# SPES3 Facility RELAP5 Sensitivity Analyses on the Containment System for Design Review

Authors: Andrea Achilli; Cinzia Congiu; Roberta Ferri; Fosco Bianchi; Paride Meloni; Davor Grgić; Milorad Dzodzo
Journal: Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations
 (2012)

---

## Abstract

An Italian MSE R&D programme on Nuclear Fission is funding, through ENEA, the design and testing of SPES3 facility at SIET, for IRIS reactor simulation. IRIS is a modular, medium size, advanced, integral PWR, developed by an international consortium of utilities, industries, research centres and universities. SPES3 simulates the primary, secondary and containment systems of IRIS, with 1:100 volume scale, full elevation and prototypical thermal-hydraulic conditions. The RELAP5 code was extensively used in support to the design of the facility to identify criticalities and weak points in the reactor simulation. FER, at Zagreb University, performed the IRIS reactor analyses with the RELAP5 and GOTHIC coupled codes. The comparison between IRIS and SPES3 simulation results led to a simulation-design feedback process with step-by-step modifications of the facility design, up to the final configuration. For this, a series of sensitivity cases was run to investigate specific aspects affecting the trend of the main parameters of the plant, as the containment pressure and EHRS removed power, to limit fuel clad temperature excursions during accidental transients. This paper summarizes the sensitivity analyses on the containment system that allowed to review the SPES3 facility design and confirm its capability to appropriately simulate the IRIS plant.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

The IRIS reactor, with its integral design,is an advanced engineering solution of the latest LWR technology. Medium-sized, safe, modular, and economic, it provides a viable bridge to generation IV and satisfies the GNEP requirements for grid-appropriate NPPs [1–3].In the frame of an R&D program on nuclear fission, funded by the Italian Ministry of Economic Development, ENEA, as member of the IRIS consortium, is supporting the design, construction, and testing of the SPES3 ITF at SIET laboratories [4–6].The SPES3 design was carried out following the subsequent steps: (a) definition of a preliminary facility design, based on specified system geometry; (b) setup of the RELAP5 facility model and DBA simulation; (c) comparison of SPES3 and IRIS results against the same transient; (d) identification of the main differences and understanding of related reasons; (e) FSA application to selected thermo-fluid-dynamic parameters in order to assess and quantify the discrepancies; (f) updating of the SPES3 design to match the IRIS behaviour; (g) final result comparison; (h) final FSA application and assessment of acceptability criteria for considering SPES3 correctly simulating IRIS.The above-mentioned process allowed to verify the SBLOCA PIRT objectives for the IRIS reactor, as defined by a group of international experts [7]. The Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table put in evidence the thermal-hydraulic phenomena playing an important role in operation of IRIS safety systems. Two figures of merit were considered fundamental for the accident sequence control: containment pressure and reactor vessel mass inventory. Sufficient water in the vessel allows to remove stored energy, and decay heat without fuel clad temperature excursions and adequate heat rejection to the RWST prevents containment overpressurization and contributes to core cooling also thanks to dynamic coupling between the primary and containment systems.The DBA simulation on the facility allowed to understand the transient plant behaviour and the mutual system interaction. The comparison with the IRIS results led to running many sensitivity cases that required the SPES3 design review for better matching the IRIS transients.The SPES3 tests will provide a qualified data base for the assessment of codes to be used in the reactor safety analyses.The SPES3 facility is under construction, based on the IRIS reactor design. The availability of such a complex plant opens the way to other possibilities of exploitation, and studies are foreseen for using it in a wider field of application for integral layout SMR simulation [8].


