0
Research Papers: Fluid-Structure Interaction

Evaluation of a Numerical Analysis Model for the Transient Response of Nuclear Steam Generator Secondary Side to a Sudden Steam Line Break

[+] Author and Article Information
Jong Chull Jo

Reactor System Evaluation Dept.,
Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety,
62 Gwahak-ro,
Yusung-gu,
Daejeon 34142, Korea
e-mail: jcjo@kins.re.kr

Bok Ki Min

Reactor System Evaluation Dept.,
Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety,
62 Gwahak-ro,
Yusung-gu,
Daejeon 34142, Korea
e-mail: k075mbk@kins.re.kr

Jae Jun Jeong

School of Mechanical Engineering,
Pusan National University,
63 Busandaehak-ro,
Geumjeong-gu,
Busan 46241, Korea
e-mail: jjjeong@pusan.ac.kr

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received July 20, 2016; final manuscript received October 28, 2016; published online December 1, 2016. Editor: Young W. Kwon.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 139(3), 031305 (Dec 01, 2016) (7 pages) Paper No: PVT-16-1118; doi: 10.1115/1.4035130 History: Received July 20, 2016; Revised October 28, 2016

This paper presents an evaluation of the applicability of a numerical analysis model to the transient thermal-hydraulic response of steam generator (SG) secondary side to blowdown following a steam line break (SLB) at a pressurized water reactor (PWR). To do this, the numerical analysis model was applied to simulate the same blowdown situation as in an available experiment which was conducted for a simplified SG blowdown model, and the numerical results were compared with the measurements. As a result, both are in reasonably good agreement with each other. Consequently, the present numerical analysis model is evaluated to have the applicability for numerical simulations of the transient phase change heat transfer and flow situations in PWR SGs during blowdown following a SLB.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Simplified analysis models of the experimental SG blowdown simulation model [810]: (a) analysis model and (b) analysis model 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Discretized solution domain

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Transient vapor velocity contours

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Transient vapor velocity variations at the five monitoring points in the analysis models 1 and 2 during blowdown: (a) analysis model 1 and (b) analysis model 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Transient pressure variations at the monitoring points 1 and 2 in the analysis model 1 during blowdown

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Transient pressure variations in the analysis models 1 and 2 at the five points during blowdown: (a) analysis model 1 and (b) analysis model 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Pressure wave propagations at points 1 and 2 in the analysis models 1 and 2 during blowdown

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