'Performance Evaluation of Containment Sump at Full-Scale ...
Transcript of 'Performance Evaluation of Containment Sump at Full-Scale ...
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF A
CONTAINMENT SUMP AT FULL SCALE
ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR POWER STATION NO. 2
by
William W. Durgin
Prepared forEbasco Services, Inc.
George E. Hecker, Director
ALDEN RESEARCH LABORATORY
WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
HOLDEN, MASSACHUSETTS
September 1982
>>0280? 821006EPDR ADOCK 05000g89 IPDR
Printed at ARL — September 1982
Model tests at full scale were conducted in order to-evaluate the hydraulicperformance of the containment sump (Emergency Safety Feature Sump) of theSt. Lucie Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2. A replica of the sump was con-structed within a test basin. The model sump was operated with various com-
binations of water level and two flowrates in each outlet line. Measurements
and observations were made to identify surface vortex types, outlet line,swirl angles, and combined screen/pipe inlet loss coefficients.
By testing at fixed outlet flowrates and at two water levels, various com-
binations of vertical screen blockage (50%), horizontal screen blockage (50%),and approach flow distribution were utilized to arrive at two configurationsfor testing over an appropriate range of surface elevations and flowrates.
The results indicated that the loss coefficients were dependent on submergenceand blockage over the range tested but essentially independent of Reynolds num-ber. The average vortex types observed were between 1 and'2 for all tests, and,therefore, practically insignificant inasmuch as these types do not entrainair or debris. ,Outlet line swirl angles were found to be between 0 and
5.74'nd
depended on blockage but showed no systematic dependence on Reynolds number.
The observed and measured loss coefficients, vortex types, and swirl angleswere compared to similar findings in the literature and found to be consis-tent.
3.3.
ABSTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
P~aa No.
INTRODUCTION
PROTOTYPE DESCRXPTXON
SIMXLITUDE
MODEL DESCRIPTION
INSTRUMENTATION AND OBSERVATION TECHNIQUES
TEST PROCEDURE
15
20
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
SUl1l1ARY AND CONCLUSIONS
24
35
REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION
The containment building of the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2,
is equipped with an Emergency Safety Feature (ESF) Sump which must functionsatisfactorily under certain conditions.
Following an accident that would release a significant amount of energy „in-
side containment (eg, Loss of Coolant Accident or Main Steam Line Break) thesubsequent rise in pressure and temperature would trigger the operation ofcertain safety systems. At a predetermined level of containment pressure,operation of the Containment Spray (CS), High Pressure Safety Injection (HPSI),and Low Pressure Safety Injection (LPSI) Pumps would be initiated. Duringthe initial phase of the accident, these six pumps (two of each) draw waterfrom the Refueling Water Tank and deliver it into containment. This estab-lishes a minimum water level inside containment at EL 21.0 ft.
Low tank level would initiate a Recirculation Actuation Signal (RAS) whichwould deactivate both LPSI Pumps and transfer the suctions of the CS and
HPSI Pumps to the ESF Sump. During this mode of operation, total pump flowin each sump outlet pipe will fall within the range 300 gpm to 7300 gpm.
The ESF Sump was designed to provide pump suction in the recirculation mode
for an indefinite period.
The ESF Sump is a collection reservoir located in the annulus between thesecondary shield wall and containment, and functions to provide an adequatesupply of water to the Containment Spray and High Pressure Safety InjectionPumps during the recirculation mode. Two redundant suction lines, each han-dling one CS and HPSI Pump, are located at opposite ends of the sump. Inthis location, the sump is protected from the direct effects of high energyline break, such as jet impingement and pipe whip.
Following an accident, the entire cross-section of the containment would be
filled with water to an elevation within the range EL 21.0 ft and EL 26.0 ft.Water drawn from the sump would be returned to the containment via the con-
tainment spray headers located high in the containment and possibly througha break in the Reactor Coolant System. As such, the majority of the waterwould be returned inside the secondary shield wall and would reach the sump
via shield wall drain openings. These drains are large rectangular openingslocated at various points along the perimeter of the wall. Each opening isequipped with a grating to prevent large debris from reaching the sump.
The ESF Sump is contiguous with the pipe trench around the perimeter of thesecondary shield. Some of the filter screening is, in fact, located withinthe trench. Pipes of various sizes penetrate the screens and a drain collec-tion tank is located within the sump.
