ML092600643
| ML092600643 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Kewaunee  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/2009 |
| From: | Dominion Energy Kewaunee |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Tam P | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML092600030 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC MC4691 | |
| Download: ML092600643 (7) | |
Text
Kewaunee Power Station NRC Agenda Setting Meeting ALDEN Solving flow problems since 1894 ALDEN NRC Agenda Setting Meeting 9/15/2009
No concentrated spray and drainage sources are located in the immediate vicinity of the strainer The closest source is modeled in the transport calculation and the flume wall calculation The influence of the source can be seen in the calculated approach velocity profile The drainage source influence was represented in the large flume test RAI E9j:
RAI E9j: Concentrated sources of drainage Concentrated sources of drainage ALDEN Solving flow problems since 1894 ALDEN
Kewaunee Power Station NRC Agenda Setting Meeting ALDEN Solving flow problems since 1894 ALDEN NRC Agenda Setting Meeting 9/15/2009
No concentrated spray and drainage sources are located in the immediate vicinity of the strainer The closest source is modeled in the transport calculation and the flume wall calculation The influence of the source can be seen in the calculated approach velocity profile The drainage source influence was represented in the large flume test RAI E9j:
RAI E9j: Concentrated sources of drainage Concentrated sources of drainage ALDEN Solving flow problems since 1894 ALDEN
E13a E13a-e:
e: CFD modeling of containment flow CFD modeling of containment flow Simulations were conducted using Fluent and followed the standard calculation methodology The standard k-model was used for turbulence calculations Debris transport calculations were conservatively performed at the water level for the start of recirculation High transport fractions were obtained for most zones up to a tumbling velocity of 0.2 ft/sec ALDEN Solving flow problems since 1894 ALDEN
E13a E13a-e:
e: CFD modeling of containment flow CFD modeling of containment flow Detailed accounting was performed to model spray and break flow drainage into the recirculation pool Concentrated sources of falling water were treated ideally converting all water potential energy into kinetic energy The debris interceptor curb was modeled with few simplifying assumptions No assumptions with regard to debris interceptor debris loading were necessary ALDEN Solving flow problems since 1894 No credit was taken for lift-over-curb transport limitations over the debris interceptor curb ALDEN
E15:
E15: Turbulence in containment and flume / test configuration Turbulence in containment and flume / test configuration Flume configuration based on long-term recirculation conditions Achieved 14 minutes after recirculation start Water level in containment for analysis and test maintained at 40.5 40.5 is water level for the start of recirculation Actual water depth is more than 2 ft higher for long-term recirculation Velocity and turbulence levels in vicinity of strainer are low Containment structure divides break flow into three sources distributing break flow momentum ALDEN Solving flow problems since 1894 ALDEN Long-term recirculation velocity magnitude (ft/s)
Long-term recirculation TKE (ft2/s2)
E15:
E15: Turbulence in containment and flume / test configuration Turbulence in containment and flume / test configuration Debris interceptor, despite its low height blocks most break flow from reaching strainer Flume Reynolds numbers are in the turbulent range Flume effective turbulence is on par with that calculated in containment Turbulence levels calculated in containment correspond to a maximum of 0.02 ft/sec RM 0.0025 ALDEN Solving flow problems since 1894 ALDEN Distance from screen (ft)
Velocity (ft/sec)
Flume Width (in)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Reynolds #
1 0.10 10.4 0.39 6704 2
0.10 9.9 0.37 6045 3
0.10 11.3 0.41 6644 6
0.08 14.3 0.51 6435 10 0.09 11.7 0.42 6617 21 0.12 8.9 0.33 6821 25 0.13 8.5 0.32 6852 30 0.13 8.4 0.32 6861 0
0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Turbulent kinetic Energy (ft2/s2)
Distance Back From Strainer (ft)
Containment Turbulence Flume Turbulence
E16:
E16: Pool fill transport & distance traveled by debris Pool fill transport & distance traveled by debris Preferential pool fill transport is limited except during sump C fill-up Sump C fill-up preferentially causes debris to move away from strainer bank No credit for this transport is taken in the analysis The average distance traveled by debris is greater than 30 when considering calculated zone exit flow splits TempMat calculated transport fraction was ALDEN Solving flow problems since 1894 increased by 20% of debris generated for conservatism in determining test quantity Transport testing at Alden showed 3x - 4x approach velocity profile only yielded partial transport of TempMat smalls.
ALDEN