0
Research Papers: Fluid-Structure Interaction

Transient Thermal-Hydraulic Responses of the Nuclear Steam Generator Secondary Side to a Main Steam Line Break1

[+] Author and Article Information
Jong Chull Jo

Fellow ASME
Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety,
62 Gwahak-ro, Yusung-gu,
Daejon 305-338, Republic of Korea
e-mail: jcjo@kins.re.kr

Frederick J. Moody

Fellow ASME
GE (retired),
2125 N.Olive Ave. D-33,
Turlock, CA 95382
e-mail: fmoody@goldrush.com

Revision of the paper PVP2014-28134 presented at the FSI-2-1 Session “Fluid Transient Analysis,” ASME PVP Conference, July 20–24, 2014, Anaheim, CA.

2Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received April 3, 2014; final manuscript received October 6, 2014; published online February 20, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Allen C. Smith.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 137(4), 041301 (Aug 01, 2015) (7 pages) Paper No: PVT-14-1054; doi: 10.1115/1.4028774 History: Received April 03, 2014; Revised October 06, 2014; Online February 20, 2015

This paper presents a multidimensional numerical analysis of the transient thermal-hydraulic response of a steam generator (SG) secondary side to a double-ended guillotine break of the main steam line attached to the SG at a pressurized water reactor (PWR) plant. A simplified analysis model is designed to include both the SG upper space, which the steam occupies and a part of the main steam line between the SG outlet nozzle and the pipe break location upstream of the main steam isolation valve. The transient steam flow through the analysis model is simulated using the shear stress transport (SST) turbulence model. The steam is treated as a real gas. To model the steam generation by heat transfer from the primary coolant to the secondary side coolant for a short period during the blow down process following the main steam line break (MSLB) accident, a constant amount of steam is assumed to be generated from the bottom of the SG upper space part. Using the numerical approach mentioned above, calculations have been performed for the analysis model having the same physical dimensions of the main steam line pipe and initial operational conditions as those for an actual operating plant. The calculation results have been discussed in detail to investigate their physical meanings and validity. The results demonstrate that the present computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model is applicable for simulating the transient thermal-hydraulic responses in the event of the MSLB accident including the blowdown-induced dynamic pressure disturbance in the SG. In addition, it has been found that the dynamic hydraulic loads acting on the SG tubes can be increased by 2–8 times those loads during the normal reactor operation. This implies the need to re-assess the potential for single or multiple SG tube ruptures due to fluidelastic instability for ensuring the reactor safety.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Simplified analysis model of the SG and the main steam line

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Discretized solution domain

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Steady velocity distribution of steam inside the SG during the normal reactor operation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Transient velocity distributions of steam inside the SG following the MSLB accident

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Transient steam velocity response to the MSLB at the central point “A”

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Transient steam velocity response to the MSLB at the central point “B”

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Transient steam velocity response to the MSLB at the central points “C” and “D”

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Transient steam velocity response to the MSLB at the monitoring points “A” during the elapsed time period between 0.6 s and 0.7 s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Transient steam velocity response to the MSLB at the monitoring”B” during the elapsed time period between 0.6 s and 0.7 s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Transient dynamic pressure response to the MSLB at the central point “A”

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Transient dynamic pressure response to the MSLB at the central point “B”

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison of the decompressions predicted by both the CFD simulation and the simple model for the two cases with or without steam generations

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In