A full scale replica of the FSF Sump and nearby features was constructed in a
test facility at the Alden Research Laboratory (ARL) of Worcester PolytechnicInstitute (WPI). A test program was devised in order to investigate free sur-face vortex formation, swirl in the inlet piping, inlet losses, or any otherflow conditions that could adversely affect the performance of the decay heatremoval pumps and the reactor building spray pumps in the recirculation mode.
Operating conditions involving a wide range of possible approach flow dis-tributions, flowrates, water levels, screen blockages, and combinations there-of were tested in the model.
It is of primary importance that Containment Spray Pumps and High PressureSafety Ingestion pumps function properly after a Loss of Coolant Accident orMain Steam Line Break when pump suction is switched to the Emergency SafetyFeature Sump. In particular, it is necessary to evaluate the flow throughthe sump in terms of head loss, air-entrainment, and outlet line swirl. Be-cause the approaches to the sump may be partially blocked by debris, the re-sulting flow patterns can affect these parameters. The head loss through the(partially blocked) sump and outlets can be a principal determinant of avail-able NPSH. The tolerable levels of air content and swirl are dependent on pump
design so that air is not entrained and to minimize swirl so that it has
negligible contribution to pump inlet swirl given the remainder of the,suction
piping.'his
report presents the findings of the study including a description ofthe prototype and the model, and summarizes conditions investigated, simil-itude considerations, test procedures, instrumentation, and interpretation
3
of results.
PROTOTYPE DESCRXPTION
The ESF Sump is located between the shield w'all and containment contiguous
with the pipe trench, Figure 1. The pipe trench is nominally 5 ft wide withthe bottom at EL 12.00 ft. The sump recess is nominally 9 ft wide with bot-tom at EL 7'.58 ft centered about 180 , azimuth. A floor at EL 23.00 ft oc-
cupies the space between the pipe trench/sump recess and containment. There
are three smaller pipe trenches in the floor in the vicinity of the sump.
The shield wall is provided with periodic drain openings nominally 4 ft wide.
Three of these are located in the vicinity of the sump. Two 24 inch outletlines, Figure 2, lead from the lower corners of the sump through containment
at EL 9.00 ft. These lines project into the sump and are provided withsleeves forming re-entrant inlets with exterior steps.
All shield wall drain openings are provided with heavy bar racks to preventingestion of large debris. The sump is completely enclosed by a fine mesh
filter screen. This screen is made up of .047 inch OD stainless steel wirespaced to provide an open area of approximately 90 mils square. Verticalscreen sections are arranged in a sawtooth pattern, forming 60 degree angles,to increase the available surface area. Horizontal sections of the sump
screens are attached to floor gratings at EL 23.00 ft. These gratings are
made of 3/16 inch wide, l-l/4 inch deep rectangular bars spaced 1-3/16 inches
apart with cross members every 4 inches and cover all pipe trenches. Screen,
.however, is only provided on those portions inside the vertical screen panels.A small horizontal grating with screen is provided at EL 11.00 ft between theoutlet pipelines. A flat vertical panel of screen, reinforced with bars, di-vides 'the sump into two, nominally at 180', azimuth, with a small sawtooth
panel protruding into the portal at 180', azimuth.
The reactor drain tank, 12 ft long by 5 ft diameter, is located in the sump,
inside the screens, and between the outlets at EL 12.00 ft. Numerous pipesof various sizes run in the pipe trenches, through the sump, and penetratethe screens and,gratings. Associated with these pipes are pipe supports and
seismic restraints.
CDI
caCV
IUJ
oLL: K~'0~
Z 00 J JOU LU
x0zz I-LUCL- 00M
P4
8
~CD0
I- Ol
a. LLJ
CD
Iz I
UJca
IJ:IO 0 O0 Y 0z0 U-
I
o f I
.O ~OI«~ZIU J 0 IK a. O
II
LllI
ca0I
CV
H
0YXO
'OI
CD
0
IIIII
/) ~I
II
IZ UJII- a=
0o
U
0 LUI-0 LUC4:
Oz
IIIII
C74
H
II
I
I
I
.'P ICD
IUJ I
I
ca I
z I
I
«,ICD
I
CD
v
.Ct:0 LUU-I- I-«L:
«L'.
