the RELAP5 CFT 04 simulation was rerun with the boundary condition quality limited to a value of 0.003

(case CFT 05). This change only affected the condition

for t > 35 seconds.

The flow rate calculated by case CFT 05 was higher

than the measured flow rate (Fig 4-19). The results

suggested that a two-phase discharge coefficient

value simular to that used for the subcooled blow-
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 20

1986-07-25

down might be applicable. For t > 40 s the average

value of the ratio of measured to calculated flow

rate is 0.85.

RELAP5 simulation CFT 06 was a rerun of CFT 05 but

utilized a two phase flow discharge coefficient

of 0.85. It was thought that CFT 06 would give a

flow rate wich was in much better (relative to

CFT 05) agreement with the experimental data. In

fact, this was not the case, as can be seen by

comparing Figures 4-19 and 4-20. In spite of

applying a discharge coefficient which should

have reduced the calculated flow rate so that it

fell upon or below the experimental data, the calculated flow rate remained greater than the measured flow rate. This result implied a feedback

existed between the flow solution and the discharge

coefficient - an unexpected feedback.

Having feedback between a critical flow discharge

coefficient and the flow solution is undesirable

because one wants to use discharge coefficients as

free parameters - ones which can be used to reduce

the discharge flow by a predictable amount.

In order to explain the feedback between the

discharge coefficient and the flow solution a

degression - a brief review of the mechanics

of choking in RELAP5 - is needed.

The RELAP choking criterion is (Eq 333 of Ref 2)

fPfVf+ a CD aHE (Eq 4-1)

afPf g pg

The discharge coefficient, CD, is the two phase

discharge coefficient (input by the user) whenever

the void fraction, ag, is greater than 0.02. Otherwise CD is the subcooled discharge coefficient.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 21

1986-07-25

For subcooled choking the quantity a HE is the

maximum of the local homogeneous equilibrium

(HE) sound speed and a speed calculated by

applying Bernoulli's flow equation together

with the Alamer-Lienhard-Jones correlation.

Detailed examination of the REMAP5 simulations

CFT 05 and CFT 06 showed that the sonic velocity

being used for subcooled flow calculations in

JCHOKE was generally six to eight percent greater

than that used for saturated calculations in

JCHOKE.

Two-phase choking is applied if choking is indicated and the local void fraction is greater than

10- and the local equilibrium quality is greater

than 2.5 x 10-4. If these criteria are not met

then single phase liquid choking is applied.

Underrelaxation is applied to the choked flow model

velocities as long as the local equilibrium quality

is less than 2.5 x 10-3 and the local void fraction

is greater than 10- 7. For the cases being considered

the underrelaxation was always applied. The underrelaxation algorithm (Vn+l = 0.9 Vn + 0.1 Vn+l) is

heavily weighted to old time values. Thus, once a

junction velocity is established a large change in

velocity resulting from the solution of Eq 4-1 will

not show up in the choked junction velocity unless

the change persists for several time steps.

With the above points in mind one can return to

the RELAP5 cases. The discharge junction velocities and void fractions from the RELAPS simulations are illustrated in Figures 4-21 and 4-22.

The discharge velocity was the same for cases

CFT 04 and CFT 05 but the discharge void fraction

was much larger after 40 s in case CFT 04. Thus

the difference in discharge flow rate between
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 22

1986-07-25

case CFT04 and CFT05 can be attributed to a

changing void fraction. On the other hand, the

discharge void fraction was nearly the same for

cases CFT05 and CFT06 but the discharge velocity

was lower - but not 15 percent lower in case

CFT06.

The reason the application of CD = 0.85 did not

reduce the discharge velocity by 15 f is contained

in Figures 4-23 and 4-24. These figures illustrate

the fluid equilibrium quality at the discharge

junction. For completeness the static quality

has also been plotted. Recall that the equilibrium

quality value determines whether the saturated

or subcooled critical flow model is active.

Comparing Figure 4-23 to Figure 4-24 one sees

that when the discharge coefficient was applied,

the equilibrium quality at the discharge junction

was depressed - on the average, it remained less

than 2.5 x 10-4 more time than it did when no discharge coefficient was used. Thus the choked flow

velocities coming from the subcooled critical flow

model played a stronger role (because of the underrelaxation algorithm, the model, subcooled or two

phase, which is selected for most of the time steps

dominates the calculation of the local junction

velocity) in CFT06 compared to CFT05.

Because sonic velocities (aHE in Eq 4-1) used in

the subcooled critical flow logic were six to

eight percent greater than those in the two-phase

critical flow logic the longer time which case

CFT 06 spent in the subcooled flow logic led to a

value of a.E which was greater than that seen in

CFT 05, enough greater to offset half of the 15

reduction represented by the discharge coefficient.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 23

1986-07-25

The above analysis has revealed why application

of a discharge coefficient may not reduce computed

flow rates in a predictable manner during low

quality flow simulations. The next question to

address is how the situation might be rectified.

The undesirable feedback could be eliminated by

introducing logic into subroutine JCHOKE to

ensure that the velocity aME used in the RELAPS

choking criterion is continuous at the interface

between the subcooled choking model and the twophase flow choking model.

The feedback could also probably be eliminated

by eliminating the erratic behavior of the

equilibrium quality evident in Figures 4-21 and

4-22 or else having the critical flow model

selection logic depend more upon static rather

than equilibrium quality. Since the erratic

behaviour of the equilibrium quality is undoubtably of numerical origin, it would appear

to be a likely candidate for improvement.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99

1986-07-25

ED TSAT-TF BOT OF VSSL.

24

0 P BOT OF VESSEL. EXP AND R5

0

TinE (S) TIMiE (S)

Figure 4-4

Pressure Boundary Condition for

Case CFT 01.

* CIOI. EXP DISCHARGE FLOWRATE

* W453. DISCHARGE FLOW. RELAP5

Figure 4-5

Subcooling Boundary Condition

for Case CFT 01.

0 AVERAGE OUALITY FROM GAMMA DENS

0 * X402. OUAL 40202. RELAP5 RUN

9

c;

U

o"

zJ

U

-C (/

-0 -0- -0 0

•0 TItME (S) 20 2a 30

IIlME (S)

Figure 4-6

Discharge Flow Rate. Measured and

Case CFT 01.

Figure 4-7

Fluid Quality in the Discharge

Pipe.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99

1986-07-25

25

O DP205 MEASURED (MPA)

O DP205 CALCULATED (MPA). R5 RUN

O C10. EXP DISCHARGE FLOORATE

0 W453. DISCHARGE FLOW. RELAP5

4

IC

hi,

4,

z

0,

Figure 4-8

dP Across the Vessel Outlet. Measured and Case CFT 01.

O DP205 MEASURED (MPA)

O DP205 CALCULATED (MPA). RS RUN

Figure 4-9

Discharge Flow Rate. Measured and

Case CFT 02.