## 2. IRIS Plant and SPES3 Facility Layout and Nodalization

The IRIS pressure vessel and containment are shown in Figures1 and 2, whereas the SPES3 facility is presented in Figure 3.Figure 1
IRIS integral layout.Figure 2
IRIS containment systems.Figure 3
SPES3 facility layout.The SPES3 facility reproduces all parts and components of the IRIS plant with 1 : 100 volume scaling factor, 1 : 1 elevation scaling factor, and prototypical fluid and thermal-hydraulic conditions. The reactor vessel includes the internals, consisting of the electrically heated core simulator, the riser with control rod device mechanisms, the pressurizer, the pump suction plenum, the helical coil steam generators, the downcomer, and the lower plenum. Three SGs simulate the eight IRIS SGs. A pump, located outside of the RPV, for room reasons, and connected to it by pipes, simulates eight IRIS pumps. Two emergency boration tanks are simulated and connected to the DVI lines, devoted to direct injection of emergency fluid into the vessel. Three secondary loops simulate four IRIS loops. Each secondary loop is simulated up to the main isolation valves and includes the feed line, the SG, the steam line, and the emergency heat removal system with a vertical tube heat exchanger immersed in a refuelling water storage tank. The IRIS spherical containment compartments are simulated by tanks, connected to each other by pipes and to the RPV by break lines [4, 5]. They include dry-well and reactor cavity, representing the dry zone surrounding the RPV, respectively above and below the mid-deck plane; pressure suppression systems representing the wet zone around the lower part of the RPV, suitable to dump pressure in case of containment pressurization; long-term gravity make-up systems representing the cold water reservoir to be poured into the RPV when depressurized. The two stages of the automatic depressurization system are simulated, connected to the pressurizer top, with stage I discharging into the quench tank and stage II directly connecting RPV and DW at high plant elevation.The facility allows to test both LOCAs and secondary side breaks (DBA and BDBA) as well as to perform separate effect tests on particular components such as SG-EHRS thermally coupled to RWST.The IRIS nodalization was developed in two parts: the primary and secondary circuits for the RELAP5 code and the containment system for the GOTHIC code (Figures4 and 5). The RELAP5 nodalization includes 1845 volumes, and 1940 junctions, 1015 heat structures with 8600 mesh points, while the GOTHIC model includes 85 volumes, 28 junctions, and 57 heat structures.Figure 4
IRIS primary and secondary circuit nodalization for RELAP5 code.Figure 5
IRIS containment nodalization for GOTHIC code.The SPES3 nodalization was completely developed for the RELAP5 code (Figures6, 7, and 8). It includes 1499 volumes, 1639 junctions, 1839 heat structures, and 19322 mesh points.Figure 6
SPES3 primary circuit nodalization for RELAP5 code.Figure 7
SPES3 secondary circuit and EHRS nodalization for RELAP5 code.Figure 8
SPES3 containment nodalization for RELAP5 code.


## 3. Design-Calculation Feedback Process for SPES3 Facility Final Design

The RELAP5 model for SPES3 was initially developed on the basis of the preliminary design of the facility, and the steady-state conditions are based on the actual IRIS nominal operation [9]. Five DBAs were simulated with particular attention to the occurring phenomena and sequence of events. In particular, three SB-LOCAs and two secondary side breaks were simulated, according to the specified test matrix [10].Once the phenomena occurring in the DBAs were investigated,attention was focused on the most challenging transient scenario, the DVI line DEG break, for a direct comparison of the SPES3 and IRIS results.WEC, in collaboration with the University of Pisa and Politecnico di Milano, developed the Fractional Scaling Analysis for IRIS and SPES3. The method, based on system and time sequence decomposition, allowed to identify the parameters mostly affecting the transient and to quantify the distortions between IRIS and SPES3 simulations introduced by such parameters (e.g., containment tank metal mass, heat transfer at core side wall, etc.).The first application of the DVI line DEG break evidenced important differences on containment pressure, especially in early phase of the accident, at pressure peak, and also on the long term.The need of understanding the reasons and reducing discrepancies led to performing a series of sensitivity cases on SPES3 containment, making SPES3 response closer to reactor one, and finalizing the facility design [11, 12].The main events, identified in the DVI line break transient, are listed below for better understanding all sensitivity analyses and the design-calculation feedback process. Approximate timing of events is reported too. The long-term phase of the transient was simulated to verify the safe, stable plant operation.(i)