Y7
\
4
/ ~ I
zLLIUJ
0 ~I
CV
0UJ Jv) 9
U LIJ
PLATE EL 23'-0"
Q REACTOR
90 MIL SCREEN
EL 22'-2-1/4"
LADDER
BOTTOM OF TRENCHEL 12'-0"
PLATFORMCHKD Q EL 11'-0"
Q REACTOR DR TANK =
EL 12'-0"
BOTTOM OF
TRENCH EL 12'4"
BOTTOM OF SUMP EL 7'-7"
DIVIDER SCREEN
g / 90 MIL~/
/
TRAIN B TRAIN A
FIGURE 2 ESF SUMP SECTION
The sump water temperature can vary between 55 and 225oF, with a surfaceelevation between 2l and 26 ft. The outlet line flow can vary between
300 and 7300 gpm per line and the containment pressure varies between 0
and 44 psig.
The geometry, features, and piping in the sump area were described byEbasco Drawings (l). In addition, a site visit was made and measurements
as well as photographs made of sump details.
SIMILITUDE
The study of dynamically similar fluid motions forms the basis for the
design of models and the interpretation of experimental data. The basic
concept of dynamic similarity may be stated as the requirement that two
systems with geometrically similar boundaries have geometrically similarflow patterns at corresponding instants of time (2). Thus, all individualforces acting on corresponding fluid elements of mass must have the same
ratios in the two systems.
For a situation in which a free surface is present, the Froude number
uF =
MgL
where u and L are a characteristic velocity and length, respectively,should be the same in the model as in the prototype. In the present cases,
the model was constructed the same size as the prototype which gives
,u = u'm p
Thus, velocities, flowrates, and time scales for the model will be the same
as for the prototype.
Scaling considerations then, depend only on secondary non-dimensional groups.In particular, a loss coefficient or Euler number
~b
2pu
where hp is pressure drop and P the fluid density, will depend only weakly
on the Reynolds and Weber numbers
uLR =—
Vu
W =
/o/pz,
where 9 is the kinematic viscosity, and 0 the surface tension. Thus,
E = E(R,W)
with the only variation due to temperature dependence of R and W. Further-more, since only results of very weak vortex activity, were acceptable, theWeber number effect was insignificant. Then,
E = E(R)
and the variation of R over the temperature range should be evaluated. Formodel operation at 68'F (typical) at the lowest flow tested, 4285 gpm 1 line,the pipe Reynolds number becomes
while at 225'FR = 5.7 x 10 , at 68'F5
R = 2.0 x 10 at 225 F6
Since it is known that parameter variation becomes asymptotic at such largeReynolds numbers, the, effect of temperature will be insignificant.
The model, being constructed at full scale, should thus exhibit similar flowpatterns, loss coefficients, vortex formation, and swirl as the prototypeoperating at the same flowrate and water level. In addition, screening ofidentical size and construction was used so that the head losses would alsobe identical under similar operating conditions.
For the prototype operating at maximum flow, 7300 gpm, at maximum temperature,225'F, the Reynolds number for an outlet line would be
R = 3.4 x 106
10
5 6Model tests were conducted at R values of 5.6 x 10 and 1.5 x 10 . Loss
coefficients are usually constant in and above this range and thus should
be the same at the highest prototype Reynolds number. The effect of vary-ing containment pressure with temperature and time does not affect the losscoefficients or inlet pressure loss, but only the NPSH at the pumps.
MODEL DESCRIPTION
The model was constructed at a 1:1 geometric scale within the ExperimentalFacility for,Containment Sump Reliability Studies, Durgin, et al (3), atthe Alden Research Laboratory. This fixed facility includes a large tank(L 70 ft, W 35 ft, D 12 ft) with a flow distribution system capable of sup-
plying 20,000 gpm along three sides. A depressed sump (L 20 ft, W 10 ft,D 10 ft), located in the center, had provision for outlet lines at 15 loca-tions up to 2 ft in diameter. Installed equipment provided for water fil-tration, level control, and flowrate control. Both inlet and outlet lineflow meters were provided as were pressure measurement systems. All dataacquisition and reduction were under control of a mini-computer at the site.
The model was installed in the test basin as shown in Figure 3, primarilyusing plywood panels to generate the fixed boundaries. Three of the shieldwall portals were included through which flow could enter the sump area.In addition, flow could enter over the floor on the east and west ends and
through the pipe trench on the west end. The reactor drain tank was instal-led within the sump as shown in Figure 4 in which the sump divider screenand folded sere'ens can be seen. This screen was identical in size and spac-ing as that of the prototype.