0 ClOI. EXP DISCHARGE FLOWRATE

0 W453. DISCHARGE FLOW. RELAP5

S.

4..

0

5 0 3i 0 S3S 

riflE (S)

0

Wo

Q

fIlME (S)

Figure 4-10 Figure 4-11

dP Across the Vessel Outlet. Measured and Case CFT 02. Discharge Flow Rate. Measured

and Case CFT 03.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99

1986-07-25

26

1 CI01. EXP DISCHARGE FLOWRATE

0 W453. DISCHARGE FLOW. RELAP5 D 004MI18 P AT NOZZLE REFERENCE

O P IN NOZZLE VOL 40301. R5

'4

a

C

'4

I,

z

U

'4

C

Q

tI I E (S)

Figure 4-12 Figure 4-13

Measured and Calculated (Case

CFT 07) Discharge Flow Rate.

O3 C)O. EXP DISCHARGE FLOWRATE

O W453. DISCHARGE FLOW. RELAP5

Measured and Calculated

(CFT 07) Pressure in the Nozzle.

O 004MI18 P AT NOZZLE REFERENCE

0 P IN NOZZLE VOL 40301. R5

TIlk (S)

.4

'4 , .i.] ~ -t*tW~~* .1 h41J, -~

S.

47~L~~I~JI 13

TiIME (S)

to as 30

Figure 4-14 Figure 4-15

Measured and Calculated (CFT 08)

Discharge Flow Rate.

Measured and Calculated (CFT 08)

Pressure in the Nozzle.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVI K/NP- 86/99

1986-07-25

27

0 P BOT OF VESSEL. EXP AND R5 CALC. . 0 X901. GUAL 901. RELAP5 RUN c!

Z

X

I--: o

R_"

U

I- -

35 40 45

TIME IS) lIME (S)

Figure 4-16 Figure 4-17

Pressure Boundary Condition of

Saturated Flow Simulations.

* C1O1. EXF DVSCHARCE FLO%4RATF

* W457. DiSCHAFC-F FLOW. RELArP

Fluid Quality Boundary Condition for Saturated Flow

simulations.

M CIO). EXP DISCHARGE FLOaRA T E

O W453. DISCHARGE FLOW. RELAP5

,,U

0m

,0 to 2 *S

1IME (S)

z

TIME (S)

Figure 4-18

Discharge Flow Rate. Measured and

Calculated (CFT 03 + CFT 04).

Figure 4-19

Discharge Flow Rate. Measured and

Calculated (CFT 03 + CFT 05).
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99

1986-07-25

28

D CIO|. EXP DISCHARGE FLORATE

O W453. DISCHARGE FLO4. RELAP5 RUN

r0

0

A

VF04.

VF05.

VF06.

LIO.

LIO.

LbO.

VELOCITY J453 (CFT04) VELOCITY J453 (CFTOS)

VELOCITY J453 (CFTO6)

w

. .............

r,,

0•

2W

3S 11 ME~l (S) .0 9 T IME tS)

Figure 4-20

Discharge Flow Rate. Measured and

Calculated (CFT 03 + CFT 06).

Figure 4-21

Liquid Velocity at the Discharge Junction. RELAP5 Cases

CFT 04, CFT 05 and CFT 06.

0

0 A004. EXIT VOID FRACTION (CFT04)

A005. FXIT VOID FRACTION (CFT05)

A006. EXIT VOID FRACTION (CFT06)

E}

-0 ( XSO3. OUALS 40203.

XE03. OUALE 40203.

1--- -- -

.1~~

ta

-C WA

o i_4

1WUP

TIME (S)

40 34) 60

TIME (S)

Figure 4-22

Void Fraction at the Discharge

Junction. RELAP5 Cases CFT 04,

CFT 05 and CFT 06.

Figure 4-23

Static and Equilibrium Quality

at the Discharge Junction. Case

CFT 05.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99

1986-07-25

29

E0 XS03. OUALS 40203.

CD XEO3. QUALE 40203.

i------------------------

i------------------------

2

C 

A~.ti

-C I

11 hI.R ý I 0 h 11111

2 VT'

lIME (S)

40 •Q 40

Figure 4-24

Static and Equilibrium Quality at the Discharge

Junction. Case CFT 06.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 30

1986-07-25

5 COMPUTATIONAL EFFICIENCY AND NUMERICAL

PROBLEMS

The computational efficiency of the RELAP5 simulations are summarized in Tables 5-1 and 5-2. The

simulations were conducted on a CYBER 180-810

ccmnilter.

The simulations of JIT 11 were limited by the

material Courant limit except for the case in

which the standpipe and discharge pipe were

not included in the model. Simulation times increased dramatically when the nozzle was introducted into the model (9 mode and 12 mode simulations). Considering the similarity of computed

results amongst the various simulations it is

apparent that including the nozzle in the RELAP5

model was not cost effective.

The simulations of CFT 21 proceeded at the maximum allowed time step size when the saturated

portion of the test was being simulated (CFT 04,

CFT 05, CFT 06). For the simulations of the subcooled portion of the test the time step size was

restricted to 0.05 s for the first 15 s due to

the material Courant limit. Simulations CFT 07 and

CFT 08 in which the nozzle was modeled proceeded

quite slowly and had to repeat a large number

(about 50 % of the total shown in the table) of

time steps.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99

1986-07-25

31

Table 5-1

Run Statistic For The JIT 11 Simulations.

Case DT Max Actual CPU (s) CPU/Cell/

time steps Step

0 Node 0.001 (t < 0.01) 808 43. 0.05

0.01 (0.01 < t < 0.5)

0.10 (0.5 < t < 75.)

7 Node 0.001 (t < 0.01) 1 552 296. 0.03

0.01 (0.01 < t < 0.5)

0.10 (0.5 < t < 75.)

9 Node 0.001 (t < 0.01) 60 002 13 995. 0.03

0.01 (t > 0.01)

12 Node 0.001 (t < 0.01) 239 969 70 481. 0.02

0.01 (t > 0.01)

Table 5-2

Run Statistics for the CFT 21 Simulations.

Case Transient DT Max Actual CPU CPU/Cell/

time (s) Step

steps

CFTO1 0 - 30 s 0.1 481 60. 0.04

CFT02 0 - 30 s 0.1 419 47. 0.04

CFT03 0 - 26.7 s 0.1 386 42. 0.04

CFT04 26.7 - 60 s 0.1 334 36. 0.04

CFTO5 26.7 - 60 s 0.1 334 37. 0.04

CFT06 26.7 - 60 s 0.1 334 37. 0.04

CFT07 0 - 30 s 0.1 1 242 211. 0.06

CFT08 0 - 30 s 0.1 2 947 484. 0.05
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 32

1986-07-25

5.1 Critical Flow Model numerical problems

Two of the RELAPS simulations of JITII exhibited

nonphysical jumps (see Figure 4-1). An investigation showed that the jumps occurred because the

thermodynamic state at the discharge junction was

calculated to switch from two phase to single phase

vapor. Physically the junct-on should have remained

in a two-phase state throughout the transient.