The break opening (0 s) causes the RPV blowdown and depressurization, containment pressurization, steam dumping into PSS with air build-up at PSS top, and consequent pressurization;(ii)
the signal of high containment pressure (~30 s) triggers the reactor scram, the secondary loop isolation, and the actuation of two out of four EHRSs;(iii)
the signal of low PRZ water level (~120 s) triggers the pump coastdown, and the natural circulation in the core is guaranteed through the check valves, connecting riser and downcomer at one-third of the SG height;(iv)
the signal of low PRZ pressure (~200 s) actuates the remaining EHRS and triggers the ADS stage I, to help RPV depressurization, and the EBT intervention, to inject cold water into the primary circuit;(v)
the signal of low differential pressure between RPV and DW (~2250 s) triggers the LGMS injection into the DVI line and opens the valves connecting RC and DVI line to allow water reverse flow from the containment to the primary side;(vi)
when PSS pressurization is sufficiently high, cold water flows from PSS to DW (3500 s), increasing the RC flooding and allowing water to enter the RPV;(vii)
the signal of low LGMS mass (~25000 s) opens the ADS stage II with possible reverse steam flow from DW to RPV;(viii)
on the long term (simulation up to 100000 s), the plant is cooled by EHRSs that reject core decay heat to RWST.The starting point for the sensitivity analyses was the comparison between cases SPES3-97 and IRIS-HT1 results, which showed qualitatively good agreement in occurring phenomena, but also quantitative discrepancies in containment pressure, affecting the sequence of events and transient evolution (Figure9).Figure 9
SPES3-97 and IRIS-HT1 DW pressure. Note: The IRIS Drywell Volume was subdivided in 4x4x4 sub-volumes in the three directions, marked 1s1, 1s2… up to 1s64. Pressure from a cell at the top of the model was used as reference.A series of parameters identifying and potentially affecting containment pressure is: (a) SPES3 containment overvolume of about 10% with respect to 1 : 100 scaled IRIS; (b) SPES3 containment metal mass greater than IRIS for mechanical resistance to the same design conditions; (c) SPES3 component surface-to-volume ratio ten times greater than IRIS, due to volume scaling and component height conservation; (d) containment metal structure temperature; (e) containment piping pressure drops; (f) EHRS and RWST modelling and heat transfer coefficients.A synthesis of the performed sensitivity cases on SPES3 is reported in Table1, where they are grouped according to the investigated parameters. A synthesis of IRIS cases, utilised for the comparison, is reported in Table 2.Table 1
Characteristics of the SPES3 cases.
SPES3 casesCharacteristicseffect for massResultsSPES3-97Containment volume ~110% of IRIS volume;DW wall thickness 25 mm for 2 MPa design pressure; Containment metal wall initial temperature 48.9°C.Starting point for sensitivity analyses.Sensitivity on the DW inner surface insulationSPES3-941 mm Teflon on the DW inner surfaceLittle improvements in containment pressure, limited to the early phase of transient.SPES3-100DW volume correctly scaled on IRIS volume.1.5 mm Rescor 902 Aluminium Silicate layer on the DW inner surfaceLittle improvements in containment pressure. Negative effect for mass addition.SPES3-103DW volume correctly scaled on IRIS volume.3 mm Rescor 902 Aluminium Silicate layer on DW inner surfaceLittle improvements in containment pressure. Negative effect for mass addition.Sensitivity on the containment volumeSPES3-99DW volume correctly scaled on IRIS volumeLittle improvements in containment pressure.SPES3-106DW volume scaled 1 : 150 on IRIS volumeLittle improvements in containment pressure, limited to the early phase of transient. Modelling due to a component simulation with a different scaling factor.SPES3-107Equivalent to SPES3-99 with corrected minor input mistakesSensitivity on the containment metal structureSPES3-104DW wall thickness 15 mm for 1.5 MPa design pressureImprovement of containment pressure, but not sufficient.SPES3-105DW wall thickness 10 mm (equivalent to 1 : 100 IRIS DW mass distributed on SPES3 surface)Further improvement of containment pressure, but not sufficient.SPES3-108DW heat structure directly scaled 1 : 100 in terms of mass and surface (a one-hundredth slice of IRIS structure attributed to SPES3). DW wall material as in IRISImprovement of containment pressure response in early phase of the transient, due to DW surface reduction impact. No improvement in later phases, due to other SPES3 containment structures, not simulated in IRIS.SPES3-111DW heat structure initial temperature from 48.9°C to 84°CHeat structure preheating compensates for the extra mass. Containment pressure response not sufficiently improved as other containment heat structures are non-preheated.SPES3-112PSS wall eliminatedContainment pressure response improved.SPES3-115All containment tanks volume