All pipelines of finished diameter greater than 3 inches were installed inthe model as were other objects which might, affect the flow patterns.
h
Figure 5 shows a view looking towards the sump from the west while Figure6 shows a view through the east drain opening. The floor grating and at-tached screen at EL 23.00 can be seen in Figure 7 where a portion of grat-ing has been turned to reveal the sump interior.
z
EAST
180
WEST
FACILITYBOUNDARY
CIC)0)
LU
C)
O CONTAINMENT
liillii I oo
)
I
)I)II
I
C)
Ol
I
I,I
I
r i.oo
EL 7.58
EL 1800(TOP EL 22.00)
EL 14.00 (TOP EL 23.001
ISI I- I II I
EL 15.5
EL 11.00
VERTICALSCREENING
I
<C7~ 00
(TOP EL 22.00)
II(I
>IIi
IlI
I
35'0'LOW
DISTRIBUTOR SHIELD WALL
FIGURE 3 MODEL SUMP INSTALLATION
FIGURE 4 SUMP INTERIOR
,/
Hi()j)
)g0
l~~
I
'-hFIGURE 5 WEST PIPE TRENCH, VIEW FROIVI WEST
FIGURE 6 EAST PIPE TRENCH THROUGH SHIELD WALL OPENING
/rp
/
FIGURE 7 HORIZONTAL BAR RACK AND SCREEN, EL 23.00
INSTRUMENTATION AND OBSERVATION TECHNIQUES
Each 24 inch outlet line was equipped with a vortimeter, Figure 8, piezo-meter taps for gradeline measurements, a flow meter, and a regulating valve.The 12 gradeline pressure taps were connected to a scanning valve which
sequentially connected each to a pressure cell. The computer system con-
trolled the scanning valve and measured the voltage output from the pres-sure cell. The differential pressure output from the flow meters was simi-larly measured. Figure 9 shows the outlet piping giving pressure tap loca-tions ~ The various devices used were
flow meters: 24 inch annubars (2)
pressure cell: Sensotec +1 psiD (2)
pressure cell:vortimeter:
Sensotec +7.5 psiD (1)
24 inch ARL
Each test was 30 minutes in duration. The observed vortex type, according tothe ARL scale, Figure 10, was entered to the computer system every 30 seconds
on a hand held computer terminal. The pressure gradelines were fully sampled
every 60 seconds as were the accumulated vortimeter revolutions.
16
FIGURE 8 VORTIMETER
VORTIMETER PRESSURE TAPS GRADELINE PRESSURE TAPS
TRAIN A
VORTIMETER FLOWMETER CONTROL VALVE
TRAIN B
12'6't 22''YP
8'IGURE-9
OUTLET PIPELINES
18
VORTEXTYPE
INCOHERENT SURFACE SWIRL
SURFACE DIMPLE;COHERENT. SWIRL AT SURFACE
DYE CORE TO INTAKE;COHERENT SWIRL THROUGHOUTWATER COLUMN
TnaSH
~l
VORTEX PULLING FLOATINGTRASH, BUT NOT AIR
VORTEX PULLING AIRBUBBLES TO INTAKE
D aiA euseaES
FULL AIR CORETO INTAKE
FIGURE 10 NUMERICAL SCALE FOR VORTEX TYPE CLASSIFICATION
19
The pressure gradeline was extrapolated to the entrance by a linear leastsquares curve fit of the pressure measurements. The area average velocity was
used to calculate the pipe velocity head, which was added to the extrapolatedpressure gradeline. The total head at the pipe inlet was subtracted from thesump water level outside the screens to determine the inlet loss. An entranceloss coefficient was calculated by:
iK =
2
2g
where
K = loss coefficient6H. = inlet head loss, fti
Average swirl in the suction pipes was measured by cross-vane swirl meter.Lee and Durgin (4) have shown that a swivel meter with vane diameter about75% that of the pipe diameter best approximates the solid body rotation ofthe flow. The rate of rotation of the vortimeter was determined by count-ing the number of blades passing a fixed point in two minutes.
An average swirl angle was defined as the arctangent of the maximum tan-gential velocity divided by the axial velocity. 'The maximum tangentialvelocity is the rotational speed times the circumference of the pipe, Tf d N,and the average swirl angle is defined- by:
6 = arctan ( )TdN
U(l4)
where
N = revolutions per second
d = pipe diameter, ftU = mean axial velocity, ft/sec
20
TEST PROCEDURE
Tests were conducted at the available water supply temperature. The model
was filled to the proper level, and all piezometer and manometer lines were
purged of air and the differential pressure cells zeroed. The required flow-rates were then set and allowed to stabilize for 15 minutes. The water levelwas checked and re-adjusted, if necessary. The data acquisition system pro-gram wasram was then started so that all measurements were automatic. The system
signaled the model operator every 30 seconds to request observed vortex typedata. Subsequent to test completion, all data were transferred to'hard diskfiles. An analysis program was then run to determine average vortex type and
standard deviation, swirl angles, and loss coefficients.