It was discovered that the erroneous thermodynamic state was calculated because of the approximation being used to find the internal energy at

& choked junction (subroutine JCHOKE).

Assuming a quasi-steady, adiabatic flow, the

internal energy at a junction may be calculated

from (j = junction; up = upstream):

P P. V 2 V 2

e e + UP _- up

up Pup Pj 2

In RELAP5, the term Pi/p. is replaced by Pj/pup.

This approximation can result in an ej value

corresponding to vapor when the true value would

correspond to two-phase. Because the sound speed

(determined from (P., e.)) is discontinous at the

two phase/vapor interface a jump in the calculated

choked flow velocity occurs when the approximation

for P./pj leads to an incorrect value of ej.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 33

1986-07-25

6 CONCLUSIONS

1. RELAP5 critical flow model overpredicts the

critical flow of saturated steam. For the JIT 11

simulations the calculated critical flow could

be brought into agreement with the measured flow

by applying a discharge coefficient of 0.82.

2. Computed results for JIT 11 were not substantially improved by modeling the nozzle. Considering the empirical nature of the RELAP5

choked flow model it is concluded that there is

no benefit in modeling discharge piping having

L/D < 4 when steam is being discharged.

3. An approximation made in the calculation of

junction internal energy in subroutine JCHOKE

is responsible for nonphysical jumps in computed discharge mass flow rate evident in two of

the JIT 11 simulations.

4. RELAP5 overpredicted the subcooled critical mass

flow rate for CFT 21 when the nozzle was not

explicitly modeled. Calculated mass flow rates

could be made to agree with measured ones by

using a discharge coefficient of 0.85 in RELAP5.

5. When the nozzle geometry was explicitly modeled

in RELAP5 mass flow rates for CFT 21 were underpredicted. Application of discharge cofeficients

(greater than unity) did not improve computed

results; on the contrary, doing so gave rise to

a very numerically noisy solution. It is concluded that short discharge nozzles or pipes

(L/D < 2) should not be modeled explicitly in

RELAP5.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 34

1986-07-25

6. For the saturated blowdown portion of CFT 21

RELAP5 simulated the discharge flow quite accurately when the bounding condition fluid quality

was based upon the gamma densitometer measurement. No discharge coefficient was needed to

achieve agreement with the experimental data.

7. When the fluid quality boundary condition was

lowered (based upon vessel differential pressure measurements) RELAP5 overpredicted the discharge flow rate.

8. The RELAP5 simulation of the discharge of low

quality two-phase fluid did not respond in a

predictable manner when discharge coefficients

were applied. It was determined that a feedback

exists for low quality flow such that application

of a discharge coefficient may increase the value

of the sonic velocity used in the choking criterion (Eq 4-1) partially offsetting the sonic

velocity reduction represented by the discharge

coefficient. Application of a discharge coefficient of say, 0.85, will reduce computed flow

by only 7 or 8 percent instead of the 15 percent

one might expect.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 35

1986-07-25

REFERENCES

1. TRAC-PFI/MODI:

An Advanced Best-Estimate Computer Program

for Pressurized Water Reactor ThermalHydraulic Analysis.

NUREG/CR-3858.

2. RANSOM, V et al.

RELAP5/MOD2 Code Manual.

NUREG/CR-4312.

August 1985.

3. The Marviken Full Scale Jet Impingement

Tests. Facility Description.

MXD-101.

February 1982.

4. The Marviken Full Scale Critical Flow

Tests. Description of the Test Facility.

MXC-101.

5. The Marviken Full Scale Jet Impingement

Tests. Test 11 Results.

MXD-211.

March 1982.

6. The Marviken Full Scale Critical Flow

Tests. Results from Test 21.

MXC-221.

September 1979.

7. The Marviken Full Scale Critical Flow

Tests. Summary Report.

MXC-301.

December 1979.

STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 Appendix A.1(5)

1986-07-25

APPENDIX A

INPUT FOR RELAPS FOR JIT 11 SIMULATION

- CRITICAL FLOW TEST MARVIKEN TEST 11

4 HIGH QUALITY STEAM.

* INPUT PREPARED BY \STEN ROSDAHL

• STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB,SWEDEN

0000100

0000101

0000102

0000105

NEW STOY-ST

RUN

SI SI

30. 40.

• REF VOL LEVEL FLUID

0000120 200010000 18.33 WATER

4

4444k TIME STEP CONTROL CARDS

* END-TIME OTMIN

0000201 0.01 1.0-6

0000202 0.5 1.0-6

40000203 10.0 1.0-6

40000204 75.0 1.0-6

0000203 10.0 1.0-6

DTMAX

.001

.01

.01

.01

.I

MARVIKEN

OPT MINOR

00003 1

00003 S

00003 50

00003 so

00003 50

MAJOR

100

100

1000

1000

1000

RESTART

200

200

10.0

1000

301

302

303

30 •

MINOR EDIT REQUESTS

MFLOWJ 450000000

MFLOWJ 451000000

MFLOWJ 452000000

MFLOWJ 453000000

***** TRIP INPUT DATA

0000501 TIME 0 4

GT NULL 0 10000.0 L *

4

44*44 HYDRAULIC COMPONENTS

4

4 = = = = = - = = = = = = = = = = = - = = =

4

2000000

4010000

4020000

4030000

9010000

9020000

VESSEL

STPIPE

DCPIPE

NOZZLE

P-CONST

ATMOS

SNGLVOL

PIPE

PIPE

PIPE

TMDPVOL

TMDPVOL

4

*

4

4

18.330 TO

18.330 TO

0.330 TO

-7.S99 TO

18.830

0.330

-7.599

-8.779

* JUNCTIONS

2510000

4500000

4510000

VESSFILL

STAND-IN

DISCH-IN

SNGLJUN

SNGLJUN

SNGLJUN
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99

1986-07-25

Appendix A.2(5)

4520000 NOZZ-IN

4530000 NOZZ-OUT

SNGLJUN

VALVE

a

****a COMPONENT INFORMATION CARDS

4010001 4

4020001 3

4030001 2

* SNGLVOL, BRANCH AND TMOPVOL GEOMETRY CARDS

2000101

9010101

9020101

AREA

0.

20.

0.

LENGTH VOLUME

0.5 10.79

I. 0.

1. 1.

HA

0.

0.

0.

VANG

90.

-90.

-90.

ELEVCH

0.S

.000

.000

ROUGH

0.