resized to scale IRIS 1 : 100. Thickness reduced to resist 1.5 MPa design pressure. Air space metal structure initial temperature 84°C.PSS main vent pipe no additional restriction. LGMS to DVI line calibrated orifice from 4 mm to 3.2 mm. ADS stage I ST calibrated orifice from 7.019 mm to 5.637 mm. ADS stage I DT calibrated orifice from 9.927 mm to 7.973 mm. EHRS-A and B CL calibrated orifice from 6 mm to 5 mm. EHRS-C CL calibrated orifice from 12 mm to 8.5 mmContainment pressure similar in SPES3 and IRIS.ADS stage I mass flow correctly reproducing IRIS.LGMS to DVI line and EHRS CL mass flow not correctly reproduced.SPES3-119Containment volume scaled 1 : 100 on IRIS.DW heat structure directly scaled 1 : 100 in terms of mass and surface. PSS, LGMS, RC thickness 1 mm (to get closer to IRIS nonsimulated structure) LGMS to DVI line calibrated orifice from 2.3 mm to 2.5 mm. PSS vent pipe extension orifice from 5.2 to 7.3 mm. RC to DVI line additional calibrated orifice of 1 mm (original valve D = 10.7 mm) EHRS-C CL calibrated orifice from 6.7 mm to 7 mmContainment pressure very similar in SPES3 and IRIS.Great importance of correct heat structure simulation.SPES3-122As SPES3-120.Containment heat structure initial temperature 48.9°C.For comparison with SPES3-120 to quantify the heat structure preheating influence.SPES3-132As SPES3-130.EHRS-A and B tube 2% additional surface thermally insulated with Teflon (originally 0.6 tubes out of 3 insulated to scale 1 : 100  240 IRIS tubes). EHRS-C 0.2 tubes out of 5 insulated to scale 1 : 100  480 IRIS tubes. Additional 2% tube surface thermally insulated with TeflonEHRS tube heat transfer surface reduced to correctly simulate IRIS surface.Sensitivity on the containment piping pressure dropsSPES3-109PSS main vent pipe resizing from2.5′′ to 2′′ Sch. 40. PSS vent pipe extension resizing from 3/4′′ to 1/2′′ Sch. 40PSS to DW mass flow closer to IRIS one.SPES3-110PSS main vent pipe additional restriction at the check valve (Dorifice 14.19 mm)Only early steep but limited containment pressure increase.SPES3-118Containment volume scaled 1 : 100 on IRIS.LGMS to DVI line calibrated orifice from 3.2 mm to 2.3 mm. EHRS-C CL calibrated orifice from 8.5 mm to 6.5 mm. PSS vent pipe extension additional restriction (Dorifice 5.2 mm). Containment heat structure initial temperature 48.9°CAttempt to match IRIS injection mass flows.SPES3-120Containment volume scaled 1 : 100 on IRIS.Thickness to resist 1.5 MPa design pressure. Air space metal structure initial temperature 84°C. QT initial temperature 48.9°C. LGMS to DVI line calibrated orifice from 2.3 mm to 2.5 mmIRIS injection mass flow reproduced, but different pressure drops in the pipes.SPES3-124PSS main vent pipe resizing from2′′ to 2.5′′ Sch. 40PSS vent pipe extension resizing from 1/2′′ to 1′′ Sch. 40LGMS to DVI line calibrated orifice from 2.5 mm to 3.6 mm.PSS vent pipe extension orifice from 7.3 to 19 mm. PSS vent pipe extension connection to DW elevation decrease of 1.5 m to match IRIS. PSS sparger elevation decrease of 0.25 m to match IRIS. PSS bottom modelled with a branch. Containment air space metal structure initial temperature 84°C, water space 48.9°CMass flow determined by actual piping pressure drops as in IRIS.Containment pressure response qualitatively and quantitatively close to IRIS.The PSS bottom modelling did not affect the PSS vent pipe emptying mode.SPES3-127As SPES3-124PSS bottom modelled with three branches.The PSS bottom modelling did not strongly affect the PSS vent pipe emptying mode.SPES3-130As SPES3-127RWST top pipe introduction for connection to atmosphere.Reduced loss of mass at RWST top due to dry air and water contact.SPES3-135AS SPES3-132Completely reviewed the EHRS circuits and RWST model:  EHRS-A and B tube 4% surface thermally insulated with Teflon other than the originally insulated 0.6 tubes. EHRS-C 4% surface thermally insulated other than the originally insulated 0.2 tubes. EHRS-A and B HL resized from 2′′ to 1.25′′ Sch. 80. EHRS-A and B CL resized from 1.25′′ to 1.5′′ Sch. 80. EHRS-C HL resized from 2.5′′ to 2′′Sch. 80. EHRS-C CL resized from 1.5′′to 3′′ Sch. 80. HL-A and B additional orifice D = 17 mm. HL-C additional orifice D = 24 mm. CL-A and B orifice resized from 5 mm to 5.9 mm. CL-C orifice resized from 7 mm to 8.3 mm. EHRS tube heat structure fouling factor set to 2.9 left and 2.77 right (original values 2.725 left, 3.54284 right) [13]. RWST-AB and C rising slice area resized from 0.491 m2 to 0.119167 m2; recirculation slice resized from 1.217 m2 to 1.601169 m2 [13]. RWST-AB and C slice side junction area from 0.151 m2 to 0.135 m2 [13].The complete revision of the EHRS piping and heat exchanger parameters led to matching transferred energy.SPES3-146As SPES3-135.PSS vent pipe extension orifice from 19 mm to 17.5 mm. SG tube inlet orifice from 12.5 mm to 11.7 mmGood similarity between SPES3 and IRISBASE CASE for FSA final application.Table 2
Characteristics of the IRIS cases.