The test plan involved systematically varying the water level, flowrates, flowdistribution, blockage of vertical screens, and blockage of the horizontalscreens. To this end, symbolic representation of various parameters was adopt-ed as given in Table 1.
Three water elevations were chosen: 21.00, 23.00, and 25.00 ft.
Flowrates of 0, 4285, and 8785 gpm were specified by Ebasco Services as repre-sentative. These could occur in various combinations in the two outlet lines.
Flow distributions would occur primarily because of blockage of the drainopenings through the shield wall. These were systematically blocked, Figurell, entirely except for the west end which was fed by numerous portals. A
maximum blockage of 1/2 was adopted for this entrance.
Vertically; screen blockage was always 50% of the available screen area butarranged in various patterns. Longitudinally, the screens were divided intosegments, Figure 12, so that any two segments could be blocked. Vertically,the screens were divided in half so that only the top or bottom was blocked.
21
TABLE, 1
TEST PLAN DEFINITIONS
Water Surface Level (ft)
SlS2S3
21. 023.025. 0
Flowrates (gpm)
QlQ2Q3Q4Q5Q6
42854285
0428587858785
42850
4285878542858785
Flow Distribution (see Figure 10)
DO
DlD2D3D4
noneA + BA+B+CD+1/2EC+D+1/2E
Screen Blockage =(vertical; see Figure 11)
VOVlV2V3V4V5U6
noneA + D top to bottomB + C top, to bottomB + D top to bottomA + C top to bottomtop 1/2 allbottom 1/2 all
Screen Blockage (horizontal)
HO
HlH2H3
noneouter 1/2inner 1/2all
22
O.-+- C
FIGURE 11 FLOW DISTRIBUTION DEFINITIONS
/B
Qo
iQo
Qo
- FIGURE 12 SCREEN BLOCKAGE DEFINITIONS
23
Horizontal screen blockage consisted of the outer 1/2, inner 1/2, or allbeing blocked, and was only used for S3 (EL 25.00) tests.
The initial 23 tests concentrated on determining the flow distributions and
screen blockage most conducive to adverse performance. To this end, theflo'ws were fixed at 8785 gpm in each line and only the highest and lowestwater levels used. All vertical screen blockages, *all horizontal screenblockages, and flow distributions were tested independently.
Four combinations of blockage, Cl through C4, were then selected for furtherevaluation. Abridged testing as above, enabled two worst tests, designatedWl and W2, to be selected.
Complete variation of water level and outlet flowrates was then conducted,using Wl and W2, to evaluate the sump performance.
24
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results for all tests are shown in Table 2. It can be seen that theworst vortex type observed was type 2; which was predominant.
For the initial 23 survey tests, the loss coefficients varied from 0.71 to1.09 for Train A and from 0.75 to 1.11 for Train B. The swirl angle ex-tremes were 2.48'o 5.15'or Train A and -1.76 to 0.38'or Train B.
Combination blockage Cl, Figure 13a, was selected by observing that testll had both high swirl and high loss for Train A and that test 17 had thehighest combined swirl for both pipes which was due to horizontal blockage.Thus, it might be expected that vertical blockage V6 combined with horizon-tal blockage Hl, would produce even higher swirl. This was the case because
the Train A swirl increased to 5.74', test 24, but the observed vortex typedecreased and the losses for each line changed only slightly. The swirl inTrain B also remained about the same. Since horizontal blockage could onlybe tested at, elevation S3, a test with H2 'blockage was added but did notproduce interesting results.
Combination blockages C2 and C3, Figures 13b and c, were selected by observ-ing that the D4 flow distribution, tests 16 and 23, respectively, producehigh swirl and above average loss coefficients. This was combined with ver-tical blockage V3 and the antisymmetrical blockage V4 with the thought thatone of them ought to combine with D4 to produce even higher swirl and losscoefficients. This proved to be the. case in test 26, C2, where the Train A
swirl reached 5.28'. The observed surface vortex was type 1 only. A signi-ficantly high loss coefficient was observed for C3 blockage in Train B, test29
'ombination blockage C4, Figure 13d, was selected by observing that the high-est loss coefficient with significant swirl occurred in Train B, test 21, dis-tribution D2.. This was combined with the highest swirl in Train B, test 3,screen blockage V2. The loss coefficients for both Trains A and B reachedtheir highest values in these tests with significantly high swirl angles inTrain A.