20.-6

20.-6

DIAH

.0

.0

.0

FE

00

00

00

44*1* PIPE AND ANNULUS GEOMETRY CARDS

4020101

4010101

4020101

4010301

4020301

4030301

VOLAREA

0.7854

0.4441

0.07022

LENGTH

4.5

2.643

0.59

* VOLUME

4010401 0.00000

4020401 0.00000

4030401 0.00000

* VANG

4010601 -90.

4020601 -90.

4030601 -90.

* ROUGH

4010801 20.E-6

4020801 20.E-6

4030801 20.E-6

'** PIPE JUNCTIOt

* FORWARD

4010901 0.00

4020901 0.00

4030901 0.00

4 FE

4011001 00

4021001 00

4031001 00

4

NR

4

NR

4

3

2

NR

4

7

NR

4

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

D = 1.000

D 0.752

D = 0.299

18.000/4

7.929/3

1 . 180/2

DIAH

0.0

0.0

0.0

NR

4

3

2

LOSS COEFFICIENTS

REVERSE NR

0.00 3

0.00 2

0.00 1

NR

4

3

2

*4**4 PIPE JUNCTION CONTROL FLAGS

CAHS NR

4011101 0000 3

4021101 0000 2

4031101 0000 1

444*4 SNGLJUN, VALVE AND TMDPJUN GEOMETRY CARDS.
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99

1986-07-25

Appendix A.3(5)

2510101

4500101

4510101

4520101

4530101

FROM

901000000

200000000

401010000

402010000

403010000

TO

200010000

401000000

402000000

403000000

902000000

JUNAREA

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

FJUNF

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

FJUNR

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

CAHS

000.

0100

0000

0000

0100

SNGLVOL AND PIPE VOLUME INITIAL CONDITIONS

2000200

4011201

4021201

4031201

CW

2

2

2

PRESSURE

5.0000E6

5.0000E6

5.0000E6

5.0000E6

QUAL

1.00

1.00

1.00

1 .00

NR

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

4

3

2

*444* TMDPUOL DATA CONTROL CARD

* CW TRIP ALPHA

9010200 2 501

9020200 2

"TMDPVOL DATA

* TIME

9010201 0.000

9010202 .100

9010203 .200

9010204 .300

9010205 .400

9010206 .500

9010207 .600

9010208 .700

9010209 .800

9010210 .900

9010211 1.000

9010212 1.100

9010213 1.200

9010214 1.300

9010215 1.400

9010216 1.500

9010217 1.600

9010218 1.700

9010219 1.600

9010220 1.900

9010221 2.000

9010222 2.100

9010223 2.200

9010224 2.300

9010225 2.400

9010226 2.500

9010227 2.600

9010228 2.700

9010229 2.800

9010230 2.900

9010231 3.000

9010232 3.100

9010233 3.200

9010234 3.300

9010235 3.400

9010236 3.500

9010237 3.600

9010238 3.700

CARD

PRESS

4981900.

4927880.

4866110.

4829747.

4794753.

4747376.

4718367.

4691854.

4657311.

4637825.

4613516.

4600787.

4589881.

4575948.

4569016.

456S032.

4563218.

4563401.

4567248.

4572064.

4576934.

4584592.

4591024.

4600115.

4606497.

4613723.

4620684.

4623998.

4628821.

4634576.

4635503.

4636305.

4636456.

4635035.

4630834.

4626632.

4622737.

4619639.

NUM

QUAL

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1 .000

1.000

.000

1.000

1 .000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1 .000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1 .000

1.000

1.000
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 Appendix A.4(5)

1986-07-25

9010239 3.800 4616288. 1.000

9010240 3.900 4608276. 1.000

9010241 4.000 4603496. 1.000

9010242 5.000 4550326. 1.000

9010243 6.000 4483077. 1.000

9010244 7.000 4427020. 1.000

9010245 8.000 4362641. 1.000

9010246 9.000 4303644. 1.000

9010247 10.000 4248200. 1.000

9010248 11.000 4189435. 1.000

9010249 12.000 4132475. 1.000

9010250 13.000 4075548. 1.000

9010251 14.000 4020970. 1.000

9010252 15.000 3963155. 1.000

9010253 16.000 3918553. 1.000

9010254 18.000 3815226. 1.000

9010255 20.000 3727483. 1.000

9010256 22.000 3643477. 1.000

9010257 24.000 3556808. 1.000

9010258 26.000 3469451. 1.000

9010259 28.000 3381221. 1.000

9010260 30.000 3299092. 1.000

9010261 32.000. 3218463. 1.000

9010262 34.000 3133862. 1.000

9010263 36.000 3058316. 1.000

9010264 38.000 2985187. 1.000

9010265 40.000 2921124. 1.000

9010266 42.000 2853242. 1.000

9010267 44.000 2784410. 1.000

9010268 46.000 2717872. 1.000

9010269 48.000 2663770. 1.000

9010270 50.000 2601918. 1.000

9010271 52.000 2538747. 1.000

9010272 54.000 2490818. 1.000

9010273 56.000 2430753. 1.000

9010274 58.000 2372546. 1.000

9010275 60.000 2326299. 1.000

9010276 62.000 2283809. 1.000

9010277 64.000 2223326. 1.000

9010278 66.000 2178751. 1.000

9010279 68.000 2135757. 1.000

9010280 70.000 2092031. 1.000

9010281 72.000 2050116. 1.000

9010282 74.000 2008471. 1.000

9010283 76.000 1965180. 1.000

9010284 78.000 1922647. 1.000

9010285 80.000 1901403. 1.000

9010286 82.000 1880158. 1.000

9010287 84.000 1880158. 1.000

9010288 85.000 1876141. 1.000

9010289 86.000 1868512. 1.000

9010290 87.000 1865495. 1.000

9010291 88.000 1872848. 1.000

9010292 89.000 1879907. 1.000

9010293 90.000 1880158. 1.000

9010294 95.000 1880158. 1.000

4.

9020201 0. 0.100E6 1.

**** SNGLJUN AND VALVE INITIAL CONDITION CARD
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNII( AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99

1986-07-25

Appendix A.5(5)

2510201

4500201

4510201

4520201

4530201

1I

I

I

1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

* PIPE JUNCTION CONDITIONS CONTROL CARD

4011300 1

4021300 1

4031300 I

***** PIPE AND BRANCH JUNCTION INITIAL CONDITION CARD

4011301 0.0 0. 0. 3

4021301 0.0 0. 0. 2

4031301 0.0 0. 0. 1

• *** VALVE TYPE CARD

4530300 TRPVLV

* VALVE DATA

4530301 501

STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 Appendix B.1(9)

1986-07-25

APPENDIX B

LISTING OF INPUT DATA FOR CASE CFTO1

2 MARVIKEN CFT 21. SUBCOLD CRIT FLOW. P,T BC AT VSL BOT.

2

3 *

4

s

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

43

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

0000100

0000101

0000102

0000105

NEW TRANSNT

RUN

SI SI

30. 40.