IRIS casesCharacteristicsResultsIRIS-HT1Containment heat structures simulated only for the DW.Starting point for comparison with SPES3.IRIS-HT5gHeat structures added to all containment compartments and secondary sidepiping.PSS main vent pipe connection to DW rise of 4 m. PSS sparger set at 0.75 m from PSS bottom. RWST remodelled with parallel slice approach.Similar containment pressure response with SPES3.IRIS-HT6_rwstcSG tubes inner layer removed which simulated the Fouling.ADS stage II actuation signal corrected to intervene on low LGMS mass. RWST remodelling according to PERSEO area ratio and HTC calibration on experimental data. EHRS heat transfer parameters set as in SPES3 (by multiplier fouling factors) [12, 13]. RWST top pipe introduction for connection to atmosphere. Correction of energy transfer parameters at the GOTHIC and RELAP5 code couplings.Better matching of EHRS long-term energy transfer to RWST.IRIS-HT6_rwstc1aCorrected elevation difference between the RELAP5 and GOTHIC parts of the model: the ADS stage I vent pipe end should be 0.5 m from QT bottom (it was connected to QT top); LGMS tanks rise of 0.75 m.Results very similar to IRIS-HT6_rwstcBASE CASE for FSA final application.A reduction of DW volume, for correctly scaling IRIS (1 : 100), did not provide great improvements (a few percent) in the containment pressure response. An improvement was observed only in the long term related to lower heat losses to environment due to DW size reduction (Figure10).Figure 10
SPES3-97, 99 and IRIS-HT1 DW pressure.In order to compensate for the extra surface in SPES3, a thermal insulation of DW inner surface was tested with different thickness of Aluminium Silicate Rescor 902. As shown in Figure11, the introduction of an increasing thickness of thermal insulation increased pressure in the very short term, but the additional mass reduced the containment pressure peak. The result was that the DW insulation led to worse effects on pressure than with noninsulated DW, showing that masses have larger effects than surfaces.Figure 11
SPES3-99, 100, 103 and IRIS-HT1 DW pressure (short term).The influence of DW heat structure mass on containment pressure response was investigated by reducing DW thickness by 40% (25 mm to 15 mm),approximately corresponding to a design pressure of 1.5 MPa, instead of the original 2 MPa. As shown in Figure12, pressure increase in the early phase of the transient was steeper and pressure peak higher. Containment pressure was still below the IRIS one, showing that such DW metal mass reduction was not enough to have the desired pressure response.Figure 12
SPES3-99, 104 and IRIS-HT1 DW pressure (short term).A further DW mass reduction was performed in a theoretical case, where concrete plus carbon steel IRIS DW equivalent mass was distributed on SPES3 DW surface, resulting in a thickness of 10 mm AISI 304. As shown in Figure13, the further DW mass reduction allowed to get pressure values closer to IRIS both in the early phases of the transient and at the pressure peak, but still below IRIS pressure. That showed that other parameters affected the results.Figure 13
SPES3-99, 105 and IRIS-HT1 DW pressure (short term).An attempt to investigate how a greater DW volume reduction affects containment pressure was performed by scaling it 1 : 150 with respect to IRIS. Figure14 shows a pressure gain only in the early phases of the transient with a lower peak value. No improvement was obtained by overreducing the DW volume with a scaling factor different from 1 : 100.Figure 14
SPES3-104, 106 and IRIS-HT1 DW pressure (short term).A theoretical case, where IRIS DW structures were directly scaled 1 : 100 in mass and surface, was investigated. A one-hundredth vertical slice of IRIS DW structures was attributed to SPES3 DW, maintaining the same thickness and material composition. Figure15 compares two cases with equivalent heat structure masses, but different surfaces and material properties. Pressure increase was similar in IRIS and SPES3, in the early phase of the transient, when surface has a greater impact, but later energy transfer to heat structures prevailed and SPES3 pressure did not increase as expected, with all SPES3 containment structures