0
Research Papers: Fluid-Structure Interaction

An Experimental Model Study of Steam Generator Tube Loading During a Sudden Depressurization

[+] Author and Article Information
Ouajih Hamouda

Mechanical Engineering Department,
McMaster University,
1280 Main Street West, JHE-316,
Hamilton, ON L8S 4L7, Canada
e-mail: hamoudo@mcmaster.ca

David S. Weaver

Fellow ASME
Mechanical Engineering Department,
McMaster University,
1280 Main Street West, JHE-316,
Hamilton, ON L8S 4L7, Canada
e-mail: weaverds@mcmaster.ca

Jovica Riznic

Fellow ASME
Operational Engineering Assessment Division,
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC),
280 Slater, P.O.B. 1046, Station B,
Ottawa, ON K1P 5S9, Canada
e-mail: jovica.riznic@canada.ca

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received July 18, 2015; final manuscript received November 28, 2015; published online April 28, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Jong Chull Jo.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 138(4), 041302 (Apr 28, 2016) (11 pages) Paper No: PVT-15-1162; doi: 10.1115/1.4032198 History: Received July 18, 2015; Revised November 28, 2015

This paper presents the results of an experimental model study of the transient loading of steam generator tubes during a postulated main steam line break (MSLB) accident in a nuclear power plant. The problem involves complex transient two-phase flow dynamics and fluid-structural loading processes. A better understanding of this phenomenon will permit the development of improved design tools to ensure steam generator tube integrity. The pressure and temperature were measured upstream and downstream of a sectional model of a tube bundle in cross-flow, and the transient tube loads were directly measured using dynamic piezoelectric load cells. High-speed videos were taken to observe and better understand the flow phenomena causing the tube loading. The working fluid was R-134a and the tube bundle was a normal triangular array with a pitch ratio of 1.36. The flow through the bundle was choked for the majority of the transient. The transient tube loading is explained in terms of the associated fluid mechanics. An empirical model is developed that enables the prediction of the maximum tube loads once the pressure drop is known.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Sireta, X. , 1979, “ Experimental and Theoretical Study of the Blowdown of the Secondary Side of a Steam Generator,” Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc., 31, pp. 392–394.
Kalra, S. , and Adams, G. , 1980, “ Thermal Hydraulics of Steam Line Break Transients in Thermal Reactors—Simulation Experiments,” Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc., 35, pp. 297–298.
Reichelt, E. , 2009, “ Resolution of Generic Safety Issue 188: Steam Generator Tube Leaks or Ruptures Concurrent With Containment Bypass From Main Steam Line or Feedwater Line Breaches,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Report No. NUREG-1919.
Singhal, A. K. , Keeton, L. W. , Przekwas, A. J. , and Weems, J. S. , 1982, ATHOS: A Computer Program for Thermal–Hydraulic Analysis of Steam Generators. Volume 3. User's Manual, CHAM of North America, Huntsville, AL.
Fletcher, C. D. , and Schultz, R. R. , 1995, RELAP5/MOD3 Code Manual. Volume V: User's Guidelines, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID.
Odar, F. , Murray, C. , Shumway, R. , Bolander, M. , Barber, D. , and Mahaffy, J. , 2004, TRACE v4.0 User's Manual, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
Jo, J. , and Moody, F. , 2015, “ Transient Thermal–Hydraulic Responses of the Nuclear Steam Generator Secondary Side to a Main Steam Line Break,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 137(4), p. 041301. [CrossRef]
Hamouda, O. , Weaver, D. , and Riznic, J. , “ Instrumentation Development and Validation for an Experimental Two-Phase Blowdown Facility,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol. (submitted).
Hamouda, O. , 2015, “ An Experimental Study of Steam Generator Tube Loading During a Two-Phase Blowdown,” Ph.D. thesis, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON.
Hamouda, O. , Weaver, D. , and Riznic, J. , 2015, “ An Experimental Study of Steam Generator Tube Loading During Blowdown,” ASME Paper No. PVP2015-45250.
Whalley, P. , 1987, Boiling, Condensation and Gas–Liquid Flow, Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.
Zukauskas, A. , 1987, “ Heat Transfer From Tubes in Cross-Flow,” Advances in Heat Transfer, Vol. 18, Academic Press, London, pp. 87–159.
Ishihara, K. , Palen, J. , and Taborek, J. , 1980, “ Critical Review of Correlations for Predicting Two-Phase Flow Pressure Drop Across Tube Banks,” Heat Transfer Eng., 1(3), pp. 23–32. [CrossRef]
Consolini, L. , Robinson, D. , and Thome, J. , 2006, “ Void Fraction and Two-Phase Pressure Drops for Evaporating Flow Over Horizontal Tube Bundles,” Heat Transfer Eng., 27(3), pp. 5–21. [CrossRef]
Ribatski, G. , and Thome, J. , 2007, “ Two-Phase Flow and Heat Transfer Across Horizontal Tube Bundles—A Review,” Heat Transfer Eng., 28(6), pp. 508–524. [CrossRef]
Sim, W. , and Mureithi, N. , 2013, “ Drag Coefficient and Two-Phase Friction Multiplier on Tube Bundles Subjected to Two-Phase Cross-Flow,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 135(1), p. 011302. [CrossRef]
Idel'chik, I. , 1996, Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance, 3rd ed., Begell House, New York.
Martin, H. , 2002, “ The Generalized Lévêque Equation and Its Practical Use for the Prediction of Heat and Mass Transfer Rates from Pressure Drop,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 57(16), pp. 3217–3223. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Experimental apparatus for simulating a steam generator blowdown and (b) test section design

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Sample transient blowdown pressures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Transient pressure drop measured across the tube bundle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Illustration of instantaneous pressure measurements at t = 0.25 s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Transient pressure ratio across the tube bundle for three experiments with similar initial conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Sample tube load transient

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Critical HEM and HFM pressure estimates based on p = 430 kPa at t = 0.25 s and p = 285 kPa at t = 0.66 s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of the effect of the initial liquid level on tube loading

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of tube bundle load with different numbers of tube rows

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of measured tube load and pressure drop across the tube bundle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Graphical representation of drag load coefficient: tube loading (top), pressure drop (center), and numerically determined drag coefficient (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of measured tube loading and computed pressure loading

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Tube bundle drag load coefficient

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison of computed pressure loads and measured loads

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