3

3

3c

3G

3'

3(

00

00

'.** TIME STEP CONTROL CARDS

END-TIME DTMIN

000201 30.00 1.0-6

DTMAX OPT

.100 00003

MINOR MAJOR

1 50

RESTART

50

'*** MINOR EDIT REQUESTS

P 901010000

)3 CNTRLVAR 105 * RATIO (MEAS FLOW /

)4 CNTRLVAR 110 O OUAL RING II EXP

)5 QUALE 402020000 * CALC QUAL RING II

26 CNTRLVAR 122 * DP205 CALC-EXP

)7 CNTRLVAR 130 * T - TSAT IN VOL 901

CALC FLOW)

*** TRIP INPUT DATA

100501 TIME 0

•00502 CNTRLVAR 130

GT NULL

GE NULL

0 0.0 L

0 -0.1 L

*

*

* STOP SUBCOOLED TRANSIENT WHEN T-TSAT GT -0.1K

600 502

*..** HYDRAULIC COMPONENTS

40

*4

90

90

*5

20000

030000

p10000

'20000

DCPIPE

NOZZLE

P-T(BC)

ATMOS

PIPE

PIPE

TMDPVOL

TMDPVOL

* -0.690 TO -5.570

* -5.570 TO -6.565

JUNCTIONS

4510000

*4520000

4530000

DISCH-IN

NOZZ-IN

NOZZ-OUT

SNGLJUN

SNGLJUN

VALVE

***** COMPONENT INFORMATION CARDS

4020001 3
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99

1986-07-25

Appendix B.2(9)

51

52

S3

54

65

56

S7

S8

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

7f

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

*4030001 5

• •*•* SNGLVOL, BRANCH AND TMDPVOL GEOMETRY CARDS

* AREA LENGTH VOLUME HA VANG ELEVCH ROUGH

9010101 19.6 0.5 0.0 0. -90. .000 20.-B .0

9020101 0. 1. 1. 0. -90. .000 20.-S

DIAH FE

00

.0 00

***** PIPE AND ANNULUS GEOMETRY CARDS

4030101

4020101

*4030301

4020401

*4030401

4020601

*4030601

4020801

*4030301

VOLAREA

0.4441

0.07022

LENGTH

2.100

0.236

VOLUME

0.00000

0.00000

VANG

-90.

-90.

ROUGH

20.E-6

20.E-6

NR

3

5

NR

3

5

NR

3

5

NP

3

5

D = 0.752

D 0 0.299

* 6.3 /3 4 1 .180/5

DIAH

0.0

0.0

NR

3

5

.** PIPE JUNCTION LOSS COEFFICIENTS

FORWARD REVERSE NR

4020901 0.00 0.00 2

*4030901 0.00 0.00 4

FE NR

4021001 00 3

*4031001 00 5

• • PIPE JUNCTION CONTROL FLAGS

* CAHS NR

4021101 0000 2

*4031101 0000 4

SN6LJUN, VALVE AND TMDPJUN GEOMETRY CARDS

4510101

4530101

4530101

FROM

901000000

402010000

402010000

TO JUNAREA FJUNF FJUNR

402000000 0. 0.0 0.0

403000000 0. 0.0 0.0

902000000 0.1963 0.0 0.0

CAHS

0000

0000

0100

• *.** SNGLVOL AND PIPE VOLUME INITIAL CONDITIONS

4021201

*4031201

CW PRESSURE

3 4.2131EG

2 5.0000E6

QUAL

508.54

1.00

0. 0. 0.

0. 0. 0.

NR

3

5

..... TMDPVOL DATA CONTROL CARD

CW TRIP ALPHA NUM

********* CFT21 PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE AT BOTTOM OF VESSEL *****
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 Appendix B.3(9)

1986-07-25

11 ** PRESSURE FROM 001M105. TEMP FROM AGB OF 001M521 AND 0001214

112

113 9010200 3 501

114 9010201 .00 .509680E+07 503.46

115 9010202 .50 .425960E+07 501.31

116 9010203 1.00 .481560E+07 502.01

117 9010204 1.50 .487560E+07 603.31

118 9010205 2.00 .474530E+07 503.11

119 9010206 2.50 .467900E+07 504.01

120 9010207 3.00 .457180c+07 504.11

121 9010208 3.50 .451670E+07 614.01

122 9010209 4.00 .443460E+07 503.21

123 9010210 4.60 .439870E+07 504.21

124 9010211 5.00 .435300E+07 504.61

125 9010212 5.50 .4295002+07 504.46

126 9010213 6.00 .425320E+07 604.86

127 9010214 6.50 .421690E+07 505.31

128 9010215 7.00 .413030E+07 505.01

129 9010216 7.50 .412930E+07 505.26

130 9010217 8.00 .405310E÷07 505.66

131 9010218 8.50 .405760E+07 505.71

132 9010219 9.00 .402270E+07 505.71

133 9010220 9.50 .3994202+07 505.71

134 9010221 10.00 .391990E+07 505.71

135 9010222 10.50 .390030E+07 505.71

136 9010223 11.00 .385400E+07 505.76

137 9010224 11.50 .381230E+07 505.71

138 9010225 12.00 .378470E+07 505.71

139 9010226 12.50 .373310E+07 505.71

140 9010227 13.00 .367460E+07 506.01

141 9010228 13.50 .367360E+07 505.76

142 9010229 14.00 .364710E+07 505.96

143 9010230 14.50 .361170E+07 506.06

144 9010231 15.00 .357140E+07 506.36

145 9010232 15.50 .3530102+07 506.06

146 9010233 16.00 .352910E+07 506.01

147 9010234 16.50 .3506002E+7 506.16

148 9010236 17.00 .3504002+07 506.16

149 9010236 17.50 .343420E+07 506.01

160 9010237 18.00 .340910E+07 506.41

151 9010238 18.50 .339340E+07 606.26

152 9010239 19.00 .337180E+07 506.51

153 9010240 19.50 .335560E+07 606.66

154 9010241 20.00 .3339302+07 506.66

155 9010242 20.50 .330200E+07 506.76

156 9010243 21.00 .328380E+07 506.66

157 9010244 21.50 .327840E+07 506.76

158 9010245 22.00 .3269502+07 506.66

159 9010246 22.50 .324540E+07 506.71

160 9010247 23.00 .320660E+07 506.26

161 9010248 23.50 .323270E+07 506.76

162 9010249 24.00 .321400E+07 506.71

163 90102S0 24.50 .320710E+07 506.96

164 9010251 25.00 .319280E+07 505.71

166 .9010252 25.60 .312160E+07 506.96

166 9010253 26.00 .314810+E07 507.21

167 9010254 26.50 .314610E+07 507.46

168 9010255 27.00 .312890E+07 507.41

169 9010256 27.60 .311980E+07 508.16

170 9010257 28.00 .3089102+07 507.31
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNII( AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99

1986-07-25

Appendix B.4(9)

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

18S

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

1980

191

I 92

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

280

201

202

283

204

205

2086

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

98010258 28.50

98010259 29.00

9010260 29.50

9010261 30.00

*

*

98020200 2

9020201 0.