being completely simulated against the only IRIS DW structure simulation. Moreover, gas space volume at the PSS and LGMS top was about 14% higher in SPES3 than IRIS, so limiting the containment pressure peak. Containment pressure trend showed also differences in the depressurization phase, related to steam condensation in RC and DW due to broken loop LGMS water entering the RC (~2000 s in SPES3) through the DVI break line, containment side, and PSS injection into the DW (~3000 s in SPES3). Injection mass flows are shown in Figures 16 and 17, and they depended on different pipe pressure drops and containment pressurization.Figure 15
SPES3-105, 108 and IRIS-HT1 DW pressure (short term).Figure 16
SPES3-108 and IRIS-HT1 LGMS to DVI injection mass flow (short term).Figure 17
SPES3-108 and IRIS-HT1 PSS to DW injection mass flow (short term). Note: for IRIS, the total mass flow (FL + FV + FD) is obtained by the sum of phasic mass flows (liquid, gas and droplets.An attempt to make closer SPES3 and IRIS PSS to DW injection mass flows was performed: size of PSS main vent pipe and extension was decreased and the results compared with a base case (SPES3-107) equivalent to SPES-99, where minor input mistakes were corrected. PSS injection results were effectively closer to IRIS with consequent slower containment depressurization (Figures18 and 19).Figure 18
SPES3-109, 107 and IRIS-HT1 PSS to DW injection mass flow (short term).Figure 19
SPES3-109, 107 and IRIS-HT1 DW pressure (short term).The attempt was performed to see how a restriction at the PSS main vent pipe check valve affects the steam-air transfer from DW to PSS and eventually rise DW pressure. The result was a steep but limited pressure increase (Figure20).Figure 20
SPES3-110, 109 and IRIS-HT1 DW pressure (short term).The impossibility of reducing the DW thickness under 15 mm, to resist 1.5 MPa design pressure, led necessarily to an excess of mass with respect to IRIS 1 : 100 scaled mass. In SPES3-105 case, the IRIS scaled mass was distributed on the SPES3 DW surface obtaining an equivalent thickness of 10 mm. The possibility of compensating for 5 mm extra mass, by preheating the DW heat structures, was investigated. The preheating temperature of 84°C was estimated by an energy balance between the cases with 10 mm and 15 mm thickness from the specified initial temperature of 48.9°C and regime temperature of 172°C after the heat-up transient. Figure21 compares the cases with 15 mm (SPES3-104), 10 mm (SPES3-105), and 15 mm (SPES3-111) pre-heated DW thickness. The 10 mm and 15 mm pre-heated DWs are equivalent showing that heat structure preheating compensates for the excess of mass in SPES3. Only DW preheating is not enough to have the same IRIS pressure response.Figure 21
SPES3-111, 105, 104 and IRIS-HT1 DW pressure (short term).The comparison between the cases with and without PSS heat structures allowed to quantify the phenomenon of air cooling when steam-air mixture flowed from DW to PSS. The run was interrupted by a nonconvergence error on noncondensable gas properties in the PSS, but available results allowed to evaluate the pressure gain, with respect to the theoretical case with 1 : 100 IRIS DW volume and surface scaled structures, as shown in Figure22.Figure 22
SPES3-112, 108 and IRIS-HT1 DW pressure (short term).In order to reduce distortions on pressure as much as possible, related to scaling mismatching, all the SPES3 containment compartments were scaled 1 : 100 on IRIS volumes and all thicknesses were sized to resist 1.5 MPa pressure, so limiting the thermal inertia of the metal walls. In particular, the containment air zone heat structures were preheated at 84°C, while those in the liquid zone were kept at 48.9°C. Moreover, the calibrated orifices on the LGMS to DVI lines, the ADS stage I, and EHRS-C CL were resized to match IRIS mass flows. Figure23 shows that, notwithstanding a slower DW pressure increase, that case is similar to the case with IRIS DW scaled 1 : 100 in mass and surface (SPES3-108), confirming that containment volume resizing and heat structure preheating are good solutions toward IRIS containment pressure response. Orifice resizing was not enough to match the IRIS LGMS to DVI and EHRS-C CL mass flows, while it was correct to scale ADS stage I mass flow (Figure 24), even if a stronger water entrainment was evidenced in IRIS at the second flow peak.Figure 23