TABLE2'est
Results
TestVortex~Ty e
TrainSwirl
eLoss
Coeff.
TrainLoss
Coef f.Swirl
e Blockage
VerticalFlow Screen Horizontal
e Distribution Blockage Blockacle PiowrateSurface
Elevation
1. 2
3
4-5
678
101112
1314151617181920212223
2.02.02.02.01.82.02.02.0.2.02.02.02.0
2.02.01.01.01.01.11.92.02.02.02.0
0.831.090.710.860.860.990.810.940.840.940.810.93
0.820. 820.800.790.790.810.830.941.060.900.91
4.682.484.893.114.413.164.603.614.944.67
4.574.854.465.105.154.544.513.954.423.164.80
0.901.110.860.920.820.860.820.950.810.910.900.99
0. 870. 860.830.860.750.760.851.111.090.910.90
0.00.38
-1.76-1.310.00.0
-l. 54-1.08-0. 94—,0.89-0. 93-0.56
-1.54-1.54-1.54-1.41-1.33-1.23-1.15-0.75-1.15-0.94-1.14
ScreenScreenScreenScreenScreenScreenScreenScreenScreenScreenScreenScreen
Flow distributionFlow distributionFlow distributionFlow distributionHorizontalHorizontalHorizontalFlow distributionFlow distributionFlow distributionFlow distribution
DO
DO
DO
DO
DO
DO
DO
DO
DO
DO
DO
DO
DlD2D3D4DO
DO
DO
DlD2D3D4
VlVlV2V2V3V3V4V4V5V5V6V6
VO
VOVOVO
VOVOVOVO
VO
VOVO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HlH2H3
Q6Q6QG
Q6Q6Q6Q6.Q6
Q6Q6Q6Q6
Q6Q6Q6Q6Q6Q6Q6Q6o6Q6QG
S3SlS3SlS3SjS3SlS3SlS3Sl
S3S3S3S3S3S3S3SlSlSlSl
2425262728293031
1.01.01.02.01.02.0
.2 ~ 02.0
0.880.870.810.970.790.960.921.16
5.745.275.284.243.932.465.322.55
0.790.790. 76
,0.900.861.130.971.29
-1 ~ 131 ~ 23
-0 ~ 96-0.39-1.35-0.50-0,. 97-0. 39
C-1C-1C-2C-2C-3C-3C-4C-4
DO
DO
D4D4D4D4D2 .
D2
V6V6V3V3V4V4.V2V2
HlH2HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
Q6Q6Q6Q6Q6Q6Q6Q6
S3S3S3SlS3SlS3Sl
TABLE 2
Test Results(continued)
VortexTest Type
LossCoeff.
Swirle
Train A Train B
Loss SwirlCoeff. 6
VerticalFlow Screen Horizontal
Blockage Ty e Distribution Blockacle Blockage rlowrateSurface
Elevation
323334353637383940414243444546
1.01.01.01.01.01.01.01.01.01.01.91.01.02.02.0
0.970.93
0.860.861.111.01
l. 391. 01l. 160.97
1.671.07
5.185.10
5.383.953.953.95
4.533.443.353.14
4.382.70
0.96
0.970.840.921.14
0.991.091.471.26
1 ~ 041.101.70
-0. 39
-0. 19-0. 57-0. 57-0. 20
-0.39-0.38-0.39-0.39
0.0-0. 19-0. 58
W-1W-1W-1W-1W-1W-1W-1W-1W-1W-1W-1W-1W-1W-1W-1
D2D2D2D2D2D2D2D2D2D2D2D2D2D2D2
V2V2V2V2V2V2V2V2V2V2V2V2V2V2V2
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO ~
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
QlQ2
Q3Q4Q5Ql
. Q2Q3Q4
Q5QlQ2Q3Q4
Q5
S3S3S3S3S3S2S2S2S2S2SlSlSlSlSl
474849505152535455565758596061
1.01.01.02.01.01.01.01.0
'.0
1.01.91.01.02.02.0
0.810 '00 F 810.830.890.88
1.060.910.960.91
1. 200.96
1.580.99
2.102.303 '42.56
3.142.10'.60
0.95
0.791.15
0.86
0. 840.970.870.98
0.950.971.151.10
0.961.021.30
0.0
0.0-0.380.00.0
0.0-0. 290.00.0
0.0-0. 380.0
W-2W-2W-2W-2W-2W-2W-2W-2W-2W-2W-2W-2W-2W-2W-2
D4D4D4D4D4D4D4D4D4D4D4D4D4D4D4
V4V4V4V4V4V4V4V4V4V4V4V4V4V4V4
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
QlQ2
Q3Q4
Q5QlQ2Q3Q4Q5QlQ2
Q3Q4
Q5
S3S3S3S3S3S2S2S2S2S2SlSlSlSlSl
27
A) COMBINATION BLOCKAGE C1
c
I
B) COMBINATION BLOCKAGE C2
C) COMBINATION BLOCKAGE C3=W2
D) COMBINATION BLOCKAGE C4=W1
FIGURE 13 COMBINATION BLOCKAGE
28
Since surface vortex activity did not appear significant in any tests through
31, the criterion for selection of combinations Wl and W2 was based on loss co-
efficient. Clearly, combination C4 showed the highest values for both linesand was selected as combination Wl. Of the remaining tests, test 29 showed
the highest. coefficient so that combination C3 was selected as W2.