SNGLJUN

4518201 1

*4520201 1

4530201 1

.3108730E+07

.309650E+07

.310880E+87t

.309500E+07

507.56

507.66

507.81

507.26

0. 100E6 1 .

AND VALVE INITIAL CONDITION CARD

0.0 0. 0.

0.0 0. 0.

0.0 0. 0.

t***** PIPE JUNCTION CONDITIONS

4021300 1

*4031300 1

S**• 'PIPE AND BRANCH JUNCTION

4021301 0.0 8.

*4031301 0.0 0.

CONTROL CARD

INITIAL CONDITION CARD

0. 2

0. 4

****, VALVE TYPE CARD

4533030 TRPVLV

t***** VALVE DATA

4530301 501

20510101

20518181

20S10201

20510ZO22

205s10300

20510301

20510400

20S10401

205 10500 20510821

28188

CONTROL COMPONENT 101 .. EXPERIMENTAL MASSFLOW

NOZZFLOW-X FUNCTION 1. 0. 0

TIME 0 801

CONTROL COMPONENT 102,

FLOWERR sUM

0. 1. MFLOWJ

-1. CNTRLVAR

CALC - EXP

I. 0.

453000000

101

CRITICAL FLOW

0

CRITICAL FLOW

0

CONTROL COMPONENT 103, REL.ERR. OF

CF-REL-ERR DIV 100. 0.

CNTRLVAR 101 CNTRLVAR 102

CONTROL COMPONENT 104,

NOZZFLOW-C SUM

0.0001 1. MFLOWJ

COMPUTED MASSFLOW

1. 0.0001 0

453000000

CONTROL QOMPONENT 105, RATIO

CF-RATIO DIV 1. 1. 8

CNTRLVAR 104 CNTRLVAR 101

GENERAL TABLE USED BY CONTROL COMPONENT 101

MASS FLOW FROM CFT 21 ( FROM FILE T21EVAL, VARNAM=FAVE)

ft

20288100

20280102

20280103

GENERAL TABLE 801. MEASURED DISCHARGE FLOW RATE (FAVE)

REAC-T

.00 11000.00

1.00 108634.00

2.00 10632.00
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 Appendix B.5(9)

1986-07-25

231 20280104 3.00 10063.00

232 20280105 4.00 9791.20

233 20280106 5.00 9281.40

234 20280107 6.00 9125.90

235 20280108 7.00 8815.60

236 20280109 8.00 8377.10

237 20280110 9.00 8493.10

238 20280111 10.00 8162.90

239 20280112 11.00 7937.20

240 20280113 12.00 7622.30

241 20280114 13.00 7262.10

242 20280115 14.00 7138.30

243 20280116 15.00 6771.10

244 20280117 16.00 6718.70

245 20280118 17.00 6468.00

246 20280119 18.00 6439.30

247 20280120 19.00 6261.30

248 20280121 20.00 6175.60

249 20280122 21.00 6127.90

250 20280123 22.00 5880.20

251 20280124 22.50 5789.90

252 20280125 23.00 5737.50

253 20280126 23.50 5519.70

254 20280127 24.00 5443.80

255 20280128 24.50 5212.50

256 20280129 25.00 5106.70

257 20280130 25.50 4774.20

258 20280131 26.00 4632.10

259 20280132 26.50 4381.10

260 20280133 27.00 4299.60

261 20280134 27.50 4075.40

262 20220135 28.00 3887.80

263 20280136 28.50 3896.40

264 20280137 29.00 3800.80

265 20280138 29.50 3685.00

266 20280139 30.00 3SSS.90

267 20280140 30.50 3652.90

268 20280141 31.00 3450.10

269 20280142 31.50 3450.00

270 20280143 32.00 3359.50

271 20280144 32.50 3253.00

272 20280145 33.00 3272.70

273 20280146 33.50 3133.70

274 20280147 34.00 2832.30

275 20280148 34.50 2926.90

276 20280149 35.00 3005.70

277 20280150 35.50 2900.70

278 20280151 36.00 2962.60

279 20280152 36.50 3359.50

280 20280153 37.00 3373.30

281 20280154 37.50 3381.90

282 20280155 38.00 3297.10

283 20280156 38.50 3338.60

284 20280157 39.00 3204.70

285 20280158 39.50 3251.80

286 20280159 48.50 2812.30

287 20280160 41.50 2940.70

288 20280161 42.50 2936.30

289 20280162 43.50 2694.00

290 20280163 44.50 2646.10
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99

1986-07-25

Appendix B.6(9)

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

318

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

328

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

20280164

20280165

20280166

20280167

20280168

20280169

20280170

20280171

20280172

20280173

20280174

20280175

20280176

20280177

20280178

45.5O

46.50

47.50

48.50

49.50

50.50

s1.50

52.50

53.50

54.50

55.50

56.50

57.50

58.50

59.50

2634.00

2823.30

2745.90

2728.10

2604.40

2715.10

2500.30

2695.40

2692.30

2634.60

2481.00

2491.70

2458.00

2542.70

2467.70

* CONTROL COMPONENT 110. EXPERIMENTAL

20511000 X-RINGII FUNCTION 1. 0. 0

20511001 TIME 0 803

CALCULATED QUAL AT RING II

* GENERAL TABLE 803. QUALITY AT RING II (XGAV)

20280300

20280301

20280302

20280303

20280304

20280305

20280306

20280307

20280308

20280309

20280310

20280311

20280312

20280313

20280314

20280315

20280316

20280317

20280318

20280319

20280320

20280321

20280322

20280323

20280324

20280325

20280326

20280327

20280328

20280329

20280330

20280331

20280332

20280333

20280334

20280335

20280336

20280337

REAC-T

.00 .00000

1.00 .00000

2.00 .00000

3.00 .00000

4.00 .00000

5.00 .00000

6.00 .00000

7.00 .00000

8.00 .00000

9.00 .00000

10.00 .00000

11.00 .00000

12.00 .00000

13.00 .00000

14.00 .00000

15.00 .00000

16.00 .00000

17.00 .00000

18.00 .00000

19.00 .00000

20.00 .00000

21.00 .00000

22.00 .00013

22.50 .00000

23.00 00005

23.50 .00016

24.00 .00037

24.50 .00046

25.00 .00055

25.50 .00099

26.00 .00147

26.50 .00161

27.00 .00176

27.50 .00193

28.00 .00182

28.50 .00206

29.00 .00223
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99

1986-07-25

Appendix B.7(9)