SPES3-115, 108, 107 and IRIS-HT1 DW pressure (short term).Figure 24
SPES3-115 and IRIS-HT1 ADS stage I ST and DT mass flow (short term).Further calibrations of the injection line orifices were performed that evidenced contact condensation stronger in SPES3 (RELAP5) than in IRIS (GOTHIC).A case was run where IRIS containment heat structures were reproduced on SPES3 with the DW 1 : 100 scaled in mass and surface and all other tanks with 1 mm thick walls to avoid code convergence errors in case of complete heat structure removal. Figure25 shows very similar SPES3 and IRIS containment pressure rising phase and a pressure peak only 0.1 MPa lower in SPES3 than in IRIS, demonstrating the importance of a correct simulation of the heat structures.Figure 25
SPES3-119 and IRIS-HT1 DW pressure (short term).The containment piping orifice, sized to match IRIS injection mass flows, allowed a direct comparison between the plants, but it did not meet the piping pressure drop scaling criteria. It allowed to understand two important differences related to the injection of LGMS into the DVI lines and of PSS into the DW. As shown in Figures26 and 27, IRIS LGMS injection into the DVI line is always driven by differential pressure between LGMS and DVI line (until about 18700 s), instead in SPES3, such differential pressure extinguishes earlier (around 9200 s) and later LGMS injection is driven only by gravity with a large mass flow decrease. The reason for such early pressure equalization in SPES3 is related to the PSS injection stop, vent pipe emptying, and gas flow from PSS to DW. That phenomenon did not occur in IRIS, where the vent pipes did not empty avoiding air transfer from PSS to DW, keeping the PSS pressurized with respect to DW and DVI (Figure 28).Figure 26
SPES3-120 and IRIS-HT1 LGMS injection mass flow.Figure 27
SPES3-120 and IRIS-HT1 LGMS and DVI pressure.Figure 28
SPES3-120 and IRIS-HT1 PSS vent pipe level.The sensitivity cases on containment tank geometry, heat structures, and piping pressure drops led to reviewing both the IRIS and SPES3 models in IRIS-HT5g and SPES3-124. All IRIS containment heat structures were simulated and SPES3 piping geometry was adjusted to match IRIS pressure drops.Figure29 compares SPES3 and IRIS containment pressures, showing a good qualitative and quantitative agreement. The LGMS to DVI and PSS to DW injection mass flows are shown in Figures 30 and 31. With the same simulated pressure drops in the piping, different values of mass flow are evidenced due to greater differential pressures in SPES3 between LGMS and DVI and PSS and DW. Various reasons could explain these differences and the most likely is the different code simulation of contact condensation with the consequent different pressurization of containment compartments. Remodelling of IRIS RWST led to similar RWST water temperatures, but greater exchanged power in SPES3 caused faster heat-up (Figure 32).Figure 29
SPES3-124 and IRIS-HT5g DW pressure.Figure 30
SPES3-124 and IRIS-HT5g LGMS to DVI mass flow (short term).Figure 31
SPES3-124 and IRIS-HT5g PSS to DW mass flow (short term).Figure 32
SPES3-124 and IRIS-HT5g RWST temperature.The SPES3 PSS bottom remodelling was the further attempt to investigate PSS vent pipe emptying at the end of PSS injection into the DW. No important differences were observed. The SPES3-127 results were used to investigate the EHRS heat transfer to RWST, considered the cause of the different containment pressure trend in the long term, where IRIS increased after 50000 s while SPES3 continued to decrease (Figure33). RWST temperature in SPES3 did not reach saturation, but established at lower values (Figure 34), due to the direct connection, in the model, of RWST top with the atmosphere control volume, and mass lost through RWST top caused by water solution in dry air with energy removal and temperature limitation (Figure 35).Figure 33
SPES3-127 and IRIS-HT5g DW pressure.Figure 34
SPES3-127 and IRIS-HT5g RWST temperature.Figure 35