In both cases, the flow patterns and screen blockages caused significantamounts of flow .to pass through the relatively narrow spaces between thevertical screens and'the corners at the junctions of the pipe trenches and
sump. Typically, surface elevation differences of 2 or 3 inches were ob-served between upstream and downstream flows through these spaces.
For combinations Wl and W2, complete variation of water level and flowrateaccording to Table I was conducted.
The observed surface vortex type, T, for the Wl and W2 series tests (32-61)are plotted against Froude number in Figure 14. Also shown is an envelopedeveloped during full scale generic studies of containment sumps (5). Inthose studies, vortex activity was not observed outside the envelope. Itcan be seen that the observed vortex types for the present study fell wellwithin the envelope and that only types.l and 2 were observed. The consider-able amount of piping within the sump area of this plant apparently served toreduce surface vortex activity to less than might otherwise be expected.
Inlet loss coefficients, K, are plotted against Reynolds number, R, in Figures15 and 16 for all tests with Wl type blockage (30-46) and W2 type blockage (28,29, 47-61). The data are identified with respect to submergence by use of dif-ferent symbols. Furthermore, some tests were run with the flows in the outletlines equal at two values, Ql and Q6, and at two surface elevations, Sl and S3.The corresponding points are connected by solid lines in each figure. Sincethe outlet line flows were equal, these solid lines represent the behavior ofthe coefficient with Reynolds number at fixed flow patterns.
29
0 = W1 BLOCKAGEge W2 BLOCKAGE
~ ENVELOPE FROMGENERIC TESTS (5)
NO OBSERVEDSURFACE VORTEXACTIVITY
lm lm
332Bmm332
28 82
0
0 0.1 0.2
F = uses
0.3 0.4 0.5
FIGURE 14 VORTEX TYPE VS. FROUDE NUMBER
1.8 1.8
1.6
~ 1.4
zO
1.28
1.6
1.4
1.2
S1 SUBMERGENCE
H S2 SUBMERGENCE
Q+ S3 SUBMERGENCE
1.0
Qo
1.0
0.8 0.8Q
5 X 10 106
REYNOLDS NUMBER, R
A) BLOCKAGE W1
0.6
3 X 10 106
REYNOLDS NUMBER, R
8) BLOCKAGE W2
3 X106
FIGURE 15 INLET LOSS COEFFICIENT VS REYNOLDS NUMBER, TRAIN A
1.8 1.8
1.6
I-1.4
O
OO
O-N 1.2
po
1.6
1.4
1.2
4 Sl SUBMERGENCEH S2 SUBMEBGENCE
Q S3 SUBMERGENCE
1.0 1.0
0.8Qi
0.8
0.6
3x10 106REYNOLDS NUMBER, R
A) BLOCKAGE Wl
0.6
Q Q 106
REYNOLDS NUMBER, R
B) BLOCKAGE W2
3 x 106
FIGURE 16 INLET LOSS COEFFICIENT VS. REYNOLDS NUMBER, TRAIN B
32
The data show that the loss coefficient is generally inversely related tosubmergence. Since the measured head losses include screen loss, this de-
crease of coefficient with increasing submergence is likely due to greaterscreen area exposure. For Train A, the data show no variations or slightdecrease of. loss coefficient with Reynolds number. For Train B, the datashow no variation or slight increase of loss coefficient with Reynolds num-
ber. Within measurement uncertainty, it is probable that the coefficientsare constant with Reynolds number as would be expected in this range.