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

20280338

20280339

20280340

20280341

20280342

20280343

20280344

20280345

20280346

20280347

20280348

20280349

20280350

20280351

20280352

20280353

20280354

20280355

20280356

2.0280357

20280358

20280359

20280360

20280361

20280362

20280363

20280364

20280365

20280366

20280367

20280368

20280369

20280370

20280371

20280372

20280373

20280374

20280375

20280376

20280377

20280378

29.50

30.00

30.50

31.00

31.50

32.00

32.50

33.00

33.50

34.00

34.50

35.00

35.50

36.00

36.50

37.00

37.50

38.00

38.50

39.00

39.50

40.50

41.50

42.50

43.50

44.50

45.50

46.50

47.50

48.50

49.50

50.50

51.50

52.50

53.50

54.50

55.50

56.50

57.50

58.50

59.50

.00237

.00263

.00237

.00247

.00262

.00267

.00282

.00316

.00348

.00365

.00377

.00400

.00381

.00416

.00430

.00445

.00443

.00468

.00473

.00474

.00605

.00793

.00979

.01141

.01181

.01193

.01251

.01245

.01217

.01228

.0 1205

.01175

.012 13

.01152

.01274

.01293

.01364

.01369

.01316

.01347

.01358

* CONTROL COMPONENT 120. EXPERMENTAL DP205. RINGI TO VESL BOT

20512000 DP205MEAS FUNCTION 1. 0. 0

20512001 TIME 0 802

* CONTROL COMPONENT 121. CALC OP 205.

20512100 DP20SCALC SUM I. 0. 0

20S12101 0. 1. P 402020000

20S12102 -1. P 901010000

4 CONTROL COMPONENT 122. CALC MINUS MEAS DP2OS

20512200 DIFFDP20S SUM 1. 0. 0

20512201 0. 1. CNTRLVAR 121

20512202 -1. CNTRLVAR 120 4
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 Appendix B.8(9)

1986-07-25

411 * GENERAL TABLE 802. 0P205 (RINGI TO VESSEL BOTTOM) 001M205

412

413 20280200 REAC-T

414 20280201 .00 .596140E+04

415 20280202 1.00 -. 407560E+06

418 20280203 2.00 -.376360E+06

417 20280204 3.00 -. 355610E+06

418 20280205 4.00 -. 30f6570E+06

419 20280208 5.00 -. 305870E+06

420 20280207 6.00 -. 279860E+06

421 20280208 7.00 -. 231390E+06

422 20280209 8.00 -. 229750E+06

423 20280210 9.00 -. 221960E+06

424 20280211 10.00 -. 213740E+06

42S 20280212 11.00 -. 190830E+06

426 20280213 12.00 -. 189630E+06

427 20280214 13.00 -. 177610E+06

428 20280215 14.00 -. 172230E+06

429 20280216 15.00 -. 153120E+06

430 20280217 16.00 -. 148750E+06

431 20280218 17.00 -. 147300E+06

432 20280219 18.00 -. 137490E+06

433 20280220 19.00 -. 131160E+06

434 20280221 20.00 -. 120660E+06

435 20280222 21.00 -. 115030E+06

436 20280223 22.00 -. 112490E+05

437 20280224 22.50 -. 109900E+06

438 20280225 23.00 -. 102120E+06

439 20280226 23.50 -. 962950E+05

440 20280227 24.00 -. 101420E+06

441 20280228 24.50 -. 891450E+05

442 20280229 25.00 -. 876260E+05

443 20280230 25.50 -. 697820E+05

444 20280231 26.00 -. 759200E605

445 20280232 26.50 -. 711110E+05

446 20280233 27.00 -. 602270E+05

447 20280234 27.50 -. 581390E+05

448 20280235 28.00 -. 540890E+05

449 20280236 28.50 -. 465590E+05

450 20280237 29.00 -. 457360E405

451 20280238 29.50 -. 432690E+05

452 20280239 30.00 -. 427620E+05

453 20280240 30.50 -. 383330E+05

454 20280241 31.00 -. 404840E+05

455 20280242 31.50 -. 368140E+05

456 20280243 32.00 -. 399780E+05

457 20280244 32.50 -. 350430E+05

458 20280245 33.00 -. 327650E+05

459 20280246 33.50 -. 342200E+05

460 20280247 34.00 -. 364350E+05

461 20280248 34.50 -. 379530E+05

462 20280249 35.00 -. 356750E+05

463 20280250 35.50 -. 360550E+05

484 20280251 36.00 -. 358020E+05

485 20280252 36.50 -. 381430E+05

486 20280253 37.00 -. 378270E+05

467 20280254 37.50 -. 372570E+05

468 20280255 38.00 -. 376370E+05

469 20280256 38.50 -. 375100E+05

470 20280257 39.00 -. 378270E+05
STUDSVIK ENERG1TE1KNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99

1986-07-25

Appendix B.9(9)

471

472

473

474

475

476

477

478

479

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

20280258

20280259

20280260

20280261

20280262

20280263

20280264

20280265

20280266

20280267

20280268

20280269

20280270

20280271

20280272

20280273

20280274

20280275

20280276

20280277

20280278

39.50

40.50

41.50

42.50

43.50

44.50

45.50

46.50

47.50

48.50

49.50

50.50

S1.50

52.50

53.50

54.50

55.50

56.50

57.50

58.50

59.50

-. 361820E+05

- .3934S0E+05

- .377000E+05

- .370040E405

- .363080E+05

- .353590E+05

-. 355490E+05

-. 345360E+05

-. 364350E+05

-. 373210E+05

-. 3656M+05+

- .3S5490E+OS

-. 349160E+05

- .343460E+05

-. 340300E+05

- .347260E+05

- .346630E+05

- .367510E405

-. 341570E+05

- .320050E+05

-. 319420E+05

* CONTROL COMP 130. T901-TSAT901

• USE THIS CONTROL VARIABLE TO END SUBCOOLED B.C TRANSIENT

20S13000 T-TSA8T91 SUM 1. -34. 1

20513001 0. 1. TEMPF 901010000

20513002 -1. SATTEMP 901010000

STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK ABl STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 Appendix C.1(3)

1986-07-25

APPENDIX C

LISTING OF INPUT DATA FOR CASE CFT04

- MARVIKEN CFT 21. SAT CRIT FLOW. PX BC AT VSL BOT.

* RB8TARMEBFGCFT8B1( SUBCOOLED RUN WITH CD-0.BS, AND T901 INCRESED 2K

0000100 RESTART TRANSNT

0000101 RUN

0000102 SI SI

103 387

0000105 30. 40.

