Best-Estimate Analyses of LOFT Anticipated Transients with and without Scram Using DYNODE-P
Six LOFT transient tests with scram (L6-1, L6-2, L6-3, L6-7, L6-8B-1, and L6-8B-2) and two anticipated transient tests without scram (L9-3 and L9-4) have been analyzed using a best-estimate DYNODE-P/5.2 computer model. These tests span a wide range of anticipated operational occurrences for Pressurized Water Reactors. In general, satisfactory agreement between calculation and measurement for the key system parameters (nuclear power, primary and secondary pressures, temperatures, liquid levels, and flows) have been found. Sensitivity studies have resolved all significant discrepancies. These analyses have provided a significant qualification of the model for application to these types of events.
KeywordsSteam Generator Cold Spray Steam Flow Secondary System Pressurize Water Reactor
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.R. C. Kern, L. W. Cress, and D. L. Harrison, “DYNODE-P Version 5.2-A Nuclear Steam Supply System Transient Simulator for Pressurized Water Reactors-User Manual,” NAI 82-41, July 1982.Google Scholar
- 2.R. C. Kern, “DYNODE-P,” Proceedings of a Topical Meeting-Advances in Reactor Computations, Salt Lake City, March 28-31, 1983, ISBN: 0-89448-111-8, pp. 243-245.Google Scholar
- 3.W. H. Grush and Y. Koizumi, “Best Estimate Prediction for LOFT Nuclear ATWS Experiment L9-3,” EGG-LOFT-5873, Project No. P394, March 1982.Google Scholar
- 4.D. L. Batt and J. M. Carpenter, “Experiment Data Report for LOFT Anticipated Transient Experiments L6-1, L6-2, and L6-3,” NUREG/CR-1797, EGG-2067, December 1980.Google Scholar
- 5.H. Ollikkala and S. R. Behling, “Posttest Analysis of LOFT Anticipated Transient Experiments L6-1, L6-2, L6-3, and L6-5,” EGG-LOFT-6159, Project No. P394, January 1983.Google Scholar
- 6.B. D. Stitt and J. M. Divine, “Experiment Data Report for LOFT Anticipated Transient Experiment L6-7 and Anticipated Transient with Multiple Failures Experiment L9-2,” NUREG/CR-2277, EGG-2121, September 1981.Google Scholar
- 7.D. B. Jarrell, J. M. Divine, and K. J. McKenna, “Experiment Data Report for LOFT Anticipated Transient Experiment Series L6-8,” NUREG/CR-2930, EGG-2219, November 1982.Google Scholar
- 8.H. Ollikkala, “Best Estimate Prediction for LOFT Anticipated Transient Slow and Fast Rod Withdrawal Experiment L6-8B,” EGG-LOFT-5983, Project No. P394, August 1982.Google Scholar
- 9.R. C. Kern, D. A. Rautmann, and R. O. Anderson, “Qualification of a PWR Analysis Model for ATWS Events,” Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc, 44, 344 (1983).Google Scholar
- 10.P. D. Bayless and J. M. Divine, “Experiment Data Report for LOFT Anticipated Transient Without Scram Experiment L9-3,” NUREG/CR-2717, EGG-2195, May 1982.Google Scholar
- 11.D. L. Batt, J. M. Divine, and K. J. McKenna, “Experiment Data Report for LOFT Anticipated Transient Without Scram Experiment L9-4,” NUREG/CR-2978, EGG-2227, November 1982.Google Scholar
- 12.Letter from T. R. Charlton (EG&G Idaho) to J. E. Solecki (DOE Idaho), “LOFT L9-4 Required Problem Data Comparison-TRC-46-83,” May 20, 1983.Google Scholar