ge’s esbwr
DESCRIPTION
GE’s ESBWR. by T. G. Theofanous. ESBWR SA Containment Highlights. UDW. EVE. LDW. BiMAC. +PCCS no LT failure. Not to scale. ESBWR SA Complexion. SA Threats and Failure Modes. Direct Containment Heating (DCH) Energetic Failure of UDW, Liner (thermal) Failure Ex-Vessel Explosions (EVE) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
GE’s ESBWR
by T. G. Theofanous
ESBWR SA Containment Highlights
BiMACNot to scale
UDW
LDW
+PCCS no LT failure
EVE
ESBWR SA Complexion
CDF~10-8
I 90.2 %
III 1.3%
IV 0.6%
DCH
EVE
BMPRR
I Low Pressure SequencesII Very Late Core DamageIII High Pressure SequencesIV ATWS; 71% No RPV FailureV Containment Bypass
III E/S 1%
N/AN/A
L/NS 78%
I L 27%H: 0.9%, M : 0.1%, L: 99%
L/NS Late Melt, Sprays FailL/S Late Melt, Sprays AvailableE/S Early Melt, Sprays Available
II 7.9%
V 1%
L/S 2%E/S 20%
V, 71% of IV, and RRTreated in L-3 PRARR Residual Risk
V 1%
SA Threats and Failure Modes
• Direct Containment Heating (DCH) Energetic Failure of UDW, Liner (thermal) Failure
• Ex-Vessel Explosions (EVE) Pedestal/Liner Failure, BiMAC-Pipes Crushing
• Basemat Melt Penetration (BMP) BiMAC Thermal Failure (Burnout, Dryout, Melt Impingement)
Direct Containment Heating (DCH)
Representative butnot to scale
DCH: Key features of the geometry
Highly non-uniformgas flow
PSTF Vent Clearing Model
IET CLCH Model
1:1 Scale
DCH in suppression pool containments: model verification basis
and 1:40 scale
Validation Basis: IET DCH Tests… GE PSTF Vent Clearing
CLCH model. Complete transient
Actual blowdowns used as inputs for comparison
PSTF
IET
Comparison to PSTF data
Comparison to IET-1RR and -8 data
Comparison to IET-1 data
Quantification of Loads
0 1 2 3 4 5
2
4
6
8
10
12
Time,s
Pre
ssur
e, b
ar
Upper drywellLower drywellWetwell
0 5 10 15 201
2
3
4
5
6
Time,s
Pre
ssur
e, b
ar
Upper drywellLower drywellWetwell
Regime IHYPOTHETICAL
Regime IICreep Rupture, Bounding
Case F
Case G
More DynamicsRegime III
More sensitivities run on condensation and gas-cooling efficiency, oxidation efficiency, composition of DW atmosphere, etc…
Minimum (bounding) Margins to Energetic DCH Failure
Upper Bound Load
Fragility
Ex-Vessel Explosions (EVE) Pedestal/Liner Failure, BiMAC-Pipes Crushing
Sample SE calculations
• ~ 1 ton/s melt release• 1, 2, 5 m deep pools• Saturated and subcooled water• ~100 kPa s on the floor• 40-150 kPa s on the side walls
Pedestal model in DYNA3D
Verified extensively in High Explosive work
Pedestal damage in DYNA 3D
600 kPa s loading
Pedestal Failure Margins to EVE1 to 2 m Subcooled Pools
Upper Bound Load
Lower Bound Fragility
Significant upwards revision of previously used failure criteria on pedestal walls
BiMAC Structural Configuration
Ie Schedule 80 pipes
DYNA3D model of BiMAC
BiMAC damage in DYNA3D
200 kPa s loading
BiMAC Failure Margins Due to EVE
1-2 m subcooled pools
Upper Bound LoadSaturated Low Level
Upper Bound LoadSubcooled 1-2 m
Lower Drywell
BiMAC Detail
BiMAC Flow Path
Natural convection patterns
The Peaking at the Edge of Near-Edge Channels is the most Limiting
Case No. qup qdn qs qup / qdn qmax / qdn or s
A 63 30 N/A 2.1 1.25
B 120 54 N/A 2.2 1.25
C 178 80 N/A 2.2 1.25
C-3D 238 68 N/A 3.5 1.2
M-3D 286 85 280 3.4 3.0 / 1.4
M 255 125 330 2.0 3.0 / 1.4
N 238 126 340 1.9 3.0 / 1.2
O 168 83 245 2.0 3.0 / 1.2
Summary of Power Split and Peaking Factor Results from the Direct Numerical Simulations (all fluxes in kW/m2 )
The 3D results were confirmed with further calculations that included refined meshes, and a 10-fold increase in viscosity due to addition of the sacrificial concrete.
Sample calculations of turbulent natural convection
Local peaking mechanism
Bounding estimates of thermal loads
Central Channels:
Near-Edge Channels:
2max, /125 mkwq dn 2/100 mkwqdn
2/100 mkwqdn 2max, /300 mkwq dn
2/320 mkwqv 2max, /450 mkwq v
The ULPU facility
Coolability Limits for BiMACApplicability based on similarity of geometries and
flow/heating regimes
Thermal Loads against Coolability Limits in BiMAC Channels
Thermal Margins for BiMACLocal Burnout
1qqCHF
Natural convection boiling in inclined channels: the SULTAN facility
•Vertical and 10 degrees inclination•Characteristic length: 3 and 15 cm•Channel length: 4 m•Pressure: 0.5 MPa•Power levels 100 to 500 kw/m2•Detailed pressure drop data•Top-heated plate, 15 cm wide
Boiling in inclined channels:Sample comparisons for inclinationo10
Natural convection in BiMAC: stable, self-adjusting flow
Thermal Margins for BiMACno-Dryout due to water depletion or flow starvation
Conclusion (3): Summary of containment threats and mitigative mechanisms or systems in place for responding
to them
Threat Failure Mode MitigationDCH Energetic DW Failure Pressure Suppression Vents
Reinforced Concrete Support
UDW Liner Thermal Failure Liner Anchoring System
LDW Liner Thermal Failure Reinforced Concrete BarrierGap Separation from UDW
EVE Pedestal/Liner Failure Dimensions and Reinforcement
BiMAC Failure Pipe Size and ThicknessPipes Embedded into Concrete
BMP&CCI
BiMAC Activation Failure Sensing & Actuation InstrumentationDiverse/Passive Valve Action
Local Burnout Natural Circulation
Water Depletion Natural Circulation
Local Melt-Through Refractory Protective Layer