1

2

3

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

**..* TIME STEP CONTROL CARDS

* END-TIME DTMIN DTMAX OPT

2000201 6030.00 l.E450-6 0.1 .020 00000003

MINOR

315

MAJOR RESTART

1802 1000

**'** MINOR. EDIT REQUE!

301 P 9010100(

303 CNTRLVAR 105

304 CNTRLVAR 110 *

305 QUALE 402020000

306 CNTRLVAR 122 *

*~*'* TRIP INPUT DATA

0000502 TIME

* RATIO (MEAS FLOW / CALC FLOW)

QUAL RING II EXP

* CALC QUAL RING II

DP205 CALC-EXP

0 GE NULL 0 60.0 L *

* INPUT

9010000

9010101

P.X BC AT

P-X(BC)

19.6 0.5

VOL 901

TMDPVOL

0.0 0. -90. 0.000 20.-6 0. 00

******~**** CFT 21 PRESSURE AND QUALITY AT BOTTOM OF VESSEL

* P FROM 001M106 X FROM XVGB

41 *

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

so

51

52

53

54

55

CFT 21 PRESSURE AND QUALITY AT BOTTOM OF VESSEL

* P FROM 001M106 X FROM XVGB

9010200 2 501

9010201 0.0 3.13406E6 0.0

9010202 25.00 .313406E+07 .00000

9010203 25.50 .31340GE+07 .00000

9010204 26.00 .313406E+07 .00000

9010205 26.50 .313406E+07 .00000

9010206 27.00 .312890E+07 .00000

9010207 27.50 .311980E+07 .00000

9010208 28.00 .308910E+07 .00000

9010209 28.50 .310730E+07 .00028

9010210 29.00 .309650E+07 .00046
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99 Appendix C.2(3)

1986-07-25

56 9010211 29.50 .310880E+07 .00098

57 9010212 30.00 .309500E+07 .00095

58 9010213 30.50 .308760E+07 .00118

59 9010214 31.00 .305270E407 .00140

60 9010215 31.50 .306430E+07 .00122

61 9010216 32.00 .306350E+07 .00151

62 9010217 32.50 .304710E+07 .00179

63 9010218 33.00 .304440E+07 .00183

64 9010219 33.50 .304190E+07 .00238

65 9010220 34.00 .302770E+07 .00245

66 9010221 34.50 .302620E+07 .00259

67 9010222 35.00 .303010E+07 .00282

68 9010223 35.50 .301040E+07 .00277

69 9010224 36.00 .300600E+07 .00267

70 9010225 36.50 .299620E+07 .00290

71 9010226 37.00 .299570E+07 .00316

72 9010227 37.50 .300060E+07 .00304

73 9010228 38.00 .298830E+07 .00332

74 9010229 38.50 .298640E+07 .00340

75 9010230 39.00 .297460E+07 .00359

76 9010231 39.50 .298190E+07 .00423

77 9010232 40.00 .295440E+07 .00543

78 9010233 40.50 .295190E+07 .00628

79 9010234 41.00 .294410E+07 .00747

80 9010235 41.50 .293870E+07 .00806

81 9010236 42.00 .293230E+07 .00887

82 9010237 42.50 .292540E+07 .00975

83 9010238 43.00 .291560E+07 .01030

84 9010239 43.50 .291260E+07 .01047

85 9010240 44.00 .2S9440E+07 .01059

86 9010241 44.50 .288660E+07 01055

87 9010242 45.00 .291210E+07 01085

88 9010243 45.50 .288S60E+07 .01119

89 9010244 46.00 .287770E+07 01105

90 9010245 46.50 .287080E+07 .01120

91 9010246 47.00 .285260E407 .01103

92 9010247 47.50 .284720E+07 .01081

93 9010248 48.00 .284040E+07 .01077

94 9010249 48.50 .281970E+07 .01092

95 9010250 49.00 .260250E+07 .01107

96 9010251 49.50 .280940E+07 .01078

97 9010252 50.00 .280450E+07 .01071

98 9010253 50.50 .279410E+07 .01028

99 9010254 51.00 .279070E+07 .01062

100 9010255 51.50 .277790E+07 .01082

101 9010256 52.00 .277500E+07 .01062

102 9010257 52.50 .275630E+07 .01046

103 9010258 53.00 .275280E+07 .01027

104 9010259 53.50 .274150E+07 .01126

105 9010260 54.00 .274990E+07 .01208

106 9010261 54.50 .271600E+07 .01170

107 9010262 55.00 .272680E+07 .01232

108 9010263 55.50 .270220E+07 .01228

109 9010264 56.00 .270120E+07 .01181

110 9010265 56.50 .268400E+07 .01172

111 9010266 57.00 .268250E+07 .01262

112 9010267 57.50 .267070E+07 .01181

113 9010268 58.00 .265550E+07 .01195

114 9010269 58.50 .263880E+07 .01193

115 9010270 59.00 .264170E+07 .01217
STUDSVIK ENERGITEKNIK AB STUDSVIK/NP-86/99

1986-07-25

Appendix C.3(3)

116

117

118

9010271 59.50

9010272 60.00

.262850E+07

.261 370E+07

.01226

.01245

NRC FORM 335 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER (As$ignedby TIDC, add Vol No., ifainy)

(2.84)

NRCM 1102,

3201.3202 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG/IA-0007

SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE. STUDSVI K/NP-86/99

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 3 LEAVE BLANK

Assessment of RELAP5/MOD2 Against Critical Flow Data

From Marviken Tests JIT 11 and CFT 21 4. DATE REPORT COMPLETED

MONTH YEAR

5. AUTHOR(S)

6. DATE REPORT ISSUED

0. Rosdahl, D. Caraher MONTH YEAR

SeDtember 1986 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS (Include Zip Code) B. PROJECT/TASK/WORK UNIT NUMBER

Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate

P.O. Box 27106 9. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

S102 #52 Stockholm, Sweden

10. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS (IncludeZip Code) Ila. TYPE OF REPORT

Division of Reactor System Safety

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Technical

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission b PERIOD COVERED (,ocluse dates)

Washington, DC 20555

12. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

13. ABSTRACT (200 wOrds or less)

RELAP5/MOD2 simulations of the critical flow of saturated steam are reported toqether

with simulations of the critical flow of subcooled liquid and low-quality two-phase

mixture. The experiments which were simulated used nozzle diameters of 0.3 m and

0.5 m. RELAP5 overpredicted the experimental flow rates by 10 to 25 percent unless

discharge coefficients were applied.

14. DOCUMENT ANALYSIS - a. KEYWORDS/DESCRIPTORS 15. AVAILABILITY

RELAP5/MOD2 STATEMENT

Marviken test

critical flow of saturated steam Unlimited

ICAP code assessment 16. SECURITYCLASSIFICATION

(This page)

b. IDENTIFIERSIOPENENDED TERMS Unclassified

(ThAs raoortl

Unclassified

17. NUMBER OF PAGES

18. PRICE


UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555

SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATEI

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

U USNRC I WASH. D.C. PERMIT No. G-67

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRWVATE USE, $300

cjn

cjn

ci:

m

z

-i

:0

mO

5za

SC)

0

0-0

tj-n

0D

0)