The loss coefficients for blockage combination Wl were generally greater thanfor W2 and it is clear that blockage has significant effect. The largest val-ues recorded were
K = 1.67 for Train A with blockage Wl
(QA = 4285 gpm, QB= 8785 gpm, Sl = 21.0 ft)
K = 1 ~ 70 for Train B with blockage W2
(QA = 8785 gpm, QB= 4285 gpm, Sl = 21.0 ft)
occurring at minimum submergence with the high coefficient associated with theoutlet line carrying the lower flow. Since blockage Wl was selected on thebasis of its corresponding high loss coefficients, these would be the highestvalues expected under the blockage selection scheme.
All measured loss coefficients (all tests) fell within the range 0.71< K < 1 ~ 70.This range corresponds to generic studies (5) of containment sumps where theloss coefficients varied from 0.7< K < 1.6 with an average of K = 1.2.
Swirl angles for Train A are plotted against Reynolds number in Figure 17 forthe type Wl and W2 blockage. A similar plot. for Train B was not made sincethose angles were less than about 1.5'n absolute value. It can be seen that
33
the swirl angle was substantially dependent on the type of blockage butshowed no systematic variation with either submergence or Reynolds num-
ber. The largest swirl angle observed was approximately 5.4'or typeWl blockage with the water surface at EL 23.0 ft at 4285 gpm flow in TrainA and 8785 gpm in Train B (Q4).
For both trains together (all tests), the observed swirl angles variedfrom 0'o 5.74'n magnitude which falls within the 0'o 9'ange foundby Padmanabhan (5) for 24 inch outlets.
bK S1 SUBMERGENCE
H S2 SUBMERGENCE
Q S3 SUBMERGENCE
V)
tUCC ~
U4
O
3
K
g
Qo
Qo
H
3 X 10I
106
REYNOLDS NUMBER, R
A) 'LOCKAGE W1
C) glQ Q
X xFl
106
REYNOLDS NUMBER, R
8) BLOCKAGE W2
3 x 106
FIGURE 17 SWIRL ANGLE VS. REYNOLDS NUMBER, TRAIN A
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Loss coefficients were found to depend on submergence and blockage, but tobe essentially independent of Reynolds'umber over the parameter ranges and
blockage configurations- tested. Values between 0.71 and 1.-70 were found and
can be used for system hydraulic calculations, including NPSH.
Swirl angles were found to depend primarily on screen blockage and flow dis-tribution with no systematic variation with either submergence or Reynoldsnumber. The largest value observed was 5.74', which can be compared to pump
manufacturers specifications, taking the length and geometry approach pipinginto consideration.
Free surface vortex activity was found to be type 2, at worst. This reflect-ed the fact that only coherent surface swirls or dimples were observed; debrisor air-ingestion were not observed in any tests.
The proximity of the sump screens to the pipe trench walls at the junctionwith the sump resulted in large amounts of flow passing through the avail-able space under certain types of screen blockage and flow distributions.This did not appear to cause any particular problems, but only resulted inhigher (overall) inlet loss coefficients.
36
REFERENCES
l. Ebasco Drawings
I ESF SUMP COMPOSITE SKETCH
SK-2998-M-710 R6
II GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWINGS
2998-G-065 R2998-G-067 R
III MECHANICAL PIPING DRAWINGS
2998-G-1982998-G-1992998-G-2002998-G-2002998-G-2052998-G"2122998-G-2152998-G-2152998-G-215
R7Sh 2 R6Sh 1 R6Sh 2 R7Sh 1 R5
R4Sh 1 R2Sh 2 R2Sh 7 R2
IV STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS
2998-G-4952998-G-496 Sh2998-G"496 Sh2998-G-5202998-G-5212998-G-797 Sh2998-G-797 Sh2998-G-797 Sh
R51 R42 R3
RlR2
4 R313 R214 R2
Dividing Screen Structural Sketch Rl
SK - 2998-AS-226
V LINE LIST
2998-B-052 Rlo
2. Rouse, H., Handbook of Hydraulics, John Wiley 6 Sons, 1950.
3. Durgin, W.W., M. Padmanabhan, and C.R. Janik, "The Experimental Facilityfor Containment Sump Reliability Studies," ARL Report 120-80/M398, August
1980.
37
4. Lee, H.L., and Durgin, W.W.,'The Performance of Crossed-Vane SwirlMeters," Symposium of Vortex Flows, ASME Winter Annual Meeting, Chicago,1980.
5. Padmanabhan, M. "Containment Reliability Studies," ARL Report No. 49A-82/M398F, August, 1982.