SPES3-127 and IRIS-HT5g RWST top integral mass flow.That phenomenon led to a further modification of the model with the introduction of a discharge pipe at RWST top, limiting the contact surface with air and solving the problem of RWST water temperature that, finally, could reach saturation (Figure36). Faster water heat-up in SPES3 showed that EHRS energy transfer to the RWST is greater than IRIS. That led to a series of sensitivity cases on a stand-alone model of EHRS-RWST that led to investigating the differences between the models and finding a common modelling approach based on experimental data on an in-pool heat exchanger and literature values of the heat transfer coefficients [13]. The method provided proper multiplying factors for the HTC to be applied to tube heat structures, condensing and boiling side, in the form of fouling factors [14] and a criterion to set the area of the pool slice containing the heat exchanger. IRIS EHRS-RWST was modified accordingly in the IRIS-HT6_rwstc case. A stand-alone model was also utilized to calibrate pressure drops in EHRS hot legs and cold legs to properly reproduce the IRIS loops with adjustment to calibrated orifices. Moreover, the need of thermally insulating 4% of SPES3 HX heat transfer surface was evidenced to compensate for AISI 304 thermal conductivity greater than IRIS Inconel 600.Figure 36
SPES3-130, 127 and IRIS-HT5g RWST temperature.The SPES3-146 case included all design and model updates previously described and was considered the base case to compare to IRIS-HT6_rwstc. The main quantities of the transient and those that were objective of the SPES3 facility model and design optimization are shown in Figures37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45.Figure 37
SPES3-146 and IRIS-HT6_rwstc DW pressure.Figure 38
SPES3-146 and IRIS-HT6_rwstc PRZ pressure.Figure 39
SPES3-146 and IRIS-HT6_rwstc EBT injection mass flow (short term).Figure 40
SPES3-146 and IRIS-HT6_rwstc LGMS to DVI injection mass flow.Figure 41
SPES3-146 and IRIS-HT6_rwstc PSS to DW injection mass flow (short term).Figure 42
SPES3-146 and IRIS-HT6_rwstc SG power (short term).Figure 43
SPES3-146 and IRIS-HT6_rwstc RWST power.Figure 44
SPES3-146 and IRIS-HT6_rwstc RV mass.Figure 45
SPES3-146 and IRIS-HT6_rwstc core heater rod outer surface temperature.The last IRIS case was successively run to correct some differences, found in RELAP5 and GOTHIC models, about the end elevations of LGMS and ADS stage I lines. Small differences, compared to IRIS-HT6_rwstc results, were found in LGMS flows as well as some changes in ADS stage I flow, after initial discharge. Such differences do not affect or modify the results of the analysis previously described.The final FSA is planned to be performed on the SPES3-146 and IRIS-HT6_rwstc1a results.


## 4. Conclusions

The design of the SPES3 facility was finalized thanks to an iterative calculation-design feedback process that allowed to verify the adequacy of containment pressure and reactor vessel mass inventory simulation, objectives of the SBLOCA PIRT for the IRIS reactor [7].Since the early simulations, efficiency of IRIS safety systems was demonstrated in coping with SBLOCAs. The comparison with the SPES3 results and the early application of the FSA allowed to identify the main causes of discrepancy between the results and to put in evidence specific phenomena particularly affected by simulation choices. The containment heat structures, the heat transfer from EHRS to RWST, and piping pressure drops were found to be the most affecting parameters in matching the IRIS results. The review of the SPES3 design, in accordance to the above-mentioned parameter optimization, led to demonstrating that the PIRT identified FoMs are satisfied and that the residual discrepancies can be considered conservative: SPES3 RPV mass lower than IRIS mass and SPES3 heater rod temperatures higher than IRIS ones.Besides the SPES3 design review, the main outcome of this work is the availability of a set of data suitable for the final FSA application, in progress at the moment, and the quantification of SPES3 facility distortions in IRIS simulation.The SPES3 facility is under construction at SIET laboratories.



---

*Source: 173637-2011-10-12.xml*